Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Systematic Review Process (systematic + review_process)
Selected AbstractsGuidelines for Systematic Review in Conservation and Environmental ManagementCONSERVATION BIOLOGY, Issue 6 2006ANDREW S. PULLIN política de la conservación; práctica de la conservación; toma de decisiones; transferencia de conocimiento basado en evidencia Abstract:,An increasing number of applied disciplines are utilizing evidence-based frameworks to review and disseminate the effectiveness of management and policy interventions. The rationale is that increased accessibility of the best available evidence will provide a more efficient and less biased platform for decision making. We argue that there are significant benefits for conservation in using such a framework, but the scientific community needs to undertake and disseminate more systematic reviews before the full benefit can be realized. We devised a set of guidelines for undertaking formalized systematic review, based on a health services model. The guideline stages include planning and conducting a review, including protocol formation, search strategy, data inclusion, data extraction, and analysis. Review dissemination is addressed in terms of current developments and future plans for a Web-based open-access library. By the use of case studies we highlight critical modifications to guidelines for protocol formulation, data-quality assessment, data extraction, and data synthesis for conservation and environmental management. Ecological data presented significant but soluble challenges for the systematic review process, particularly in terms of the quantity, accessibility, and diverse quality of available data. In the field of conservation and environmental management there needs to be further engagement of scientists and practitioners to develop and take ownership of an evidence-based framework. Resumen:,Un mayor número de disciplinas está utilizando marcos de referencia basados en evidencias para revisar y diseminar la efectividad de las intervenciones de gestión y política. El fundamento es que la mayor accesibilidad de la evidencia mejor disponible proporcionará una plataforma de toma de decisiones menos sesgada y más eficiente. Argumentamos que hay beneficios significativos para la conservación al utilizar tal marco de referencia, pero la comunidad científica debe emprender y diseminar revisiones más sistemáticas antes de que se pueda comprender el beneficio completo. Diseñamos un conjunto de directrices para realizar revisiones sistemáticas formales, basado en un modelo de servicios de salud. Las etapas de las directrices incluyen la planificación y conducción de una revisión, incluyendo formación del protocolo, estrategias de búsqueda, inclusión de datos, extracción y análisis de datos. La diseminación de revisiones es abordada en términos del desarrollo actual y los planes futuros para una biblioteca de acceso abierto en la Web. Al utilizar estudios de caso resaltamos modificaciones críticas a las directrices para la formulación del protocolo, evaluación de la calidad de los datos, extracción de datos y síntesis de datos para la gestión ambiental y de conservación. Los datos ecológicos presentaron retos significativos, pero solucionables, para el proceso de revisión sistemática, particularmente en términos de la cantidad, accesibilidad y calidad de los datos disponibles. Se requiere un mayor compromiso de científicos y profesionales de la gestión ambiental y de conservación para desarrollar y apropiarse de un marco de referencia basado en evidencias. [source] The challenge of external validity in policy-relevant systematic reviews: a case study from the field of substance misuseADDICTION, Issue 1 2010Mark Pearson ABSTRACT Aim To critically evaluate the methods utilized in the conduct of a systematic review in the field of substance misuse Design Participant-observation in the review process, semi-structured interviews with review team members and management and structured observation of the process of guidance development. Setting An ,arm's-length' government body. Participants Review team members, management and the committee responsible for producing evidence-based guidance for policy and practice. Measurements Data from interviews and (participant-)observation were reflected upon critically in order to increase understanding of the systematic review process. Findings The application of systematic review methods produced an evidence base that did not inform the development of guidance to the extent that it could have done: (i) an emphasis upon internal research validity produced an evidence base with an emphasis on short-term interventions at the level of the individual; (ii) criteria for appraising the external validity of studies were not developed sufficiently; and (iii) the systematic review of evidence and development of guidance are strongly reliant upon the judgement of reviewers and committee members. Conclusions Prioritizing internal validity in a systematic review risks producing an evidence base that is not informed adequately by the wider determinants of health and which does not give sufficient consideration to external validity. The use of appropriate methods requires that commissioners of systematic reviews are clear at the outset how the review is proposed to be utilized. Review methods such as meta-ethnography and realist synthesis could contribute to making the frameworks within which judgements are made more explicit. [source] Sources of information on adverse effects: a systematic reviewHEALTH INFORMATION & LIBRARIES JOURNAL, Issue 3 2010Su Golder Background:, Systematic reviews can provide accurate and timely information on adverse effects. An essential part of the systematic review process is a thorough search of the literature. This often requires searching many different sources. However, it is unclear which sources are most effective at providing information on adverse effects. Objective:, To identify and summarise studies that have evaluated sources of information on adverse effects. Methods:, Studies were located by searching in 10 databases as well as by reference checking, hand searching, citation searching and contacting experts. Results:, A total of 6218 citations were retrieved yielding 19 studies which met the inclusion criteria. The included studies tended to focus on the adverse effects of drug interventions and compare the relative value of different sources using the number of relevant references retrieved from searches of each source. However, few studies were conducted recently with a large sample of references. Conclusions:, This review suggests that embase, Derwent Drug File, medline and industry submissions may potentially provide the greatest number of relevant references for information on adverse effects of drugs. However, a systematic evaluation of the current value of different sources of information for adverse effects is urgently required. [source] The role of the information specialist in the systematic review process: a health information case studyHEALTH INFORMATION & LIBRARIES JOURNAL, Issue 2 2003C. A. Beverley There is an increasing body of literature on the information specialist's role in supporting evidence-based health care. In particular, the information component in systematic reviews has received considerable attention in recent years. Information professionals have evolved from simply acting as ,evidence locators' and ,resource providers' to being quality literature filterers, critical appraisers, educators, disseminators, and even change managers. This paper describes ten possible roles for information professionals in the systematic review process, using a case study of a review of the health information needs of visually impaired people carried out by the Centre for Health Information Management Research (CHIMR) at the University of Sheffield. This health information review was undertaken entirely by a team of information professionals. The ten roles identified are: project leader, project manager, literature searcher, reference manager, document supplier, critical appraiser, data extractor, data synthesiser, report writer and disseminator. This review has also identified an eleventh possible role for information professionals; that of primary researcher. Finally, the implications for evidence-based health care and evidence-based health informatics are discussed. [source] A systematic review of wound cleansing for pressure ulcersJOURNAL OF CLINICAL NURSING, Issue 15 2008FFNMRCSI, Zena Moore MSc Aim., The aim of this study was to use a Cochrane systematic review process to explore the effect of wound cleansing solutions and techniques on pressure ulcer healing. Background., Pressure ulcers impose a significant financial burden on health care systems and negatively affect the quality of life. Wound cleansing is an important component of pressure ulcer care; however, there is uncertainty regarding best practice. Design., Systematic review. Methods., The Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Wounds Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and bibliographies of relevant publications were searched. Drug companies and experts in the field were also contacted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or different wound cleansing solutions, or different cleansing techniques, were eligible for inclusion. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risk (RR) plus 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated; for continuous outcomes, weighted mean difference plus 95% CI were calculated. Meta analysis was not conducted because of the small number of diverse RCTs identified. Results., No studies compared cleansing with no cleansing. A statistically significant improvement in healing occurred for wounds cleansed with saline spray containing Aloe vera, silver chloride and decyl glucoside (Vulnopur) compared with isotonic saline (p = 0·025). No statistically significant change in healing was seen when water was compared with saline (RR 3·00, 95% CI 0·21, 41·89). No statistically significant change in healing was seen for ulcers cleansed with, or without, a whirlpool (RR 2·10, 95% CI 0·93,4·76). Conclusion., There is little trial evidence to support the use of any particular wound cleansing solution or technique for pressure ulcers. Relevance to clinical practice., No firm recommendations for ways of cleansing pressure ulcers in clinical practice can be made, the lack of RCT evidence should be a concern for health care providers. [source] | ||||||||||