Abstract
A systematic review is essentially a systematic investigation of existing research data identified via a reproducible systematic search leading to data abstraction, appraisal of methodological quality, clinical relevance and consistency of published evidence on a specific clinical topic in order to provide clear suggestions for a specific health care problem. This can be followed by a quantitative synthesis, which, preserving the identity of individual studies, tries to provide an estimate of the overall effect of an intervention, exposure or diagnostic strategy. The latter is called a meta-analysis. This chapter outlines the procedure that needs to be followed to execute a standard systematic review.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Bibliography
Armstrong EC (1999) The well-built clinical question: the key to finding the best evidence efficiently. WMJ 98:25–28
Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP (2006) Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 59:697–703
Chambers E (2004) An introduction to meta-analysis with articles from the Journal of Educational Research (1992–2002). J Educ Res 98:35–45
Corcoran J, Pillai VK, Littell JH (2008) Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Oxford University Press, New York
Counsell C (1997) Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 127:380–387
Dickman PW, Holm LE, Lundell G, Boice JD, Hall P (2003) Thyroid cancer risk after thyroid examination with I-131: a population-based cohort study in Sweden. Int J Cancer 106:580–587
Doi SA, Thalib L (2008) A quality-effects model for meta-analysis. Epidemiology 19:94–100
Eden J (ed) (2011) Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. The National Academies Press for Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Institute of Medicine, National Academies Press, Washington, DC
Elamin MB, Flynn DN, Bassler D, Briel M, Alonso-Coello P, Karanicolas PJ, Guyatt GH, Malaga G, Furukawa TA, Kunz R, Schünemann H, Murad MH, Barbui C, Cipriani A, Montori VM (2009) Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. J Clin Epidemiol 62:506–510
Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) (2011) Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 12 June 2012
Meline T (2006) Selecting studies for systematic review: inclusion and exclusion criteria. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord 33:21–27
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA group (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
Reeves S, Koppel I, Barr H, Feeth D, Hammick M (2002) Twelve tips for undertaking a systematic review. Med Teach 24:358–363
US National Library of Medicine (2011) Medical subject headings, entry terms and other cross-references. http://www.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/intro_entry.html. Accessed 21 May 2011
US National Library of Medicine (2012) Medical subject headings, Neoplasms. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh/68009369. Accessed 21 May 2011
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Clark, J. (2013). Systematic Reviewing. In: Doi, S., Williams, G. (eds) Methods of Clinical Epidemiology. Springer Series on Epidemiology and Public Health. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37131-8_12
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-37131-8_12
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-37130-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-37131-8
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)