Abstract
Step 3 of the EBP process centers on evaluating the quality and relevance of research results. This chapter examines the aggregation and evaluation of multiple research studies using a method called the systematic review. Systematic reviews locate and combine the results of multiple studies using clearly defined and transparently reported standards. The statistical results of studies are aggregated and compared using a set of techniques called meta-analysis. As terminology has evolved in this area, the shared and distinct features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are carefully defined and distinguished. The standards for Cochrane Collaboration quality reviews are identified. A Cochrane systematic review is analyzed in detail to show the strength and limitations of such publications.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) (DSM-5). Washington, DC: Author.
Amos, T., Stein, D. J., & Ipser, J. (2014). Pharmacological interventions for preventing post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2014(7), CD006239. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006239.pub2
Bisson, J., Roberts, N., Andrew, M., Cooper, R., & Lewis, C. (2013). Psychological therapies for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2013(12), CD003388. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD003388.pub4
Carey, B. (2008, January 17). Antidepressant studies unpublished. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/health/17depress.html
Carroll, H., Toumpakari, Z., Johnson, L., & Betts, J. (2017). The perceived feasibility of methods to reduce publication bias. PLoS One, 12(10), e0186472. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0186472
Chester, R., Smith, T., Sweeting, D., Dixon, J., Wood, S., & Song, F. (2008). The relative timing of VMO and VL in the aetiology of anterior knee pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Medical College Musculoskeletal Disorders, 9(1), 64. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2474-9-64
Chittaranjan, A. (2015). Understanding relative risk, odds ratio, and related terms: As simple as it can get. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 76(7), e857–ee86.
Christensen, P., & Kristiansen, I. (2006). Number-needed-to-treat (NNT): Needs treatment with care. Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology, 99(1), 12–16.
Cochrane Methods (Group): Qualitative and implementation. (2017). Core library of qualitative synthesis methodology [online bibliography]. Retrieved from: http://methods.cochrane.org/qi/core-library-qualitative-synthesis-methodology
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge Academic.
Deng, C.Q. (2012, February 12). How to interpret odds ratios that are smaller than 1? Retrieved from https://onbiostatistics.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-to-interpret-odds-ratios-that-are.html
Dickersin, K. (1990). The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its occurrence. Journal of the American Medical Association, 263, 1385–1389.
Dixon-Woods, M., Bonas, S., Booth, A., Jones, D., Miller, T., Sutton, J., et al. (2006). How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qualitative Research, 6(1), 27–44.
Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., et al. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6. (electronic journal). Retrieved from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/6/3
Drisko, J., & Simmons, B. (2012). The evidence base for psychodynamic psychotherapy. Smith College Studies in Social Work, 82(4), 374–400.
Ellis, P. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: An introduction to statistical power, meta-analysis and the interpretation of research results. New York: Cambridge University Press.
European Patients’ Academy. (2015). Statistics in clinical trials: Key concepts. Retrieved from https://www.eupati.eu/clinical-development-and-trials/statistics-clinical-trials-key-concepts/
Gillies, D., Taylor, F., Gray, C., O’Brien, L., & D’Abrew, N. (2012). Psychological therapies for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2012(12), CD006726. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006726.pub2
Higgins J., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 5.1. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
Hopewell, S., Loudon, K., Clarke, M. J., Oxman, A., & Dickersin, K. (2009). Publication bias in clinical trials due to statistical significance or direction of trial results. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2009(1), MR000006. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3
Lenth, R. (2008). Java applets for power and sample size. Retrieved from http://www.stat.uiowa.edu/~rlenth/Power/
Litschge, C., Vaughn, M., & McCrea, C. (2010). The empirical status of treatments for children and youth with conduct problems: An overview of meta-analytic studies. Research on Social Work Practice, 20(1), 21–35.
Littell, J., Corcoran, J., & Pillai, V. (2008). Systematic reviews and meta-analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.
McGauran, N., Wiesler, B., Kreis, J., Schüler, Y.-B., Kölsch, H., & Kaiser, T. (2010). Reporting bias in medical research: A narrative review. Trials, 11, 37.
McQuay, H., & Moore, A. (1997). Using numerical results from systematic reviews in clinical practice. Annals of Internal Medicine, 126, 712–720. Retrieved from http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/painpag/NNTstuff/numeric.htm
Mendes, D., Alves, C., & Batel-Marques, F. (2017). Number needed to treat (NNT) in clinical literature: An appraisal. BMC Medicine, 15, 112. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-017-0875-8
Moher, D., Cook, D., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, F. (1999). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trails: The Quorom group statement. Lancet, 354(9193), 1896–1900.
Noblit, G., & Hare, R. (1988). Meta-ethnography: Synthesizing qualitative studies. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
O’Brien, S., & Yi, Q. L. (2016). How do I interpret a confidence interval? Transfusion, 56(7), 1680–1683.
Oxford University Centre for Evidence-based Medicine. (2016, May). The Oxford levels of evidence 2.1. Retrieved from https://www.cebm.net/2016/05/ocebm-levels-of-evidence/
Pratt, J., Rhine, J., Smith, B., Stuart, C., & Greenwood, J. (1940). Extra-sensory perception after sixty years. New York: Henry Holt.
Rose, S., Bisson, J., Churchill, R., & Wessely, S. (2002). Psychological debriefing for preventing post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, 2002(2), CD000560. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD000560
Sandelowski, M., & Barroso, J. (2007). Handbook for synthesizing qualitative research. New York: Springer Publishing.
Scargle, J. (2000). Publication bias: The “file-drawer problem” in scientific inference. Journal of Scientific Exploration, 14(2), 94–106.
Shea, B., Grimshaw, J., Wells, G., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., et al. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10
Sistrom, C., & Garvan, C. (2004). Proportions, odds, and risk. Radiology, 230(1), 12–19. https://doi.org/10.1148/radiol.2301031028
Smith, M., Glass, G., & Miller, T. (1980). The benefits of psychotherapy. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Sridharan, L., & Greenland, P. (2009). Editorial policies and publication bias: The importance of negative studies (editorial commentary). Archives of Internal Medicine, 169, 1022–1023.
Szumilas, M. (2010). Explaining odds ratios. Journal of the Canadian Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 19(3), 227–229.
Thombs, B., & Jewett, L. (2009). Letter: Analyzing effectiveness of long-term psychodynamic psychotherapy. Journal of the American Medical Association, 301(9), 930.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Drisko, J.W., Grady, M.D. (2019). Step 3 of EBP: Part 3—Meta-analysis and Systematic Reviews, Aggregating Research Results. In: Evidence-Based Practice in Clinical Social Work. Essential Clinical Social Work Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15224-6_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-15224-6_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-15223-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-15224-6
eBook Packages: Behavioral Science and PsychologyBehavioral Science and Psychology (R0)