1 / 22

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the medical sciences

This editorial concept first gives a brief overview of the history of evidence synthesis, then explains the significance of reporting standards, lists the sequential steps involved in SRs and meta-analyses, and lists additional methodological concerns that researchers should take into consideration when conducting and presenting the results of their systematic reviews (SRs).<br><br>Visit Here - https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/<br>

pubrica
Download Presentation

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the medical sciences

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Systematic reviews and meta analyses in the medical sciences: Best practicemethodsfor researchsyntheses AnAcademicpresentation by Dr.NancyAgnes,Head,TechnicalOperations, Pubrica Group: www.pubrica.com Email:sales@pubrica.com

  2. TODAY'SDISCUSSION Inbrief Introduction to medical research synthesis Meta-analysisisthe'originalbigdata. Assumptions involved in systematic reviews Conclusion AboutPubrica

  3. INBRIEF This editorial concept first gives a brief overview of the history of evidence synthesis, then explains the significanceofreportingstandards,liststhe sequential steps involved in SRs and meta-analyses, andlistsadditionalmethodologicalconcernsthat researchers should take into consideration conducting and presenting the results of when their systematicreviews(SRs). When teams of reviewers with the necessary scientific competence apply the most significant rigour to every step of the SR process, successful SRsare theoutcome. Contd...

  4. Asaresult,SRswithoutforesightareunlikelytosucceed. Thisblog'sgoalwastocriticallyanalyzethe2019paperbyJohnson,B.T.,&Hennessy,E. A.fromtheUniversityofConnecticut'sDepartmentofPsychologicalSciences,titled "Systematic reviews and meta-analysesin the medical sciences: Best practice approaches forresearch syntheses." The article attempted to ascertain the types, restrictions, and instruments of such standards and medical devices in graceful of the SR process's presumptions, including meta-analysis, includingthe other SR processes

  5. INTRODUCTIONTOMEDICAL RESEARCHSYNTHESIS Systematic reviews (SRs), which compile data from several research on a topic, are becoming a more vital typeofscientificcommunication:Since2010,the numberofreportshasincreasedbynearly200%. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses services reporting standards and guidelines have just been approved by Social Science & Medicine for writers to utilize when creating review papersfor publication. Contd...

  6. To enable the highest calibre research synthesis to be published, to allow readers to judge if a specific SR "embodies mega illumination" or "mega error," to promote improvedscientificunderstandingand significantchangesin practice. Althoughthemethodologiesaretakenintotalfromallofscience,theexamplesare takenfrom literature on health.

  7. META-ANALYSISISTHE 'ORIGINALBIGDATA In essence, SRs combine the findings of two or more separate studies that were conducted on the sametopic.SRsmight componenttohighlight underreview. not have a the papers' quantitative conclusions Contd...

  8. The phrase "meta-analysis" is frequently employed in customary practice to imply that the writing of A Meta-analysis evidence has already been thoroughly obtained andanalyzed. WritingMeta-analysisprovideadifferenttypethatcombinesqualitativedata acquiredfrom severalresearch on thesame issue. Meta-reviews,inturn,arereviewsaboutreviews. All SRs are a kind of evidence or research syntheses, whether they be SRs, meta- analyses,met synthesizes, ormeta-reviews.

  9. ASSUMPTIONSINVOLVED INSYSTEMATICREVIEWS Thehistorythatjustendedomittedaconcrete explanation of how a lack of rigour may jeopardize SRs. Wediscussthefundamentalsofsystematic reviewing,dividedintosevenprimaryprocesses, whichFig.1succinctlysummarizestoputthese presumptionsinto context. Contd...

  10. The assumptions used in systematic reviews are organized per the SR process phasein this section. SR teams frequently improve their approaches as the process goes on, which requires going back and repeating previous parts of the process until the SR is finishedwith enough quality. Thisisthefirstsignthatthemethodsarehighlysynergistic. Theadviceweofferinthisarticle'sfollowingparagraphsissummarizedinTable1.

  11. Fig:01Themeta-analysisprocessisdepictedinsevenstepsthatbuildoneachother andsometimesmustberepeatedasfeedbacklearnedduringtheprocessemerges.

  12. Table1Methodologicalstepsnecessarytoconductsystematicreviews(SRs),alongwithbest-practice recommendations(the text expands on these points)

  13. FORMULATINGTHERESEARCH PROBLEM The SR team formulates the research challenge in Step 1, which depends on the members' comprehension of the literature from both a substantive and techniques viewpoint(including statistical assumptions). Importantly, the SR will not be worthwhile to complete if the team has this clear notion. From a practical aspect, it is important to note that Step 1 is essential: The more resources required to review within a reasonable timeline depends on how extensivethe research problem is. Therefore,apoorlyconstructedSRmightresultinlosingessentialresources.

  14. FINDINGANDSELECTINGSTUDIES Step 2 of the SR process involves comprehensive literature searches to identify as muchrelevant research as possible. As previously said, a well-developed research statement will speed up the finding ofstudiesthat meettheinclusion criteriaandare eligibleforevaluation. Thereareseveralexceptionstothisrule.Ofcourse,writingaMeta-Analysis manuscript: Since studies may not include mental health features in their titles and abstracts, it was essential to acquire many more full-text reports for analysis in HIV preventiveSR.

  15. CODING STUDIES FORSUBSTANTIVE AND METHODOLOGICALFEATURES The most intriguing parts of the investigations, which the SR team anticipates would attenuate impacts, are captured through coding methods resulting from a well-formulatedresearchchallenge forthe ClinicalMeta-Analysis Experts. Forinstance,SRsoftreatmentsfrequentlylookatthebehaviourmodification strategiesusedtoenhanceparticipants'health;anotherfrequentfactoristhe treatmentdose.

  16. CALCULATINGEFFECTSIZES SRs pool the findings, either qualitatively or quantitatively. Effect sizes may look at connections between variables, mean levels of phenomena, or both in a meta- analysis,which poolsfindings from severalstudies. Authors should also include individual effect estimates for each research or the available quantitative data from the reports in an SR without meta-analysis that focusesonoutcomesrather thanjustqualitative explanationsofresults.

  17. ANALYZINGTHESYSTEMATICREVIEW DATABASE Non-independenceacrossstudiesinareviewisanotherissuethatmayneedtobe addressedat variousstages ina traditional meta-analysis. The first instance occurs when effect estimates are determined because, if non- independenceisneglected, improperstudy weightingmay follow.

  18. RE-ANALYSIS,DEVELOPMENT,OR CRITICISM Some literature evolves quickly, superseding existing SRs and increasing the valueof updated SRs. IftheoriginalSR'smethodologieswereofgoodquality,thepriorSR'sdatabase,if accessible,may bereanalyzed toassess thesehypotheses. Alternatively,anSRteammayhypothesizethatdimensionsnottakenintoaccount ina publishedSR couldassist explainobserved heterogeneity.

  19. CONCLUSION Inthisarticle,wetriedtoofferbestpractice guidelines for research synthesis. Table 1 highlights alistofquick"doesanddon'ts."Whileitis significant to note that these quality inventories have flawsandmaynotalwaysreflectthestateof science, we have highlighted several tools to aid researchersinresearchsynthesis.WhenanSR usesthemostreliabletechniquestofocusona significant body of literature, the findings may create a clear-cut statement that directs future study and policychoicesfor yearsto come.

  20. ABOUTPUBRICA The team of researchers and writers at Pubrica creates scientific and medical research articles that may serve as invaluable resources for practitioners andauthors. Using the reader to inform them of the gaps in the chosen study subject, Pubrica medical writers assist youinwritingandeditingtheintroduction. Our professionals know the order in which the broad subject, the issue, and the background are followed bythetopicwherethehypothesisisstated.

  21. REFERENCES Johnson, Blair T., and Emily A. Hennessy. "Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the healthsciences:Bestpracticemethodsfor researchsyntheses."SocialScience& Medicine 233(2019): 237-251. Siddaway,Andy P., AlexM. Wood, andLarry V. Hedges."How to doa systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses."Annual reviewof psychology70 (2019):747-770. Brugha, Traolach S., et al. "Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta- analysesofobservationalstudiesinpsychiatricepidemiology:systematicreview."The BritishJournal of Psychiatry200.6 (2012): 446-453.

  22. ContactUs UNITEDKINGDOM +441618186353 INDIA +91-9884350006 EMAIL sales@pubrica.com

More Related