1 / 13

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Pain Points

Pubrica's team of researchers and authors create scientific and medical research articles that can serve as an invaluable tool for practitioners and authors. Pubrica medical writers assist you in writing and editing the introduction by presenting the reader with the limitations or gaps in the specified study subject. Our experts understand the structure that follows the broad topic, the problem, and the background before moving on to a narrow topic to state the hypothesis.<br><br>Visit Here - https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/

pubrica
Download Presentation

Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Pain Points

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 PainPoints AnAcademicpresentationby Dr.NancyAgnes,Head,Technical Operations,Pubrica Group: www.pubrica.com Email:sales@pubrica.com

  2. Systematicreviewsandmeta-analysesaresingle investigationsthataggregatethefindingsofseveral other research on a specific topic, such as the efficacyorsafetyofamedicineormedicaldevice. SystematicReviewandMeta-AnalysisServices, whencompletedcorrectly,areregardedasthemost significant evidence on a specific issue and are highly valuable for making health care decisions based on data from several research rather than evidencefromthemostcurrentormostextensive individualstudies. However, if systematic reviews and meta-analyses arenotdonecorrectlyorarebiased,theymaybeof limitedutilityor evendeceptive.

  3. PRODUCTIONOFSYSTEMATICREVIEWS ONALARGESCALE Even though methods for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been around for many decades, they were not widely used in biomedical and health care research until the late 1980s and 1990s, owing to a lack of popular software to createthem inlarge quantitiesat thetime. In 2003, researchers from the Cochrane Collaboration, a well- knowninternationalnon-profitorganizationspecializingin systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis Experts, predicted that approximately 10,000 systematic reviews would be required to refugeallclinical trialsin healthcare research. Contd...

  4. (JPAIoannidis2016)However,IoannidisdiscoveredthatfromJanuary1,1986,to December 4, 2015, almost 59,000 meta-analyses and 267,000 systematic reviews were indexed in MEDLINE. The increase of these publications supporthas surpassed the rate of development of studies overall: Between 1991 and 2014, yearly publications climbed by morethan2,700%forsystematicreviewsand2,600%formeta-analyses,comparedtoa 153% annual risefor all MEDLINE-indexed items.

  5. ASYSTEMATICREVIEWAND META-ANALYSISDUPLICATION The increase in writing the systematic reviews andMeta-Analysisservices,Manuscriptis primarilyduetoduplication,asmosttopics havemanysystematicreviewsandmeta-analysis. For example, a BMJ review of 73 randomly chosenmeta-analysespublishedin2010 discovered that for 2/3rd of these studies, there was at least one, and often as many as 13, new meta-analysespublishedonthesameissueby early2013. Contd...

  6. It may be claimed that having many independent writers look at the same data to see if theyreachthesameresultsandconclusionsorstudyotheroutcomesthanthose includedin initial evaluationshas some merit. However, according to the aforementioned BMJ study, over a quarter of subsequent meta-analyses were undertaken by some original meta-analyses' authors, and 65 % of subsequent meta-analyses did not include other outcomes than those included in the originalmeta-analyses. Furthermore, overlapping Clinical Meta-Analysis experts might be perplexing since they may not contain the same primary studies that satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the originalmeta-analysis. While this method may explain why overlapping reviews provide diverse outcomes, readersmay findit challengingto reconciledisparate conclusions.

  7. FRAGMENTEDEVIDENCE Anothercriticalissuewithsystematicreviews andmeta-analysesisthattheyfrequently attempt to piece together information from much primary research that are intrinsically different withoutaddressingvariationsinthesestudies.

  8. CONFLICTSOFINTEREST Manysystematicreviewsandmeta-analyses are carried out by investigators or contracting companies with ties to the pharmaceutical or medicaldevicebusinesses. This is a concerning trend since research has shown that industry-sponsored reviews are less openabouttheirproceduresandfrequently reach conclusions more favorable to the sector thanevaluationsperformedbyindependent investigators.

  9. CONCLUSION Because of the aforementioned problems, which include unneeded, misleading, and contradictory systematicreviewsandmeta-analyses,thisstudy finds that this defective research does not promote evidence-basedmedicineandhealthcare. Hethinksthatjust3%ofallmeta-analysesare excellentand valuable. Contd...

  10. Asaresult,itcallsforasignificantoverhaulintheproductionofbiomedicalresearch and its credible synthesis, including planning and conducting prospective systematic reviews and meta-analyses without conflicts of interest through collaboration between primarystudyresearchersandthoseoffuturesystematicreviewsandmeta-analyses. Thesereformswillrequirethesupportofmanystakeholders,includingfunders, scientists,medical publications, andconsumers. Meanwhile,readersofsystematicreviewsandmeta-analysesshouldtaketheir conclusionswith a grain ofsalt. Readers should search for any conflicts of interest and see whether other studies found differentresults or findings.

  11. ABOUTPUBRICA Pubrica'steamofresearchersandauthorscreate scientific and medical research articles that can serve as an invaluable tool for practitioners and authors. Pubricamedicalwritersassistyouinwritingand editing the introduction by presenting the reader with the limitations or gaps in the specified study subject. Our experts understand the structure that follows the broad topic, the problem, and the background before movingontoanarrowtopictostatethehypothesis.

  12. REFERENCES IoannidisJ.Next-generationsystematicreviews: Prospectivemeta-analysis,individual-leveldata,networks and umbrella reviews. Br J Sport Med. 2017; February 21. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2017-097621. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: A cross-sectional study. PLOS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028.

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

More Related