Month: December 2015

Article review

Article review: All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more

All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Moher D et al. Systematic Reviews 20154:183 The journal Systematic Reviews has been responsible for a significant number of the articles on rapid review methods featured on this site.  This latest article, an editorial, is refreshing!  It helpfully restates the role of systematic reviews and highlights the methodological development: “What distinguished systematic … Continue reading Article review: All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more

jrbtrip2 Comments
Commentary

Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 6

This is the sixth article in the series exploring the reasons for undertaking a systematic review [1-5]. With 28.5% of the votes, this was the most popular reason for undertaking a systematic review: ‘To see what has been done before, to see if new research is needed‘. In hindsight the ‘see if new research is needed‘ is too narrow, it should also be to learn from … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 6

jrbtrip1 Comment
Commentary

Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 5

For the previous four articles in this series links can be found in the reference section below [1-4]. The series is about exploring the reasons for undertaking a systematic review, with four main reasons seeming popular.  The second most popular reason, with 24% of the votes at the time of writing, is ‘To know if an intervention has any ‘worth’.  Looking back I regret the … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 5

jrbtrip2 Comments
Commentary

Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 4

This is the 4th article in the ‘Why do we do systematic reviews?’ series (see references below for previous articles [1, 2, 3]).  The series is about exploring the reasons for undertaking a systematic review, with four main reasons seeming popular.  The third most popular reason, with 23.6% of the votes at the time of writing, is ‘To quantify, quite tightly, how good the intervention is‘. … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 4

jrbtrip14 Comments
Autosynthesis, Website

Website of interest: Systematic Review Methods Filter at PubMed

Available via PubMed Health, “The PubMed systematic review methods filter finds publications to support this process. They could relate to the development or evaluation of any step in doing or using systematic review.”  The site can be accessed via this link. The scope includes both methods research and guidance documents. Methods research studies include: comparative evaluations of techniques development, evaluation, or validation of a technique … Continue reading Website of interest: Systematic Review Methods Filter at PubMed

jrbtrip1 Comment
Commentary

Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 3

This is the 3rd article in the ‘Why do we do systematic reviews?’ series (see references below for number 1 and 2).  The series is about exploring the reasons for undertaking a systematic review in the first place with four main reasons seeming popular.  Number four (with 19.5% of the votes at the time of writing) is ‘To understand the adverse events associated with the … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 3

jrbtrip5 Comments
Article review, Autosynthesis

Article review: Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews

Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. O’Mara-Eves A et al. Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 14;4:5 I was really pleased to see this paper as it is, itself, a systematic review.  I was also pleased to see it comes from the Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating (EPPI)-Centre – a really innovative centre of activity! … Continue reading Article review: Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews

jrbtripLeave a comment
Commentary, Overview

Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 2.

We’ve had 150 votes as to why we do systematic reviews (see this article for details) and the results are: To see what has been done before, to see if new research is needed – 25.33% To know if an intervention has any ‘worth’ – 24.67% To quantify, quite tightly, how good the intervention is – 23.33% To understand the adverse events associated with the intervention … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 2.

jrbtrip7 Comments
Article review, Overview

Article review: Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic

Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic. Schünemann HJ et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:4 This editorial introduced the series Advances in Rapid Reviews in the journal Systematic Reviews.  It gives a nice introduction to the challenges facing systematic reviewers who want to undertake reviews more rapidly.  The authors highlight the importance of using strategies to reduce bias and random error and the need for transparency. Transparency … Continue reading Article review: Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic

jrbtripLeave a comment
Commentary, Overview

Why do we do systematic reviews?

This might seem a really obvious question but it’s one I really struggle with.  So, this post is a request for help! Note: the post relates to systematic reviews of individual interventions as opposed to the broader outcome-focussed systematic reviews (e.g. what’s effective in helping people quit smoking?) I get the impression that people embark on systematic reviews with little thought to the reasons behind the review; … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews?

jrbtrip8 Comments