PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Systematic Review”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 217 records · Page 12Linked to original sources
PubMed2006

Preoperative predictors for postoperative clinical outcome in lumbar spinal stenosis: systematic review.

STUDY DESIGN: Systematic review. OBJECTIVE: To define preoperative factors predicting clinical outcome after lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) surgery. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: LSS is the most common reason requiring lumbar spine surgery in adults older than 65 years. There are no published systematic reviews on this topic. METHODS: A literature search was done until April 30, 2005. Included were randomized controlled or controlled trials or prospective studies dealing with operated LSS. The preoperative predictors had to be presented. Included articles were assessed as high-quality (HQ) and low-quality studies. The predictors in HQ studies were considered as the main results. RESULTS: A total of 21 articles were included. Depression and walking capacity were predictors according to 2 HQ studies. Predictors reported in 1 HQ study were cardiovascular/overall comorbidity, disorder influencing walking ability, self-rated health, income, severity of central stenosis, and scoliosis. CONCLUSION: Depression, cardiovascular comorbidity, disorder influencing walking ability, and scoliosis predicted poorer subjective outcome. Better walking ability, self-rated health, higher income, less overall comorbidity, and pronounced central stenosis predicted better subjective outcome. Male gender and younger age predicted better postoperative walking ability. The predictive value may be outcome specific; thus, the use of all relevant outcome measures is recommended when studying predictors of LSS.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed2006

Comparison of reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in surgical journals: literature review.

OBJECTIVES: Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews of such trials are the gold standard for assessing the effectiveness of interventions. There have been concerns about the anecdotal evidence underpinning many of the interventions used and introduced into surgical care. The American College of Surgeons has prioritized the need for more trials and systematic reviews of trials. To investigate the assertion that the methodological quality of studies conducted in surgery is in general poor and to assess the possible impact of new policy developments in the US, we sought to compare the number and proportion of published randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in the leading two US and UK general surgical journals. Two reviewers systematically and independently hand searched all issues of these journals over a 12-month period to identify randomised controlled trials and systematic reviews. DESIGN: Systematic searching and independent abstraction of data from all volumes of the top two general surgical journals published in the USA and the UK in 2004. SETTING: 519 original reports in UK journals and 616 original reports in USA journals. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number and proportion of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. RESULTS: Overall, the proportion of randomized controlled trials in all four journals was 5.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 4.4-7.0) and 5.2% (95% CI 4.1-6.7) for systematic reviews. For journals published in the UK 29/519 (5.6%) of the publications were reports of randomized controlled trials, and for the USA journals this figure was 34/616 (5.5%); odds ratio [OR]=0.99, 95%CI 0.6-1.6; P=0.96. Systematic reviews were significantly more commonly reported in the UK journals: UK 37/519 (7.1%) versus USA 22/616 (3.6%); OR=0.48, 95%CI 0.3-0.8; P<0.01. CONCLUSIONS: The concerns expressed almost a decade ago remain valid: there are still very few reports of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews published in leading USA and UK surgical journals, with relatively little difference between these countries in the proportion of reported studies employing these designs. The American College of Surgeons initiative has yet to make an impact.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2026

Optimizing focal vibration therapy for balance and gait: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review evaluated the efficacy of focal (localized) vibration therapy (FVT) applied to muscles/tendons on balance, gait, and mobility, with a specific focus on defining optimal vibration protocols (frequency, amplitude, dosing) and muscle-targeting strategies to maximize sensorimotor recovery. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted across six databases (CINHAL, Embase, Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, CENTRAL) from January 2000 to May 2025. Studies were included if they involved human participants, applied FVT therapeutically, and reported balance, gait, or mobility outcomes. Data extraction included study characteristics, intervention protocols, and outcomes. Methodological quality was assessed using the PEDro scale. RESULTS: Sixty-two studies (n&#x202f;=&#x202f;2090 participants) were included. Methodological quality assessment (PEDro scale) indicated 44% of studies met high-quality standards. Biomechanical analysis identified the quadriceps, gastrocnemius/soleus, and plantar muscles as the most effective vibration sites, given their critical roles in gait propulsion and postural stability. The synthesis of protocol data indicated a promising therapeutic window characterized by a vibration frequency of 80-120&#x202f;Hz (primarily fixed sinusoidal waveforms at a single frequency) and an amplitude of 0.2-0.5&#x202f;mm (reported only in 12 studies; amplitude was not reported in 23 studies), applied bilaterally for a minimum of 3 sessions per week over 4-12 weeks, which could lead to improved balance and gait performance with benefits sustained for up to 5 months. CONCLUSION: FVT shows potential to improve gait and balance, particularly when targeting lower-extremity muscles with optimized vibration parameters. To advance the field, future research must prioritize the development of standardized protocols and investigate neurophysiological mechanisms to refine FVT as a precision bioengineering solution for mobility deficits.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials in rheumatology: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the (1) timeliness of publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in rheumatology, (2) impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on time to publication, and (3) factors associated with publication delays. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, EBM Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Scopus from January 1, 2018, to June 30, 2023 for Phase 3, superiority, parallel-design RCTs that evaluated any treatment for a rheumatologic illness or a rheumatologic treatment for COVID-19 and reported clinical primary efficacy outcome. Outcomes of interest were time to publication after trial completion and publication delay of >2 years after trial completion. RESULTS: 448 RCTs were included in this systematic review. Median time from completion to publication was 549 days and 65.9 % RCTs were published within 2 years of completion. Compared with RCTs on rheumatologic diseases, RCTs on COVID-19 were published sooner (253 vs. 549 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.49, 95 % CI 2.07 to 43.61). Compared with RCTs completed before March 1, 2020, RCTs completed after March 1, 2020, were published sooner (327 vs. 724 days; p < 0.001) and were more likely to be published within 2 years (adjusted OR 9.40, 95 % CI 5.14 to 17.21). Time from RCT completion to submission accounted for most (67 %) of the time to publication. CONCLUSIONS: Publication delay continues to be an important concern in dissemination of clinical research. Most of the delays in publication were attributable to delays in submission to journals after trial completion.

Humans↗
PubMed1999

[The practice of systematic reviews. I. Introduction].

A systematic review of the results of randomized, controlled trials employs explicit, systematic methods to produce unbiased and precise estimates of the effect of a treatment on outcomes of clinical importance. The results of such systematic reviews are of importance in that they inform providers and consumers about the effect of treatments and identify priorities for new research. The Cochrane Collaboration is a systematic programme to try to harness this valuable information. An overview of the actual status of systematic reviews of health care interventions is given and a miniseries of papers on systematic reviews is introduced.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2004

Survey of systematic reviews in dentistry.

BACKGROUND: Although systematic reviews are the backbone of evidence-based dentistry, they have appeared infrequently in the clinical dental literature and their importance may not be recognized by dentists. The authors describe the steps taken in systematic reviews and perform a literature survey to identify published systematic reviews of topics relevant to clinical dentistry. METHODS: The authors searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases of systematic reviews and abstracts of reviews of effectiveness, as well as identified reviews that were known to the authors but not found in the searches. Systematic reviews included in this survey stated the intention to identify all relevant articles within predefined limitations, applied defined exclusion and inclusion criteria, and presented complete raw or synthesized data from included studies. RESULTS: This literature survey identified 131 systematic reviews, 96 of which had direct clinical relevance. During the past 14 years, clinically relevant systematic reviews have been published with increasing frequency. These reviews vary in the types of studies included and the assessment of those studies. The results of the reviews also varied in their definitiveness, with 17 percent finding the evidence to be insufficient to answer the key question. An additional 50 percent of the 96 reviews hedged in answering the key question, by noting that the supporting evidence was weak in quality or limited in quantity. CONCLUSION: The number of systematic reviews that address clinical topics in dentistry is small but growing. However, the authors of more than one-half of these reviews believed that the evidence available to answer the key question was not strong. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: As systematic reviews continue to grow, dentistry will become better informed about the adequacy and congruence of the scientific evidence underpinning clinical practice.

Data Collection↗
PubMed1999

Systematic review of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction in advanced gynecological and gastrointestinal cancer. The Systematic Review Steering Committee.

OBJECTIVE: The objective was to locate, appraise, and summarize evidence from scientific studies on intestinal obstruction due to advanced gynecological and gastrointestinal cancer in order to assess the efficacy of surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS DATA SOURCES: A comprehensive list of studies was provided by an extensive search of electronic databases, relevant journals, bibliographic databases, conference proceedings, reference lists, the gray literature, personal contact, and the worldwide web. DATA SYNTHESIS: Two researchers extracted the data independently. Due to the methodological quality of the studies, only a qualitative assessment was possible. RESULTS: The role of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction remains controversial, and no firm conclusions from the many retrospective case series can be made. Control of symptoms varies from 42% to over 80%, although it is often unclear how symptoms were measured and whether the symptom scores used are validated. There is a large range in the rates of reobstruction, from 10 to 50%, although time to reobstruction was often not included. There is a wide range of postoperative morbidity and mortality, although again the definition of both of these surgical outcomes varied among many of the papers. CONCLUSION: The role of surgery in malignant bowel obstruction needs careful evaluation, using validated outcome measures on symptom control and quality of life scores. Further information would include reobstruction rates together with the morbidity associated with the various surgical procedures. Currently, bowel obstruction is managed empirically, and there are marked variations in clinical practice by different units. There needs to be a greater standardization of management so that comparisons between different series can be made.

Female↗
PubMed2005

Clinician's guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Systematic reviews answer clinical questions by finding and evaluating all available evidence. The systematic review is a powerful tool to help clinicians use evidence for patient care decisions. There are many sources for high-quality systematic reviews. Like all scientific studies there are potential biases, but systematic reviews have many benefits over narrative reviews. To ensure appropriate use of systematic reviews, clinicians must evaluate them in a logical, step-by-step manner. This article will review the benefits of systematic reviews, how to locate them, and how to evaluate their quality and results.

Decision Making↗
PubMed2001

Systematic reviews: the heart of evidence-based practice.

Research utilization approaches in nursing recently have been replaced by evidence-based practice (EBP) approaches. The heart of the new EBP paradigm is the systematic review. Systematic reviews are carefully synthesized research evidence designed to answer focused clinical questions. Systematic reviews (also known as evidence summaries and integrative reviews) implement recently developed scientific methods to summarize results from multiple research studies. Specific strategies are required for success in locating systematic reviews. Major sources of systematic reviews for use by advanced practice nurses in acute and critical care are the Online Journal of Knowledge Synthesis for Nursing, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Cochrane Library. This discussion describes systematic reviews as the pivotal point in today's paradigm of EBP and guides the advanced practice nurse in locating and accessing systematic reviews for use in practice.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed2005

A methodological review of how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: To review how heterogeneity has been examined in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies. DATA SOURCES: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination's Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). REVIEW METHODS: Systematic reviews that evaluated a diagnostic or screening test by including studies that compared a test with a reference test were identified from DARE. Reviews for which structured abstracts had been written up to December 2002 were screened for inclusion. Data extraction was undertaken using standardised data extraction forms. RESULTS: A total of 189 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. The median number of studies included was 18. Meta-analyses have a higher number with a median of 22 studies compared with 11 for narrative reviews. Graphical plots to demonstrate the spread in study results were provided in 56% of meta-analyses; in 79% these were plots of sensitivity and specificity in the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) space. Statistical tests to identify heterogeneity were used in 32% of reviews: 41% of meta-analyses and 9% of reviews using narrative syntheses. The chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test to assess heterogeneity in individual aspects of test performance were the most common. In contrast, only 16% of meta-analyses used correlation coefficients to test for a threshold effect. A narrative synthesis was used in 30% of reviews. Of the meta-analyses, 52% carried out statistical pooling alone, 18% conducted only summary receiver operator characteristic (SROC) analyses and 30% used both methods of statistical synthesis. For those undertaking SROC analyses, the main differences between the models used were the weights chosen for the regression models, although in 42% of cases the use of, or choice of, weight was not provided. The proportion of reviews using statistical pooling alone has declined from 67% in 1995 to 42% in 2001, with a corresponding increase in the use of SROC methods, from 33% to 58%. However, two-thirds of those using SROC methods also carried out statistical pooling rather than presenting only SROC models. Reviews using SROC analyses also tended to present their results as some combination of sensitivity and specificity rather than using alternative, perhaps less clinically meaningful, means of data presentation such as diagnostic odds ratios. Three-quarters of meta-analyses attempted to investigate statistically possible sources of variation, using subgroup analysis or regression analysis. The impact of clinical or socio-demographic variables was investigated in 74% of these reviews and test- or threshold-related variables in 79%. At least one quality-related variable was investigated in 63% of reviews. Within this subset, the most commonly considered variables were the use of blinding, sample size, the reference test used and the avoidance of verification bias. CONCLUSIONS: The emphasis on pooling individual aspects of diagnostic test performance and the under-use of statistical tests and graphical approaches to identify heterogeneity perhaps reflect the uncertainty in the most appropriate methods to use and also greater familiarity with more traditional indices of test accuracy. This indicates the difficulty and complexity of carrying out such reviews. In these cases it is strongly suggested that meta-analyses are carried out with the involvement of a statistician familiar with the field. Further methodological work on the statistical methods available for combining diagnostic test accuracy studies is needed, as are sufficiently large, prospectively designed primary studies of diagnostic test accuracy comparing two or more tests for the same target disorder. Use of individual patient data meta-analysis in diagnostic test accuracy reviews should be explored to allow heterogeneity to be considered in more detail.

Diagnostic Tests, Routine↗
PubMed2003

Systematic review and economic decision modelling for the prevention and treatment of influenza A and B.

OBJECTIVES: To establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of amantadine, oseltamivir and zanamivir compared to standard care for the treatment and prevention of influenza. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases. Reference lists of identified articles and key publications. Relevant trials. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomised evidence was undertaken to investigate the effectiveness of oseltamivir and zanamivir compared to standard care for treatment and prophylaxis use for influenza A and B. An additional systematic review of the effectiveness of amantadine for treatment and prophylaxis use for influenza A in children and the elderly was also undertaken. Economic decision models were constructed to examine the cost-effectiveness and cost-utility of the alternative strategies for treating and preventing influenza A and/or B. This was informed by the systematic reviews outlined above and additional sources of information where required. RESULTS: The systematic review of the treatment of influenza found that oseltamivir reduced the median duration of symptoms in the influenza positive group by 1.38 days for the otherwise healthy adult population, 0.5 day for the high-risk population, and 1.5 days for the children population. This compared to 1.26 days, 1.99 days, and 1.3 for the similar groups for inhaled zanamivir. The systematic review of the prevention of influenza found that the relative risk reduction for oseltamivir was between approximately 75 and 90% and approximately 70 and 90% for inhaled zanamivir depending on the strategy adopted and the population under consideration. For the economic model a base case was constructed that focussed primarily on the health benefits generated by shortening the period of influenza illness. This base case found that, compared to standard care, the estimated cost per quality-adjusted life year ranged from pound 6190 to pound 31,529 for healthy adults, from pound 4535 to pound 22,502 for the 'high-risk' group, from pound 6117 to pound 30,825 for children, and from pound 5057 to pound 21,781 for the residential care elderly population. The base case model included valuations of the health effects of pneumonia (and otitis media in the children's model) based on observed rates in the trials. However it does not include the cost of hospitalisations as only very limited data was available for the effects of antivirals on hospitalisation rates. As for mortality rates, deaths from influenza were rare in trials of neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs). Therefore, suitable data on mortality were not available from these sources. As avoided hospitalisation costs and avoided mortality are potentially important we also carried out sensitivity analysis that involved extrapolating the observed reductions in pneumonias in the NI trials to hospitalisations and deaths. In all four models the cost-effectiveness of NIs is substantially improved by this extrapolation. For prophylaxis, antiviral drugs were compared with vaccination as preventative strategies. In all cases the cost-effectiveness ratios for vaccination were either low or cost-saving. In the base case the cost-effectiveness of antivirals was relatively unfavourable, there were scenarios relating to the elderly residential care model where antivirals as an additional strategy could be cost-effective. CONCLUSIONS: The cost-effectiveness varies markedly between the intervention strategies and target populations. The estimate of cost effectiveness is also sensitive to variations in certain key parameters of the model, for example the proportion of all influenza-like illnesses that are influenza. The effectiveness literature that was used to inform the economic decision model spans many decades and hence great caution should be exercised when interpreting the results of indirect intervention comparisons from the model. Further randomised trials making direct comparisons would be valuable to verify the model's findings.

Antiviral Agents↗
PubMed1998

Incorporating systematic reviews into nursing education.

Systematic reviews of research are important to the quality of nursing care. A number of sources of systematic reviews of nursing research are available. Nursing education programs should introduce students to these as crucial resources for utilizing research in practice. This article describes sources of systematic reviews and proposes teaching strategies for incorporating the use of systematic reviews into undergraduate and graduate programs. Nurse educators are invited to contribute to this ongoing column their accounts of successful teaching strategies.

Journal Article↗
PubMed2006

Clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of tests for the diagnosis and investigation of urinary tract infection in children: a systematic review and economic model.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of tests for detecting urinary tract infection (UTI) in children under 5 years of age and to evaluate the effectiveness of tests used to investigate further children with confirmed UTI. Also, to evaluate the effectiveness of following up children with UTI and the cost-effectiveness of diagnostic and imaging tests for the diagnosis and follow-up of UTI in children under 5. An additional objective was to develop a preliminary diagnostic algorithm for healthcare professionals. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases were searched up to the end of 2002/early 2003. Consultation with experts in the field. REVIEW METHODS: A systematic review was undertaken using published guidelines and results were analysed according to test grouping: diagnosis of UTI and further investigation of UTI. The cost-effectiveness results from existing evaluations were synthesised. A separate cost-effectiveness model was developed using the best available evidence, in part derived from the results of the systematic review, to illustrate the potential cost-effectiveness of some alternative management strategies in a UK setting. The results of the systematic review were used to propose diagnostic algorithms for the diagnosis and further investigation of UTI in children. Economic analyses did not contribute directly to the development of these algorithms. RESULTS: The studies included in the review provided very little data on the accuracy of clinical investigations for the diagnosis of UTI, and criteria for clinical suspicion of UTI were not further defined. The majority of studies included in the review found that clean voided midstream urine (CVU) samples had similar accuracy to suprapubic aspiration (SPA) samples when cultured with the advantage of being a non-invasive collection method that can be used in the GP's surgery. Pad, nappy or bag specimens may be appropriate methods for obtaining a urine sample in non-toilet-trained children, although only limited data were available. Although the glucose test was reported to have the highest accuracy in terms of both ruling in and ruling out disease, only a limited number of studies of this test were included and these were conducted over 30 years ago. Dipstick tests are easy to perform in the GP's surgery, give an immediate result and are relatively cheap. The results of the systematic review showed that a dipstick for leucocyte esterase (LE) and nitrite, where both test results are interpreted in combination, was a good test both for ruling in (both positive) and ruling out (both negative) a UTI. A dipstick positive for either LE or nitrite and negative for the other provides inconclusive diagnostic information and further testing is therefore required in these patients. Microscopy is more time consuming and expensive to perform than a dipstick test, but potentially quicker and cheaper than culture. As with dipstick tests, a combination of microscopy for pyuria and bacteriuria can be used accurately to rule in and rule out a UTI. An indeterminate test result is again obtained if microscopy is positive for either pyuria or bacteriuria, and negative for the other. Confirmatory culture is required in these patients. In patients considered to have a UTI, further culture to determine antibiotic sensitivities may be an option to inform treatment decisions. Only one study satisfied the inclusion criteria of the economic review and the review highlighted a number of potential limitations of this study for NHS decision-making. A separate decision-analytic model was therefore developed to provide a more reliable estimate of the optimal strategy regarding the diagnosis and further investigation of children under 5 with suspected UTI from the perspective of the NHS. The economic model found that the optimal diagnostic strategy for children presenting with symptoms suggestive of UTI depends on a number of key factors. These included the relevant subgroup of children concerned, in terms of gender and age, and the health service's maximum willingness to pay for an additional quality-adjusted life-year. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the systematic review were used to derive an algorithm for the diagnosis of UTI in children under 5. This algorithm represents the conclusions of the review in terms of effective practice. There were insufficient data to propose an algorithm for the further investigation of UTI in children under 5. The quality assessment highlighted several areas that could be improved upon in future diagnostic accuracy studies.

Algorithms↗
PubMed2003

How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine.

Systematic reviews are considered the most reliable tool to summarize existing evidence. To determine whether reviews that address the same questions can produce different answers we examined systematic reviews of herbal medicine, homeopathy, and acupuncture taken from a previously established database. Information on literature searching, inclusion criteria, selection process, quality assessment, data extraction, methods to summarize primary studies, number of included studies, results and conclusions was compared qualitatively. Seventeen topics (eight on acupuncture, six on herbal medicines, three on homeopathy) had been addressed by 2-5 systematic reviews each. The number of primary studies in the reviews varied greatly within most topics. The most obvious reason for discrepancies between the samples was different inclusion criteria (in thirteen topics). Methods of literature searching may have contributed with some topics but the equivalence of the searches was difficult to assess. Differences were frequently observed in other methodological aspects, in results and in conclusions. This analysis shows that, at least in the three areas examined, systematic reviews often differ considerably. Readers should be aware that apparently minor decisions in the review process can have major impact.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2006

Pitfalls in systematic reviews.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The term 'evidence-based medicine' means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. An important source for those who wish to practise evidence-based medicine is the systematic review. Systematic reviews, however, are not without their pitfalls. This review will consider the problems and challenges for researchers and users of systematic reviews. RECENT FINDINGS: Failure to adequately assess study quality, funding bias, publication bias, reliance on outcomes that provide no help in clinical decision-making, analysis errors and the incorrect use of evidence statements are all common pitfalls in systematic reviews. SUMMARY: There are several steps in completing a systematic review. These include developing the clinical question, searching for all available literature, study selection, assessment of study quality, data extraction, data analysis, interpreting the results, implications for practice and further research, and finally updating the review in a timely manner. Authors of systematic reviews need to be aware of these problems and attempt to address them so that research evidence may be of clinical value to both providers and consumers of healthcare.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Computer-generated patient education materials: do they affect professional practice? A systematic review.

A systematic search of seven electronic databases was done to identify randomized controlled trials that assessed the effect of computer-generated patient education material (PEM) on professional practice. Three studies met the authors' criteria. All three studies involved preventive care. All used a complex intervention of which computer-generated PEM was a major component. Improvements in practice were seen in all studies, although these gains were generally modest. One study showed improvement in patient outcomes. Mann-Whitney statistics calculated for the studies' outcome measures ranged from 0.48 to 0.66, equivalent to risk differences of -4 to 32 percent. Computer-generated PEM seems to have a small, positive effect on professional practice. The small number of included studies and the complex nature of the interventions makes it difficult to draw conclusions about the ability of computer-generated PEM to change professional practice. Future work should involve well-defined interventions that can be clearly evaluated in terms of effect and cost.

Humans↗
PubMed2003

Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Systematic reviews of original research are increasing in number. Systematic reviews are distinct from narrative reviews because they address a specific clinical question, require a comprehensive literature search, use explicit selection criteria to identify relevant studies, assess the methodologic quality of included studies, explore differences among study results, and either qualitatively or quantitatively synthesize study results. Systematic reviews that quantitatively pool results of more than one study are called meta-analyses. Several organizations are collaboratively involved in producing high quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Familiarity with how to do a systematic review and meta-analysis will lead to greater skill in using this type of article. For clinicians, teachers, and investigators, systematic reviews and meta-analyses are useful sources of evidence.

Decision Making↗