An Example of a Rationale Section for Systematic Review
A immature researcher'south guide to a systematic review
Key takeaways:
- A systematic review is a thorough and detailed review of existing literature on a particular topic, designed to address a specific question.
- Systematic reviews are especially important in evidence-based medicine.
- A skillful systematic review begins with a protocol that defines the report design, objectives, and expected outcomes; follows the PRISMA guidelines, and should be registered in a recognized protocol registry.
- This article covers the basics of how to approach a systematic review and how such a review is typically structured.
What is a systematic review?
A systematic review is a highly rigorous review of existing literature that addresses a clearly formulated question. The review systematically searches, identifies, selects, appraises, and synthesizes inquiry evidence relevant to the question using methodology that is explicit, reproducible, and leads to minimum bias. Systematic reviews are regarded as the best source of research evidence. Systematic reviews are absolutely crucial in the field of evidence-based medicine, but are besides highly valued in other fields.
A systematic review is more exhaustive than a literature review as it includes both published and unpublished literature, often called grey literature. Greyness literature is a significant part of a systematic review and adds value to the review. This is because grayness literature is oftentimes more than current than published literature and is likely to take less publication bias. Grey literature includes unpublished studies, reports, dissertations, conference papers and abstracts, governmental research, and ongoing clinical trials.
Conducting a systematic review is a complex process. This commodity aims to guide you on the different kinds of systematic review, the standard procedures to be followed, and the best arroyo to conducting and writing a systematic review.
Types of systematic reviews
- Qualitative: In this type of systematic review, the results of relevant studies are summarized only non statistically combined.
- Quantitative: This type of systematic review uses statistical methods to combine the results of 2 or more studies.
- Meta-assay: A meta-analysis uses statistical methods to integrate estimates of effect from relevant studies that are independent merely similar and summarize them.
Writing a protocol
Any good systematic review begins with a protocol. According to the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a protocol serves equally a route-map for your review and specifies the objectives, methods, and outcomes of primary interest of the systematic review. The purpose of having a protocol is to promote transparency of methods.
A protocol defines the search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, information that will be analyzed, etc. The protocol needs to exist submitted to the periodical along with your manuscript. Most journals expect authors of systematic reviews to apply the PRISMA statement or similar other guidelines to write their protocol.
The PRISMA Argument:
Anybody writing a systematic literature review should exist familiar with the PRISMA statement. The PRISMA Statement is a document that consists of a 27-detail checklist and a flow diagram and aims to guide authors on how to develop a systematic review protocol and what to include when writing the review.
A protocol ideally includes the following:
- Databases to be searched and additional sources (particularly for grey literature)
- Keywords to exist used in the search strategy
- Limits applied to the search.
- Screening process
- Data to be extracted
- Summary of data to be reported
Registering systematic review protocols:
Once you have written your protocol, it is appropriate to register it. Registering your protocol is a good style to announce that you are working on a review, and then that others do non showtime working on it.
The available protocol registries for systematic reviews are:
- Campbell Collaboration: Specific to systematic reviews of social interventions
- Cochrane Collaboration: Specific to systematic reviews of wellness intendance interventions
- PROSPERO : An open registry for all systematic reviews
The registries also provide a searchable database of registered reviews. Before starting a systematic review, you should search these databases for any registered reviews on the topic of your choice. This volition ensure that you are not duplicating efforts.
What is the all-time approach to conducting a systematic review?
The essence of a systematic review lies in being systematic. A systematic review involves detailed scrutiny and assay of a huge mass of literature. To ensure that your work is efficient and effective, you should follow a articulate process:
1. Develop a inquiry question
ii. Define inclusion and exclusion criteria
3. Locate studies
4. Select studies
5. Appraise study quality
half-dozen. Extract data
7. Analyze and nowadays results
viii. Interpret results
9. Update the review as needed
It is helpful to follow this process and make notes at each stage. This will make it easier for yous to write the review article.
If you wish to proceeds complete understanding of systematic review, check out this grade designed exclusively for researchers past Gareth Dyke who manages the Taylor & Francis journal Historical Biological science as Editor-in-Principal:Introduction to Systematic Review.
How is a systematic review article structured?
A systematic review article follows the same structure as that of an original research article. It typically includes a championship, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and references.
Title: The championship should accurately reflect the topic under review. Typically, the words "a systematic review" are a part of the title to make the nature of the study articulate.
Abstract: A systematic review usually has a structured Abstract, with a short paragraph devoted to each of the following: background, methods, results, and conclusion.
Introduction : The Introduction summarizes the topic and explains why the systematic review was conducted. There might have been gaps in the existing noesis or a disagreement in the literature that necessitated a review. The introduction should as well state the purpose and aims of the review.
Methods: The Methods section is the most crucial office of a systematic review article. The methodology followed should be explained clearly and logically. The following components should be discussed in item:
- Inclusion and exclusion criteria
- Identification of studies
- Study selection
- Data extraction
- Quality assessment
- Data analysis
Results: The Results section should likewise be explained logically. Y'all can brainstorm by describing the search results, and then move on to the study range and characteristics, study quality, and finally discuss the issue of the intervention on the outcome.
Discussion: The Discussion should summarize the main findings from the review and so motility on to discuss the limitations of the study and the reliability of the results. Finally, the strengths and weaknesses of the review should exist discussed, and implications for current practice suggested.
References: The References section of a systematic review article usually contains an extensive number of references. You have to be very careful and ensure that you do not miss out on a single one. Yous can consider using reference direction software to help yous tackle the references effectively.
You might as well exist interested in reading the folloowing related articles:
- Which is easier to publish - an original enquiry article or a review article?
- A young researcher's guide to writing a literature review
- half dozen Article types that journals publish: A guide for early on career researchers
If you lot have whatever doubts or questions, you tin post them in the comments section beneath. Alternatively, you can besides a question on our Q&A forum if you are facing a problem and need adept publication advice.
Published on: Apr 29, 2015
Source: https://www.editage.com/insights/a-young-researchers-guide-to-a-systematic-review
0 Response to "An Example of a Rationale Section for Systematic Review"
Post a Comment