Read on Twitter
Yay, it's 2021!
I know we have a lot of big, important things on our collective minds going into the new year, but...if you are thinking of doing a #SystematicReview in 2021, please plan ahead, understand what's involved, & enlist experts to make your review the best it can be.
I know we have a lot of big, important things on our collective minds going into the new year, but...if you are thinking of doing a #SystematicReview in 2021, please plan ahead, understand what's involved, & enlist experts to make your review the best it can be.
The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
This applies to #SysRevs that are NOT Cochrane Reviews as well. It's generally regarded as a best practice guide for SRs.
https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
This applies to #SysRevs that are NOT Cochrane Reviews as well. It's generally regarded as a best practice guide for SRs.
A companion to the above, the #Methodological Expectations for Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR):
https://community.cochrane.org/mecir-manual
Also seen as a best practice guide. Important to read and understand.
https://community.cochrane.org/mecir-manual
Also seen as a best practice guide. Important to read and understand.
The @theNASEM's "Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for #SystematicReviews" https://www.nap.edu/read/13059/chapter/1
The JBI "Manual for #Evidence #Synthesis" from @JBIEBHC:
https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL/JBI+Manual+for+Evidence+Synthesis
This resource can help you understand what kinds of topics make appropriate systematic reviews, and how to proceed if you think you've got a good topic.
https://wiki.jbi.global/display/MANUAL/JBI+Manual+for+Evidence+Synthesis
This resource can help you understand what kinds of topics make appropriate systematic reviews, and how to proceed if you think you've got a good topic.
Pretty importantly, the #PRISMA Statement and the corresponding PRISMA #Checklist:
http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Note the #protocol and #scoping review extensions if that's the path you choose to take.
http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Note the #protocol and #scoping review extensions if that's the path you choose to take.
And some suggested readings:
@ZacMunn et al. (2018). #Systematic review or #scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 143. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6245623/
@ZacMunn et al. (2018). #Systematic review or #scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 143. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6245623/
@ZacMunn et al. (2018). What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed #typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC medical research methodology, 18(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
Grant, M. J., & @AndrewB007h . (2009). A #typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health information and libraries journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
The above articles are some of my favorites when setting out to plan and proceed down the path of an# evidence-based literature review.
Common errors that I see in #SystematicReview planning:
inappropriate timeline
Borah, R., et al. (2017). Analysis of the time & workers needed to conduct #SysRevs of ...interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545
(avg 67.3 weeks)
inappropriate timelineBorah, R., et al. (2017). Analysis of the time & workers needed to conduct #SysRevs of ...interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545
(avg 67.3 weeks)
Common errors that I see in #SystematicReview planning:
failure to understand the methodology before starting
(read ALL of the above)
failure to understand the methodology before starting(read ALL of the above)
Common errors that I see in #SystematicReview planning (cont'd.):
lack of dual independent title/abstract reviewers/screeners
lack of dual independent title/abstract reviewers/screeners
Common errors that I see in #SystematicReview planning
(cont'd.):
inappropriate topic
Not every topic makes or needs a systematic review.
(cont'd.):
inappropriate topicNot every topic makes or needs a systematic review.
Common errors in #SystematicReview planning (cont'd.):
poor searches, or no documented searches
#transparency #reproducibility
The searches make the basis for the WHOLE evidence synthesis! Consult with a medical librarian. That's what we're here for....
poor searches, or no documented searches#transparency #reproducibility
The searches make the basis for the WHOLE evidence synthesis! Consult with a medical librarian. That's what we're here for....
@mlrethlefsen et al. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine #systematicreviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(6), 617–626. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
In closing, medical librarians, statisticians, and methodologists, clinicians, and patients everywhere will thank you from the bottom of their hearts if, before doing a systematic review, you read about them, plan appropriately, and enlist help from experts.
Happy New Year!
Happy New Year!
