What Is a Example of a Systematic Review
- Review
- Open Admission
- Published:
A stride past footstep guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data
Tropical Medicine and Health book 47, Article number:46 (2019) Cite this article
Abstract
Background
The massive abundance of studies relating to tropical medicine and health has increased strikingly over the last few decades. In the field of tropical medicine and wellness, a well-conducted systematic review and meta-assay (SR/MA) is considered a feasible solution for keeping clinicians beside of electric current evidence-based medicine. Understanding of SR/MA steps is of paramount importance for its conduction. Information technology is non easy to be done as at that place are obstacles that could face the researcher. To solve those hindrances, this methodology written report aimed to provide a step-by-step arroyo mainly for beginners and junior researchers, in the field of tropical medicine and other wellness care fields, on how to properly conduct a SR/MA, in which all the steps here depicts our experience and expertise combined with the already well-known and accepted international guidance.
We suggest that all steps of SR/MA should be done independently by 2–3 reviewers' discussion, to ensure data quality and accuracy.
Decision
SR/MA steps include the development of research question, forming criteria, search strategy, searching databases, protocol registration, title, abstruse, full-text screening, manual searching, extracting data, quality assessment, data checking, statistical analysis, double data checking, and manuscript writing.
Introduction
The amount of studies published in the biomedical literature, especially tropical medicine and health, has increased strikingly over the last few decades. This massive abundance of literature makes clinical medicine increasingly complex, and knowledge from various researches is oft needed to inform a detail clinical decision. Withal, available studies are often heterogeneous with regard to their design, operational quality, and subjects under study and may handle the research question in a different way, which adds to the complication of show and decision synthesis [i].
Systematic review and meta-analyses (SR/MAs) take a high level of evidence equally represented by the bear witness-based pyramid. Therefore, a well-conducted SR/MA is considered a feasible solution in keeping health clinicians ahead regarding contemporary evidence-based medicine.
Differing from a systematic review, unsystematic narrative review tends to be descriptive, in which the authors select frequently articles based on their signal of view which leads to its poor quality. A systematic review, on the other manus, is divers as a review using a systematic method to summarize evidence on questions with a detailed and comprehensive plan of study. Furthermore, despite the increasing guidelines for effectively conducting a systematic review, we found that bones steps often offset from framing question, then identifying relevant work which consists of criteria evolution and search for articles, appraise the quality of included studies, summarize the show, and interpret the results [2, 3]. However, those unproblematic steps are non piece of cake to be reached in reality. At that place are many troubles that a researcher could be struggled with which has no detailed indication.
Conducting a SR/MA in tropical medicine and wellness may be difficult especially for immature researchers; therefore, understanding of its essential steps is crucial. It is not easy to be done as there are obstacles that could face up the researcher. To solve those hindrances, nosotros recommend a catamenia diagram (Fig. ane) which illustrates a detailed and step-by-step the stages for SR/MA studies. This methodology report aimed to provide a step-by-step approach mainly for beginners and junior researchers, in the field of tropical medicine and other wellness care fields, on how to properly and succinctly conduct a SR/MA; all the steps here depicts our feel and expertise combined with the already well known and accepted international guidance.
Detailed flow diagram guideline for systematic review and meta-analysis steps. Notation: Star icon refers to "ii–3 reviewers screen independently"
Methods and results
Detailed steps for conducting whatever systematic review and meta-analysis
We searched the methods reported in published SR/MA in tropical medicine and other healthcare fields too the published guidelines like Cochrane guidelines {Higgins, 2011 #vii} [4] to collect the all-time low-bias method for each step of SR/MA conduction steps. Furthermore, nosotros used guidelines that nosotros apply in studies for all SR/MA steps. We combined these methods in order to conclude and conduct a detailed menstruum diagram that shows the SR/MA steps how being conducted.
Whatever SR/MA must follow the widely accepted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis argument (PRISMA checklist 2009) (Additional file 5: Table S1) [5].
We proposed our methods co-ordinate to a valid explanatory simulation instance choosing the topic of "evaluating safety of Ebola vaccine," as it is known that Ebola is a very rare tropical affliction but fatal. All the explained methods feature the standards followed internationally, with our compiled feel in the conduct of SR beside it, which nosotros think proved some validity. This is a SR nether carry by a couple of researchers teaming in a research group, moreover, as the outbreak of Ebola which took place (2013–2016) in Africa resulted in a significant bloodshed and morbidity. Furthermore, since there are many published and ongoing trials assessing the rubber of Ebola vaccines, nosotros idea this would provide a great opportunity to tackle this hotly debated issue. Moreover, Ebola started to fire again and new fatal outbreak appeared in the Democratic Republic of Congo since Baronial 2018, which caused infection to more 1000 people co-ordinate to the World Health Organisation, and 629 people have been killed till at present. Hence, it is considered the second worst Ebola outbreak, after the first i in West Africa in 2014, which infected more than 26,000 and killed about 11,300 people forth outbreak course.
Research question and objectives
Similar other report designs, the research question of SR/MA should be feasible, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant. Therefore, a articulate, logical, and well-divers research question should exist formulated. Normally, two common tools are used: PICO or SPIDER. PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Event) is used mostly in quantitative evidence synthesis. Authors demonstrated that PICO holds more sensitivity than the more specific SPIDER arroyo [half-dozen]. SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research blazon) was proposed equally a method for qualitative and mixed methods search.
We here recommend a combined approach of using either one or both the SPIDER and PICO tools to retrieve a comprehensive search depending on time and resources limitations. When we utilize this to our causeless enquiry topic, being of qualitative nature, the use of SPIDER approach is more valid.
PICO is commonly used for systematic review and meta-assay of clinical trial study. For the observational study (without intervention or comparator), in many tropical and epidemiological questions, it is usually plenty to apply P (Patient) and O (event) only to formulate a enquiry question. We must indicate conspicuously the population (P), then intervention (I) or exposure. Side by side, information technology is necessary to compare (C) the indicated intervention with other interventions, i.e., placebo. Finally, we demand to clarify which are our relevant outcomes.
To facilitate comprehension, we cull the Ebola virus disease (EVD) as an example. Currently, the vaccine for EVD is existence developed and nether stage I, Ii, and 3 clinical trials; we desire to know whether this vaccine is safety and can induce sufficient immunogenicity to the subjects.
An case of a inquiry question for SR/MA based on PICO for this consequence is equally follows: How is the safety and immunogenicity of Ebola vaccine in human? (P: salubrious subjects (human), I: vaccination, C: placebo, O: safety or agin effects)
Preliminary research and thought validation
We recommend a preliminary search to identify relevant manufactures, ensure the validity of the proposed idea, avoid duplication of previously addressed questions, and clinch that we have plenty articles for conducting its analysis. Moreover, themes should focus on relevant and of import health-intendance issues, consider global needs and values, reverberate the current science, and be consistent with the adopted review methods. Gaining familiarity with a deep agreement of the study field through relevant videos and discussions is of paramount importance for better retrieval of results. If we ignore this footstep, our study could be canceled whenever we detect out a similar written report published before. This means we are wasting our time to deal with a problem that has been tackled for a long time.
To do this, we tin start past doing a simple search in PubMed or Google Scholar with search terms Ebola AND vaccine. While doing this stride, nosotros identify a systematic review and meta-assay of determinant factors influencing antibody response from vaccination of Ebola vaccine in non-human being primate and human [7], which is a relevant paper to read to get a deeper insight and identify gaps for amend formulation of our research question or purpose. Nosotros can still bear systematic review and meta-analysis of Ebola vaccine considering nosotros evaluate safety as a unlike outcome and dissimilar population (only human).
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Eligibility criteria are based on the PICO arroyo, study design, and engagement. Exclusion criteria mostly are unrelated, duplicated, unavailable total texts, or abstract-only papers. These exclusions should be stated in accelerate to refrain the researcher from bias. The inclusion criteria would be articles with the target patients, investigated interventions, or the comparison between ii studied interventions. Briefly, it would be articles which comprise information answering our enquiry question. But the most important is that it should exist articulate and sufficient data, including positive or negative, to answer the question.
For the topic nosotros have chosen, we tin make inclusion criteria: (1) whatever clinical trial evaluating the safety of Ebola vaccine and (ii) no brake regarding state, patient age, race, gender, publication language, and date. Exclusion criteria are as follows: (1) study of Ebola vaccine in non-human subjects or in vitro studies; (2) study with data not reliably extracted, duplicate, or overlapping data; (three) abstract-but papers as preceding papers, briefing, editorial, and author response theses and books; (four) articles without available full text available; and (5) case reports, case serial, and systematic review studies. The PRISMA flow diagram template that is used in SR/MA studies tin be found in Fig. 2.
PRISMA flow diagram of studies' screening and option
Search strategy
A standard search strategy is used in PubMed, then later on information technology is modified according to each specific database to become the all-time relevant results. The bones search strategy is built based on the research question formulation (i.e., PICO or PICOS). Search strategies are synthetic to include costless-text terms (e.g., in the title and abstract) and any appropriate bailiwick indexing (e.yard., MeSH) expected to call up eligible studies, with the help of an practiced in the review topic field or an data specialist. Additionally, nosotros advise not to use terms for the Outcomes as their inclusion might hinder the database being searched to retrieve eligible studies considering the used upshot is not mentioned apparently in the manufactures.
The improvement of the search term is fabricated while doing a trial search and looking for another relevant term within each concept from retrieved papers. To search for a clinical trial, we tin can use these descriptors in PubMed: "clinical trial"[Publication Blazon] OR "clinical trials as topic"[MeSH terms] OR "clinical trial"[All Fields]. After some rounds of trial and refinement of search term, we codify the final search term for PubMed every bit follows: (ebola OR ebola virus OR ebola virus illness OR EVD) AND (vaccine OR vaccination OR vaccinated OR immunization) AND ("clinical trial"[Publication Type] OR "clinical trials equally topic"[MeSH Terms] OR "clinical trial"[All Fields]). Because the study for this topic is express, nosotros do not include result term (safety and immunogenicity) in the search term to capture more than studies.
Search databases, import all results to a library, and exporting to an excel canvass
According to the AMSTAR guidelines, at to the lowest degree two databases have to be searched in the SR/MA [8], but every bit you increase the number of searched databases, you go much yield and more accurate and comprehensive results. The ordering of the databases depends mostly on the review questions; being in a study of clinical trials, you volition rely more often than not on Cochrane, mRCTs, or International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Here, we propose 12 databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Scientific discipline, EMBASE, GHL, VHL, Cochrane, Google Scholar, Clinical trials.gov, mRCTs, POPLINE, and SIGLE), which aid to cover nigh all published articles in tropical medicine and other health-related fields. Amongst those databases, POPLINE focuses on reproductive health. Researchers should consider to cull relevant database according to the enquiry topic. Some databases exercise not support the employ of Boolean or quotation; otherwise, there are some databases that have special searching way. Therefore, nosotros need to modify the initial search terms for each database to get appreciated results; therefore, manipulation guides for each online database searches are presented in Additional file 5: Tabular array S2. The detailed search strategy for each database is constitute in Additional file 5: Table S3. The search term that we created in PubMed needs customization based on a specific feature of the database. An case for Google Scholar avant-garde search for our topic is every bit follows:
- 1.
With all of the words: ebola virus
With at to the lowest degree one of the words: vaccine vaccination vaccinated immunization
Where my words occur: in the championship of the article
- two.
With all of the words: EVD
With at least one of the words: vaccine vaccination vaccinated immunization
Where my words occur: in the title of the commodity
Finally, all records are collected into one Endnote library in order to delete duplicates and then to it export into an excel sheet. Using remove duplicating function with two options is mandatory. All references which accept (1) the aforementioned title and author, and published in the same twelvemonth, and (2) the same title and writer, and published in the same journal, would be deleted. References remaining after this footstep should be exported to an excel file with essential data for screening. These could be the authors' names, publication year, journal, DOI, URL link, and abstruse.
Protocol writing and registration
Protocol registration at an early stage guarantees transparency in the research process and protects from duplication problems. Besides, it is considered a documented proof of squad plan of activity, inquiry question, eligibility criteria, intervention/exposure, quality cess, and pre-analysis programme. It is recommended that researchers transport it to the principal investigator (PI) to revise it, then upload information technology to registry sites. At that place are many registry sites available for SR/MA like those proposed by Cochrane and Campbell collaborations; however, we recommend registering the protocol into PROSPERO equally information technology is easier. The layout of a protocol template, co-ordinate to PROSPERO, can be found in Additional file v: File S1.
Title and abstruse screening
Decisions to select retrieved articles for farther assessment are based on eligibility criteria, to minimize the chance of including non-relevant manufactures. According to the Cochrane guidance, two reviewers are a must to practise this step, just as for beginners and junior researchers, this might be boring; thus, nosotros propose based on our feel that at least iii reviewers should work independently to reduce the risk of error, particularly in teams with a large number of authors to add more scrutiny and ensure proper acquit. By and large, the quality with iii reviewers would exist amend than 2, every bit ii only would have different opinions from each other, then they cannot determine, while the third opinion is crucial. And hither are some examples of systematic reviews which we conducted following the same strategy (by a different group of researchers in our research group) and published successfully, and they feature relevant ideas to tropical medicine and disease [9,10,11].
In this step, duplications volition exist removed manually whenever the reviewers find them out. When there is a doubt virtually an article decision, the squad should be inclusive rather than exclusive, until the main leader or PI makes a determination afterward discussion and consensus. All excluded records should exist given exclusion reasons.
Full text downloading and screening
Many search engines provide links for free to access full-text articles. In case not found, we can search in some enquiry websites equally ResearchGate, which offer an choice of direct total-text request from authors. Additionally, exploring athenaeum of wanted journals, or contacting PI to purchase it if bachelor. Similarly, 2–3 reviewers work independently to decide nigh included full texts co-ordinate to eligibility criteria, with reporting exclusion reasons of articles. In case any disagreement has occurred, the final decision has to be made past discussion.
Manual search
One has to exhaust all possibilities to reduce bias by performing an explicit hand-searching for retrieval of reports that may take been dropped from beginning search [12]. We utilise 5 methods to make transmission searching: searching references from included studies/reviews, contacting authors and experts, and looking at related articles/cited manufactures in PubMed and Google Scholar.
We depict here three sequent methods to increase and refine the yield of manual searching: firstly, searching reference lists of included articles; secondly, performing what is known equally commendation tracking in which the reviewers track all the manufactures that cite each one of the included articles, and this might involve electronic searching of databases; and thirdly, like to the citation tracking, we follow all "related to" or "similar" articles. Each of the abovementioned methods tin be performed by ii–3 independent reviewers, and all the possible relevant article must undergo farther scrutiny against the inclusion criteria, after following the same records yielded from electronic databases, i.e., championship/abstract and full-text screening.
We propose an independent reviewing by assigning each fellow member of the teams a "tag" and a distinct method, to compile all the results at the end for comparison of differences and discussion and to maximize the retrieval and minimize the bias. Similarly, the number of included manufactures has to be stated before add-on to the overall included records.
Data extraction and quality assessment
This footstep entitles information collection from included full-texts in a structured extraction excel sheet, which is previously pilot-tested for extraction using some random studies. Nosotros recommend extracting both adjusted and not-adjusted data because it gives the near allowed confounding factor to exist used in the analysis past pooling them afterwards [13]. The process of extraction should exist executed by two–iii contained reviewers. Mostly, the sheet is classified into the study and patient characteristics, outcomes, and quality assessment (QA) tool.
Information presented in graphs should be extracted by software tools such equally Spider web plot digitizer [xiv]. Most of the equations that tin exist used in extraction prior to analysis and estimation of standard deviation (SD) from other variables is establish within Additional file 5: File S2 with their references equally Hozo et al. [15], Xiang et al. [16], and Rijkom et al. [17]. A variety of tools are bachelor for the QA, depending on the design: ROB-2 Cochrane tool for randomized controlled trials [18] which is presented equally Additional file 1: Effigy S1 and Additional file two: Figure S2—from a previous published article data—[19], NIH tool for observational and cantankerous-sectional studies [20], ROBINS-I tool for non-randomize trials [21], QUADAS-2 tool for diagnostic studies, QUIPS tool for prognostic studies, CARE tool for instance reports, and ToxRtool for in vivo and in vitro studies. We recommend that ii–iii reviewers independently appraise the quality of the studies and add together to the information extraction form before the inclusion into the assay to reduce the risk of bias. In the NIH tool for observational studies—cohort and cross-sectional—as in this EBOLA case, to evaluate the adventure of bias, reviewers should rate each of the xiv items into dichotomous variables: yes, no, or not applicable. An overall score is calculated by adding all the items scores as yep equals one, while no and NA equals nix. A score volition be given for every paper to allocate them every bit poor, fair, or adept conducted studies, where a score from 0–5 was considered poor, 6–9 as fair, and 10–14 as good.
In the EBOLA case example higher up, authors can extract the following data: name of authors, country of patients, twelvemonth of publication, written report design (case report, cohort report, or clinical trial or RCT), sample size, the infected point of time afterward EBOLA infection, follow-up interval after vaccination time, efficacy, safe, adverse furnishings afterward vaccinations, and QA sheet (Boosted file 6: Data S1).
Data checking
Due to the expected human mistake and bias, we recommend a data checking stride, in which every included article is compared with its counterpart in an extraction sheet by evidence photos, to detect mistakes in information. Nosotros advise assigning manufactures to 2–iii independent reviewers, ideally not the ones who performed the extraction of those manufactures. When resources are express, each reviewer is assigned a dissimilar article than the one he extracted in the previous stage.
Statistical analysis
Investigators use different methods for combining and summarizing findings of included studies. Before analysis, there is an of import stride called cleaning of data in the extraction canvas, where the annotator organizes extraction sail data in a form that tin be read past analytical software. The analysis consists of 2 types namely qualitative and quantitative analysis. Qualitative analysis mostly describes data in SR studies, while quantitative assay consists of two main types: MA and network meta-analysis (NMA). Subgroup, sensitivity, cumulative analyses, and meta-regression are advisable for testing whether the results are consistent or non and investigating the upshot of certain confounders on the result and finding the best predictors. Publication bias should be assessed to investigate the presence of missing studies which can affect the summary.
To illustrate basic meta-analysis, we provide an imaginary data for the research question near Ebola vaccine safety (in terms of adverse events, 14 days after injection) and immunogenicity (Ebola virus antibodies rising in geometric mean titer, 6 months after injection). Assuming that from searching and data extraction, we decided to practice an analysis to evaluate Ebola vaccine "A" condom and immunogenicity. Other Ebola vaccines were non meta-analyzed because of the limited number of studies (instead, information technology volition be included for narrative review). The imaginary data for vaccine safety meta-assay tin exist accessed in Additional file 7: Data S2. To practise the meta-assay, we can utilise free software, such equally RevMan [22] or R package meta [23]. In this instance, nosotros volition use the R package meta. The tutorial of meta package can be accessed through "General Package for Meta-Analysis" tutorial pdf [23]. The R codes and its guidance for meta-assay done tin be constitute in Additional file 5: File S3.
For the analysis, we assume that the study is heterogenous in nature; therefore, nosotros choose a random effect model. We did an assay on the safety of Ebola vaccine A. From the data tabular array, we can see some adverse events occurring afterwards intramuscular injection of vaccine A to the subject of the written report. Suppose that we include half-dozen studies that fulfill our inclusion criteria. We tin do a meta-analysis for each of the adverse events extracted from the studies, for example, arthralgia, from the results of random effect meta-analysis using the R meta packet.
From the results shown in Boosted file three: Figure S3, we tin come across that the odds ratio (OR) of arthralgia is i.06 (0.79; 1.42), p value = 0.71, which means that at that place is no association between the intramuscular injection of Ebola vaccine A and arthralgia, as the OR is almost one, and besides, the P value is insignificant as it is > 0.05.
In the meta-analysis, we tin also visualize the results in a woods plot. It is shown in Fig. 3 an instance of a wood plot from the simulated analysis.
Random effect model forest plot for comparison of vaccine A versus placebo
From the forest plot, we tin meet vi studies (A to F) and their respective OR (95% CI). The green box represents the effect size (in this case, OR) of each study. The bigger the box means the study weighted more (i.e., bigger sample size). The blueish diamond shape represents the pooled OR of the six studies. We tin can see the blue diamond cross the vertical line OR = i, which indicates no significance for the association as the diamond almost equalized in both sides. We can ostend this besides from the 95% confidence interval that includes one and the p value > 0.05.
For heterogeneity, we see that I ii = 0%, which means no heterogeneity is detected; the study is relatively homogenous (it is rare in the real report). To evaluate publication bias related to the meta-analysis of adverse events of arthralgia, nosotros can use the metabias function from the R meta package (Additional file 4: Effigy S4) and visualization using a funnel plot. The results of publication bias are demonstrated in Fig. 4. We see that the p value associated with this test is 0.74, indicating symmetry of the funnel plot. Nosotros can confirm it by looking at the funnel plot.
Publication bias funnel plot for comparison of vaccine A versus placebo
Looking at the funnel plot, the number of studies at the left and right side of the funnel plot is the same; therefore, the plot is symmetry, indicating no publication bias detected.
Sensitivity analysis is a procedure used to discover how different values of an independent variable will influence the significance of a item dependent variable by removing one study from MA. If all included study p values are < 0.05, hence, removing any study will not change the meaning association. It is simply performed when there is a meaning association, and so if the p value of MA done is 0.seven—more than than one—the sensitivity analysis is not needed for this instance report example. If there are 2 studies with p value > 0.05, removing any of the two studies volition effect in a loss of the significance.
Double data checking
For more than assurance on the quality of results, the analyzed data should be rechecked from full-text data by evidence photos, to allow an obvious check for the PI of the report.
Manuscript writing, revision, and submission to a journal
Writing based on four scientific sections: introduction, methods, results, and discussion, mostly with a conclusion. Performing a feature table for report and patient characteristics is a mandatory pace which can exist establish as a template in Additional file 5: Table S3.
After finishing the manuscript writing, characteristics tabular array, and PRISMA catamenia diagram, the squad should send it to the PI to revise it well and reply to his comments and, finally, choose a suitable journal for the manuscript which fits with considerable bear on factor and plumbing fixtures field. We need to pay attention by reading the author guidelines of journals before submitting the manuscript.
Give-and-take
The office of evidence-based medicine in biomedical research is speedily growing. SR/MAs are also increasing in the medical literature. This newspaper has sought to provide a comprehensive approach to enable reviewers to produce high-quality SR/MAs. We hope that readers could gain general cognition almost how to conduct a SR/MA and take the conviction to perform 1, although this kind of written report requires complex steps compared to narrative reviews.
Having the basic steps for conduction of MA, there are many advanced steps that are applied for certain specific purposes. One of these steps is meta-regression which is performed to investigate the association of any confounder and the results of the MA. Furthermore, in that location are other types rather than the standard MA like NMA and MA. In NMA, we investigate the deviation betwixt several comparisons when there were not plenty data to enable standard meta-analysis. Information technology uses both directly and indirect comparisons to conclude what is the all-time between the competitors. On the other paw, mega MA or MA of patients tend to summarize the results of independent studies past using its private subject field data. Every bit a more than detailed analysis tin can be done, it is useful in conducting repeated measure out assay and fourth dimension-to-event assay. Moreover, information technology can perform assay of variance and multiple regression analysis; notwithstanding, it requires homogenous dataset and it is time-consuming in bear [24].
Conclusions
Systematic review/meta-assay steps include development of research question and its validation, forming criteria, search strategy, searching databases, importing all results to a library and exporting to an excel sheet, protocol writing and registration, title and abstruse screening, full-text screening, manual searching, extracting data and assessing its quality, data checking, conducting statistical analysis, double data checking, manuscript writing, revising, and submitting to a journal.
Availability of data and materials
Non applicable.
Abbreviations
- NMA:
-
Network meta-analysis
- PI:
-
Principal investigator
- PICO:
-
Population, Intervention, Comparison, Result
- PRISMA:
-
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-assay argument
- QA:
-
Quality cess
- SPIDER:
-
Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Blueprint, Evaluation, Research blazon
- SR/MAs:
-
Systematic review and meta-analyses
References
-
Bello A, Wiebe N, Garg A, Tonelli One thousand. Testify-based controlling 2: systematic reviews and meta-assay. Methods Mol Biol (Clifton, NJ). 2015;1281:397–416.
-
Khan KS, Kunz R, Kleijnen J, Antes Thou. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. J R Soc Med. 2003;96(3):118–21.
-
Rys P, Wladysiuk Yard, Skrzekowska-Baran I, Malecki MT. Review articles, systematic reviews and meta-analyses: which can exist trusted? Polskie Archiwum Medycyny Wewnetrznej. 2009;119(3):148–56.
-
Higgins JPT, Greenish South. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. 2011.
-
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
-
Methley AM, Campbell Southward, Chew-Graham C, McNally R, Cheraghi-Sohi S. PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: a comparing study of specificity and sensitivity in iii search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;fourteen:579.
-
Gross 50, Lhomme E, Pasin C, Richert 50, Thiebaut R. Ebola vaccine development: systematic review of pre-clinical and clinical studies, and meta-analysis of determinants of antibody response variability afterwards vaccination. Int J Infect Dis. 2018;74:83–96.
-
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, ... Henry DA. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.
-
Giang HTN, Banno Chiliad, Minh LHN, Trinh LT, Loc LT, Eltobgy A, et al. Dengue hemophagocytic syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis on epidemiology, clinical signs, outcomes, and risk factors. Rev Med Virol. 2018;28(6):e2005.
-
Morra ME, Altibi AMA, Iqtadar S, Minh LHN, Elawady SS, Hallab A, et al. Definitions for warning signs and signs of astringent dengue according to the WHO 2009 nomenclature: systematic review of literature. Rev Med Virol. 2018;28(four):e1979.
-
Morra ME, Van Thanh L, Kamel MG, Ghazy AA, Altibi AMA, Dat LM, et al. Clinical outcomes of current medical approaches for Middle Eastward respiratory syndrome: a systematic review and meta-assay. Rev Med Virol. 2018;28(3):e1977.
-
Vassar M, Atakpo P, Kash MJ. Transmission search approaches used past systematic reviewers in dermatology. Periodical of the Medical Library Association: JMLA. 2016;104(4):302.
-
Naunheim MR, Remenschneider AK, Scangas GA, Bunting GW, Deschler DG. The effect of initial tracheoesophageal vocalization prosthesis size on postoperative complications and vox outcomes. Ann Otol Rhinol Laryngol. 2016;125(vi):478–84.
-
Rohatgi AJaiWa. Web Plot Digitizer. ht tp. 2014;2.
-
Hozo SP, Djulbegovic B, Hozo I. Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5(one):13.
-
Wan X, Wang W, Liu J, Tong T. Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14(i):135.
-
Van Rijkom HM, Truin GJ, Van't Hof MA. A meta-assay of clinical studies on the caries-inhibiting issue of fluoride gel treatment. Carries Res. 1998;32(2):83–92.
-
Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman Advertizing, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration'south tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
-
Tawfik GM, Tieu TM, Ghozy S, Makram OM, Samuel P, Abdelaal A, et al. Speech efficacy, safe and factors affecting lifetime of voice prostheses in patients with laryngeal cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(15_suppl):e18031-due east.
-
Wannemuehler TJ, Lobo BC, Johnson JD, Deig CR, Ting JY, Gregory RL. Vibratory stimulus reduces in vitro biofilm formation on tracheoesophageal voice prostheses. Laryngoscope. 2016;126(12):2752–seven.
-
Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing adventure of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355.
-
RevMan The Cochrane Collaboration %J Copenhagen TNCCTCC. Review Manager (RevMan). 5.0. 2008.
-
Schwarzer GJRn. meta: An R package for meta-assay. 2007;7(3):40-45.
-
Simms LLH. Meta-analysis versus mega-assay: is there a deviation? Oral budesonide for the maintenance of remission in Crohn's affliction: Faculty of Graduate Studies, University of Western Ontario; 1998.
Funding
This report was conducted (in office) at the Articulation Usage/Inquiry Center on Tropical Affliction, Institute of Tropical Medicine, Nagasaki University, Nihon.
Author information
Affiliations
Contributions
NTH and GMT were responsible for the thought and its design. The figure was washed by GMT. All authors contributed to the manuscript writing and approval of the final version.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Not applicative.
Consent for publication
Non applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher'due south Annotation
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Additional files
Additional file 1:
Figure S1. Risk of bias cess graph of included randomized controlled trials. (TIF 20 kb)
Boosted file 2:
Figure S2. Run a risk of bias assessment summary. (TIF 69 kb)
Additional file 3:
Effigy S3. Arthralgia results of random effect meta-analysis using R meta parcel. (TIF 20 kb)
Additional file iv:
Effigy S4. Arthralgia linear regression test of funnel plot asymmetry using R meta package. (TIF xiii kb)
Additional file 5:
Tabular array S1. PRISMA 2009 Checklist. Table S2. Manipulation guides for online database searches. Table S3. Detailed search strategy for twelve database searches. Table S4. Baseline characteristics of the patients in the included studies. File S1. PROSPERO protocol template file. File S2. Extraction equations that tin can be used prior to analysis to become missed variables. File S3. R codes and its guidance for meta-analysis washed for comparison between EBOLA vaccine A and placebo. (DOCX 49 kb)
Additional file 6:
Information S1. Extraction and quality assessment data sheets for EBOLA example example. (XLSX 1368 kb)
Boosted file 7:
Data S2. Imaginary data for EBOLA instance example. (XLSX 10 kb)
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Eatables Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted utilize, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you requite appropriate credit to the original author(south) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and signal if changes were made. The Artistic Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/i.0/) applies to the data made bachelor in this commodity, unless otherwise stated.
Reprints and Permissions
About this article
Cite this commodity
Tawfik, G.Yard., Dila, K.A.Due south., Mohamed, M.Y.F. et al. A pace by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-assay with simulation data. Trop Med Wellness 47, 46 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-half dozen
-
Received:
-
Accepted:
-
Published:
-
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-vi
Keywords
- Search
- Data
- Extraction
- Analysis
- Study
- Results
dicksonfrombellang37.blogspot.com
Source: https://tropmedhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6#:~:text=A%20systematic%20review%2C%20on%20the,and%20comprehensive%20plan%20of%20study.
0 Response to "What Is a Example of a Systematic Review"
Post a Comment