Systematic reviews and cancer research: a suggested stepwise approach.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Kelley GA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5834879 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Systematic reviews and cancer research: a suggested stepwise approach.
Kelley George A GA Kelley Kristi S KS
BMC cancer 20180302 1
Systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis, play an important role today in synthesizing cancer research and are frequently used to guide decision-making. However, there is now an increase in the number of systematic reviews on the same topic, thereby necessitating a systematic review of previous systematic reviews. With a focus on cancer, the purpose of this article is to provide a practical, stepwise approach for systematically reviewing the literature and publishing the results. This s ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundBreast cancer (BC) is the most common type of cancer in women worldwide. Post-treatment, patients suffer from side effects and have various rehabilitation needs, which means that individualization is fundamental for optimal rehabilitation. This systematic review (SR) of SRs aims to evaluate the current evidence on rehabilitation interventions in female patients following BC treatment.MethodsFull-text SRs published in English from 2009 were searched in Embase, PubMed, Cinahl Complete, PsycINFO, AMED, SCOPUS, and Cochrane Library.Inclusion criteriaSRs of randomized or non-randomized controlled trials investigating the effects of rehabilitation interventions in women following BC treatment. All outcomes were considered. Methodological quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR 2 tool and interrater agreement was evaluated. Out of 1269 citations retrieved, 37 SRs were included.ResultsFive rehabilitation areas were identified: exercise and physical activity (PA), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), yoga, lymphoedema treatment, and psychosocial interventions. The most solid evidence was found in exercise/PA and yoga. Exercise interventions improved outcomes such as shoulder mobility, lymphoedema, pain, fatigue and quality of life (QoL). Effects of yoga were shown on QoL, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, fatigue and gastrointestinal symptoms. The effect of CAM was shown on nausea, pain, fatigue, anger and anxiety but these results need to be interpreted with caution because of low methodological quality in included studies in the SRs. Among the lymphoedema treatments, positive effects were seen for resistance training on volume reduction and muscle strength and psychosocial interventions such as cognitive behavioural therapy had positive effects on QoL, anxiety, depression and mood disturbance.ConclusionsThis SR of SRs show solid positive effects of exercise/PA and yoga for women following BC treatment, and provides extended knowledge of the effects of CAM, yoga, lymphoedema treatment and psychosocial interventions. It is evident that more than one intervention could have positive effects on a specific symptom and that the effects depend not only on intervention type but also on how and when the intervention is provided. The results can be used as a foundation for individualized rehabilitation and aid health care professionals in meeting patients' individual needs and preferences.Trial registrationPROSPERO ( CRD42017060912 ).
| S-EPMC6528312 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe Institute of Medicine recently recommended that comparative effectiveness research (CER) should involve input from consumers. While systematic reviews are a major component of CER, little is known about consumer involvement.ObjectiveTo explore current approaches to involving consumers in US-based and key international organizations and groups conducting or commissioning systematic reviews ('organizations').DesignIn-depth, semi-structured interviews with key informants and review of organizations' websites.Setting and participantsSeventeen highly regarded US-based and international (Cochrane Collaboration, Campbell Collaboration) organizations.ResultsOrganizations that usually involve consumers (seven of 17 in our sample) involve them at a programmatic level in the organization or in individual reviews through one-time consultation or on-going collaboration. For example, consumers may suggest topics, provide input on the key questions of the review, provide comments on draft protocols and reports, serve as co-authors or on an advisory group. Organizations involve different types of consumers (individual patients, consumer advocates, families and caregivers), recruiting them mainly through patient organizations and consumer networks. Some offer training in research methods, and one developed training for researchers on how to involve consumers. Little formal evaluation of the effects of consumer involvement is being carried out.ConclusionsConsumers are currently involved in systematic reviews in a variety of ways and for various reasons. Assessing which approaches are most effective in achieving different aims of consumer involvement is now required to inform future recommendations on consumer involvement in CER.
| S-EPMC5060681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimTo compare the effectiveness of Peyton's four-step approach for teaching resuscitation skills with alternative approaches.MethodsFor this systematic review, we followed the PICOST format (population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design, timeframe) using Peyton's four-step approach as the standard. We included all studies analyzing skills training related to resuscitation and First Aid in any educational setting. Eligible were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies (non-randomized controlled trials, interrupted time series, controlled before-and-after studies, cohort studies, published conference abstracts, and case series where n ≥ 5). We excluded unpublished results (e.g. trial protocols), commentaries, editorials, reviews. Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL, and Cochrane were searched from inception until November 10, 2020 (updated November 25, 2022) for publications in all languages as long as there was an English abstract. Titles and abstracts of the papers retrieved were screened, and eligible publications were analysed in full text. From the final set of papers, data were extracted into a spreadsheet, subsequently risk of bias assessment was performed (using RoB2 and ROBINS-I), and the certainty of evidence (using GRADE) for each paper was assessed. Screening of studies, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and assessment of certainty of evidence were all performed by two independent researchers. This review was conducted in adherence with PRISMA standards and was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42023377398).ResultsOverall, the search identified 2,574 studies from which 17 were included in the final analysis (14 RCTs, and 3 non-RCTs). The studies involved a total of 2,906 participants from various populations (from lay persons to health care professionals) and analysed nine different resuscitation skills being taught (ranging from chest compressions to needle cricotomy). The alternative teaching approaches ranged from two-steps to five-steps with various modifications of single steps. High methodological and clinical heterogeneity precluded a meta-analysis from being conducted. The risk of bias assessment showed considerable variation between the studies ranging from 'low' to 'serious'. Across all studies, certainty of evidence was rated as very low due to imprecision and inconsistency. Overall, 14 out of 17 studies showed no difference in skill acquisition or retention when comparing Peyton's four steps to other stepwise approaches.ConclusionsVery low certainty evidence suggest that Peyton's four-step approach was not more effective in resuscitation skills training compared to alternative approaches.FundingNone.
| S-EPMC10477803 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting.This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers.A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards.This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods.
| S-EPMC4855695 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundImplications for research (IfR) sections are an important part of systematic reviews (SRs) to inform health care researchers and policy makers. PRISMA 2020 recommends reporting IfR, while Cochrane Reviews require a separate chapter on IfR. However, it is unclear to what extent SRs discuss IfR. We aimed i) to assess whether SRs include an IfR statement and ii) to evaluate which elements informed IfR statements.MethodsWe conducted a meta-research study based on SRs of interventions in advanced cancer patients from a previous project (CRD42019134904). As suggested in the Cochrane Handbook, we assessed if the following predefined variables were referred to in IfR statements: patient, intervention, control, outcome (PICO) and study design; concepts underlying Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) domains: risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision, publication bias. Data were independently extracted by three reviewers after piloting the data extraction form. Discrepancies were resolved in weekly in-depth discussions.ResultsWe included 261 SRs. The majority evaluated a pharmacological intervention (n = 244, 93.5%); twenty-nine were Cochrane Reviews (11.1%). Four out of five SRs included an IfR statement (n = 210, 80.5%). IfR statements commonly addressed 'intervention' (n = 121, 57.6%), 'patient ' (n = 113, 53.8%), and 'study design' (n = 107, 51.0%). The most frequent PICO and study design combinations were 'patient and intervention ' (n = 71, 33.8%) and 'patient, intervention and study design ' (n = 34, 16.2%). Concepts underlying GRADE domains were rarely used for informing IfR recommendations: 'risk of bias ' (n = 2, 1.0%), and 'imprecision ' (n = 1, 0.5%), 'inconsistency ' (n = 1, 0.5%). Additional elements informing IfR were considerations on cost effectiveness (n = 9, 4.3%), reporting standards (n = 4, 1.9%), and individual patient data meta-analysis (n = 4, 1.9%).ConclusionAlthough about 80% of SRs included an IfR statement, the reporting of PICO elements varied across SRs. Concepts underlying GRADE domains were rarely used to derive IfR. Further work needs to assess the generalizability beyond SRs in advanced cancer patients. We suggest that more specific guidance on which and how IfR elements to report in SRs of interventions needs to be developed. Utilizing PICO elements and concepts underlying GRADE according to the Cochrane Handbook to state IfR seems to be a reasonable approach in the interim.RegistrationCRD42019134904.
| S-EPMC10731681 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews can serve as a tool in translation of basic life sciences research from laboratory to human research and healthcare. The extent to which reviews of animal research are systematic and unbiased is not known.MethodsWe searched, without language restrictions, Medline, Embase, bibliographies of known reviews (1996-2004) and contacted experts to identify citations of reviews of basic science literature which, as a minimum, performed search of a publicly available resource. From these we identified reviews of animal studies where laboratory variables were measured or where treatments were administered to live animals to examine their effects, and compared them with reviews of bench studies in which human or animal tissues, cell systems or organ preparations were examined in laboratories to better understand mechanisms of diseases.ResultsSystematic reviews of animal studies often lacked methodological features such as specification of a testable hypothesis (9/30, 30%); literature search without language restriction (8/30, 26.6%); assessment of publication bias (5/30, 16.6%), study validity (15/30, 50%) and heterogeneity (10/30, 33.3%); and meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis (12/30, 40%). Compared to reviews of bench studies, they were less prone to bias as they specified the question (96.6% vs. 80%, p = 0.04), searched multiple databases (60% vs. 26.6%, p = 0.01), assessed study quality (50% vs. 20%, p = 0.01), and explored heterogeneity (33.3% vs. 2.2%, p = 0.001) more often.ConclusionThere seems to be a gradient of frequency of methodological weaknesses among reviews: Attempted systematic reviews of whole animal research tend to be better than those of bench studies, though compared to systematic reviews of human clinical trials they are apparently poorer. There is a need for rigour when reviewing animal research.
| S-EPMC1435907 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe methodological quality of animal studies is an important factor hampering the translation of results from animal studies to a clinical setting. Systematic reviews of animal studies may provide a suitable method to assess and thereby improve their methodological quality.ObjectivesThe aims of this study were: 1) to evaluate the risk of bias assessment in animal-based systematic reviews, and 2) to study the internal validity of the primary animal studies included in these systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe systematically searched Pubmed and Embase for SRs of preclinical animal studies published between 2005 and 2012.ResultsA total of 91 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed in 48 (52.7%) of these 91 systematic reviews. Thirty-three (36.3%) SRs provided sufficient information to evaluate the internal validity of the included studies. Of the evaluated primary studies, 24.6% was randomized, 14.6% reported blinding of the investigator/caretaker, 23.9% blinded the outcome assessment, and 23.1% reported drop-outs.ConclusionsTo improve the translation of animal data to clinical practice, systematic reviews of animal studies are worthwhile, but the internal validity of primary animal studies needs to be improved. Furthermore, risk of bias should be assessed by systematic reviews of animal studies to provide insight into the reliability of the available evidence.
| S-EPMC3966727 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To study whether systematic reviewers apply procedures to counter-balance some common forms of research malpractice such as not publishing completed research, duplicate publications, or selective reporting of outcomes, and to see whether they identify and report misconduct.Cross-sectional analysis of systematic reviews and survey of their authors.118 systematic reviews published in four journals (Ann Int Med, BMJ, JAMA, Lancet), and the Cochrane Library, in 2013.Number (%) of reviews that applied procedures to reduce the impact of: (1) publication bias (through searching of unpublished trials), (2) selective outcome reporting (by contacting the authors of the original studies), (3) duplicate publications, (4) sponsors' and (5) authors' conflicts of interest, on the conclusions of the review, and (6) looked for ethical approval of the studies. Number (%) of reviewers who suspected misconduct are reported. The procedures applied were compared across journals.80 (68%) reviewers confirmed their data. 59 (50%) reviews applied three or more procedures; 11 (9%) applied none. Unpublished trials were searched in 79 (66%) reviews. Authors of original studies were contacted in 73 (62%). Duplicate publications were searched in 81 (69%). 27 reviews (23%) reported sponsors of the included studies; 6 (5%) analysed their impact on the conclusions of the review. Five reviews (4%) looked at conflicts of interest of study authors; none of them analysed their impact. Three reviews (2.5%) looked at ethical approval of the studies. Seven reviews (6%) suspected misconduct; only 2 (2%) reported it explicitly. Procedures applied differed across the journals.Only half of the systematic reviews applied three or more of the six procedures examined. Sponsors, conflicts of interest of authors and ethical approval remain overlooked. Research misconduct is sometimes identified, but rarely reported. Guidance on when, and how, to report suspected misconduct is needed.
| S-EPMC4785311 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians (hereafter respectfully Indigenous Australians) claim that they have been over-researched without corresponding research benefit. This claim raises two questions. The first, which has been covered to some extent in the literature, is about what type(s) of research are likely to achieve benefits for Indigenous people. The second is how researchers report the impact of their research for Indigenous people. This systematic review of Indigenous health reviews addresses the second enquiry.MethodsFourteen electronic databases were systematically searched for Indigenous health reviews which met eligibility criteria. Two reviewers assessed their characteristics and methodological rigour using an a priori protocol. Three research hypotheses were stated and tested: (1) reviews address Indigenous health priority needs; (2) reviews adopt best practice guidelines on research conduct and reporting in respect to methodological transparency and rigour, as well as acceptability and appropriateness of research implementation to Indigenous people; and (3) reviews explicitly report the incremental impacts of the included studies and translation of research. We argue that if review authors explicitly address each of these three hypotheses, then the impact of research for Indigenous peoples' health would be explicated.ResultsSeventy-six reviews were included; comprising 55 journal articles and 21 Australian Government commissioned evidence review reports. While reviews are gaining prominence and recognition in Indigenous health research and increasing in number, breadth and complexity, there is little reporting of the impact of health research for Indigenous people. This finding raises questions about the relevance of these reviews for Indigenous people, their impact on policy and practice and how reviews have been commissioned, reported and evaluated.ConclusionsThe findings of our study serve two main purposes. First, we have identified knowledge and methodological gaps in documenting Indigenous health research impact that can be addressed by researchers and policy makers. Second, the findings provide the justification for developing a framework allowing researchers and funding bodies to structure future Indigenous health research to improve the reporting and assessment of impact over time.
| S-EPMC5361858 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Similar to systematic reviews (SRs) in clinical fields, preclinical SRs address a specific research area, furnishing information on current knowledge, possible gaps, and potential methodological flaws of study design, conduct, and report. One of the main goals of preclinical SRs is to identify aspiring treatment strategies and evaluate if currently available data is solid enough to translate to clinical trials or highlight the gaps, thus justifying the need for new studies. It is imperative to rigorously follow the methodological standards that are widely available. These include registration of the protocol and adherence to guidelines for assessing the risk of bias, study quality, and certainty of evidence. A special consideration should be made for pediatric SRs, clinical and preclinical, due to the unique characteristics of this age group. These include rationale for intervention and comparison of primary and secondary outcomes. Outcomes measured should acknowledge age-related physiological changes and maturational processes of different organ systems. It is crucial to choose the age of the animals appropriately and its possible correspondence for specific pediatric age groups. The findings of well-conducted SRs of preclinical studies have the potential to provide a reliable evidence synthesis to guide the design of future preclinical and clinical studies. IMPACT: This narrative review highlights the importance of rigorous design, conduct and reporting of preclinical primary studies and systematic reviews. A special consideration should be made for pediatric systematic reviews of preclinical studies, due to the unique characteristics of this age group.
| S-EPMC11499280 | biostudies-literature