PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Systematic Reviews as Topic”

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 37 records · Page 2Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

The effectiveness of public health nursing: the problems and solutions in carrying out a review of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: In 1999 the Scottish Office, United Kingdom, intimated that the Chief Nursing Officer would undertake a policy review of nurses' contribution to improving the public's health. The importance of reviewing the scientific literature on the effectiveness of public health nursing was recognized as a crucial part of the policy review. A final report was expected within a 6-month period. The reason for the short time period was to fit the policy-making schedule. This paper discusses our literature review for this work. AIMS: The aim was to conduct a review of the international scientific literature that gave the greatest coverage of the role and potential role of nurses in improving the public's health in relation to 14 major health topics. This paper describes the methods used, outlines the rationale underpinning the methods, discusses the problems encountered and offers solutions to some of these problems. METHODS: The initial search for relevant scientific literature revealed 709 suitable primary papers. Reviewing this number was beyond the time limit set by the funding organization. Therefore, a decision was made to concentrate on the evidence contained in systematic reviews. Reviewing systematic reviews raises a number of methodological problems to which there are often no predetermined solutions, such as ensuring that important interventions are included, assessing the relevance and quality of the reviews, and grading the strength of the evidence. DISCUSSION: Reviewing systematic reviews provides the scope to increase the number of topics that might be covered. However, it is possible that a number of interventions may be missed, particularly those that are not subject to review or those assessed using qualitative techniques. The definition of public health nursing used in the present study was also restrictive, and could be widened to include community interventions. Finally, assessing the quality of reviews and grading the evidence proved difficult and there is lack of consensus on how these tasks should be achieved. Nevertheless, the review presented policy makers with accessible information on a large number of relevant international studies.

Delivery of Health Care↗
PubMed2001

A critique of research on the use of activities with persons with Alzheimer's disease: a systematic literature review.

TOPIC: The topic of this paper concerns the use of therapeutic activities with persons with Alzheimer's disease (AD). PURPOSE: The purpose is to present a critique of the research on these activities, with an emphasis on methodology. ORGANIZING CONSTRUCT AND SCOPE: Nursing literature identifies a number of purposes for activities for persons with AD. Activities should be therapeutic, enhance quality of life, arrest mental decline, and generate and maintain self-esteem. Other purposes of activities for this population are to create immediate pleasure, re-establish dignity, provide meaningful tasks, restore roles, and enable friendships. Activities may be more important to the psychological state of well-being of persons with dementia than the general physical and social environments in which they live. SOURCES: The literature reviewed was identified with the use of computer data bases (Medline - 1991-March 2001; Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) - 1991-March 2001; and PsychLit - 1988-March 1999). In addition, data bases of Science Citation Index and Social Science Citation Indexes as they appear in the computer base, Web of Science, were searched for 1992-2001. The time period for each search was determined by the manner in which the literature was grouped for inclusion in the particular database. Hand searches of 11 selected journals included the years 1993-2001. The search dates were selected to reflect the time period when the largest number of studies on activities and AD have appeared in the professional literature. We critique a total of 33 studies. CONCLUSIONS: While researchers have demonstrated interest in the use of activities with persons with AD, theoretical and methodological difficulties, unclear findings and gaps exist, including a lack of emphasis on gender, ethnic, racial or cultural differences. Sampling issues involving diagnosis and staging complicate the research on individuals with AD. Case studies, single subject experimental designs, and tightly controlled quasi-experimental and experimental designs are needed to advance knowledge in this important area.

Alzheimer Disease↗
PubMed2005

Systematic review of dressings and topical agents for surgical wounds healing by secondary intention.

BACKGROUND: The best dressing for postoperative wounds healing by secondary intention is unknown. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted to assess the effectiveness of dressings and topical agents on such wounds. Main endpoints were wound healing, pain, patient satisfaction, costs and hospital stay. Systematic methodological appraisal and data extraction were performed by independent reviewers. RESULTS: Fourteen reports of 13 randomized clinical trials on dressings or topical agents (gauze, foam, bead, alginate and hydrocolloid dressing) for postoperative wounds healing by secondary intention were identified; they were of weak methodological quality. In general, no statistically significant differences in wound healing were found for various dressing comparisons (11 of 13 trials). Patients experienced significantly more pain (four of six trials) and were less satisfied when gauze was used (three of six trials). Gauze was inexpensive, but its use was associated with significantly more nursing time than dressing with foam (two of three trials). No substantial differences in hospital stay were found (four of five trials). CONCLUSIONS: Only small, poor-quality trials exist, rendering the evidence insufficient. Foam is best studied as an alternative to gauze and appears to be preferable in terms of pain reduction, patient satisfaction and nursing time.

Administration, Topical↗
PubMed2004

Topical NSAIDs for chronic musculoskeletal pain: systematic review and meta-analysis.

UNLABELLED: : A previous systematic review reported that topical NSAIDs were effective in relieving pain in chronic conditions like osteoarthritis and tendinitis. More trials, a better understanding of trial quality and bias, and a reclassification of certain drugs necessitate a new review. METHODS: Studies were identified by searching electronic databases, and writing to manufacturers. We identified randomised, double blind trials comparing topical NSAID with either placebo or another active treatment, in adults with chronic pain. The primary outcome was a reduction in pain of approximately 50% at two weeks, and secondary outcomes were local and systemic adverse events and adverse event-related withdrawals. Relative benefit and number-needed-to-treat (NNT), and relative harm and number-needed-to-harm (NNH) were calculated, and the effects of trial quality, validity and size, outcome reported, and condition treated, were examined by sensitivity analyses. RESULTS: Twelve new trials were added to 13 trials from a previous review. Fourteen double blind placebo-controlled trials had information from almost 1,500 patients. Topical NSAID was significantly better than placebo with relative benefit 1.9 (95% confidence interval 1.7 to 2.2), NNT 4.6 (95% confidence interval 3.8 to 5.9). Results were not affected by trial quality, validity or size, outcome reported, or condition treated. Three trials with 764 patients comparing a topical with an oral NSAID found no difference in efficacy. Local adverse events (6%), systemic adverse events (3%), or the numbers withdrawing due to an adverse event were the same for topical NSAID and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Topical NSAIDs were effective and safe in treating chronic musculoskeletal conditions for two weeks. Larger and longer trials are necessary to fully elucidate the place of topical NSAIDs in clinical practice.

Administration, Topical↗
PubMed1995

Systematic review of clinical efficacy of topical treatments for head lice.

OBJECTIVES: To collect and evaluate all trials on clinical efficacy of topical treatments for head lice. DESIGN: Systematic review of randomised trials identified from following data sources: Medline, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, Science Citation Index, letters to key authors and companies, and hand search of journals. SETTING: Trials in schools or communities. SUBJECTS: Patients infested with lice. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Cure rate (absence of live lice and viable nits) on day 14 after treatment. RESULTS: Total of 28 trials were identified and evaluated according to eight general and 18 lice specific criteria. Of the 14 trials rated as having low to moderate risk of bias, seven were selected as they used the main outcome measure. These seven trials described 21 evaluations of eight different compounds and placebo (all but two evaluations were of single applications). Only permethrin 1% creme rinse showed efficacy in more than two studies with the lower 95% confidence limit of cure rate above 90%. CONCLUSIONS: Only for permethrin has sufficient evidence been published to show efficacy. Less expensive treatments such as malathion and carbaryl need more evidence of efficacy. Lindane and the natural pyrethrines are not sufficiently effective to justify their use.

Administration, Topical↗
PubMed2005

Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the methodologic quality of meta-analyses of general surgery topics published in peer-reviewed journals. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: Systematic reviews and meta-analysis are used to seek, summarize, and interpret primary studies on a given topic. Accordingly, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of high-quality primary studies may be the highest level of evidence for issues of prevention and treatment in evidence-based medicine. However, not all published meta-analyses are rigorously performed. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (from January 1, 1997, to September 1, 2002) and reference lists and solicited general surgery specialists to identify relevant meta-analyses. Inclusion criteria were use of meta-analytic methods to pool the results of primary studies in general surgery on issues of diagnosis, causation, prognosis, or treatment. Our search strategies identified 487 potentially relevant articles. After excluding articles based on a priori criteria, 51 meta-analyses fulfilled eligibility criteria. In duplicate and independently, 2 reviewers assessed the quality of these meta-analyses using a 10-item index called the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire. RESULTS: Overall concordance between 2 independent reviewers was good (interobserver agreement 81%, and a kappa of 0.62 (95% CI 0.55-0.69). Of 51 relevant articles, 38 were published in surgical journals. Most studies had major methodologic flaws (median score of 3.3, scale of 1-7). Factors associated with low overall scientific quality included the absence of any prior meta-analyses publications by authors and meta-analyses produced by surgical department members without external collaboration. CONCLUSIONS: This critical appraisal of meta-analyses published in the general surgery literature demonstrates frequent methodologic flaws. The quality of these reports limits the validity of the findings and the inferences that can be made about the primary studies reviewed. To improve the quality of future meta-analyses, we recommend following guidelines for the optimal conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in general surgery.

General Surgery↗
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↗
PubMed2004

Systematic review of efficacy of topical rubefacients containing salicylates for the treatment of acute and chronic pain.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the efficacy and safety of topical rubefacients containing salicylates in acute and chronic pain. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and manufacturers of salicylates. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised double blind trials comparing topical rubefacients with placebo or another active treatment, in adults with acute or chronic pain, and reporting dichotomous information, around a 50% reduction in pain, and analyses at one week for acute conditions and two weeks for chronic conditions. DATA EXTRACTION: Relative benefit and number needed to treat, analysis of adverse events, and withdrawals. DATA SYNTHESIS: Three double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 182 patients with acute conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 3.6, 95% confidence interval 2.4 to 5.6; number needed to treat 2.1, 1.7 to 2.8). Six double blind placebo controlled trials had information on 429 patients with chronic conditions. Topical salicylate was significantly better than placebo (relative benefit 1.5, 1.3 to 1.9; number needed to treat 5.3, 3.6 to 10.2), but larger, more valid studies were without significant effect. Local adverse events and withdrawals were generally rare in trials that reported them. CONCLUSIONS: Based on limited information, topically applied rubefacients containing salicylates may be efficacious in the treatment of acute pain. Trials of musculoskeletal and arthritic pain suggested moderate to poor efficacy. Adverse events were rare in studies of acute pain and poorly reported in those of chronic pain. Efficacy estimates for rubefacients are unreliable owing to a lack of good clinical trials.

Acute Disease↗
PubMed2005

Systematic review as an evidence-based tool for the operating room.

THIS ARTICLE DETAILS advantages of using systematic reviews (ie, meta-analyses) to determine evidence-based best practices. A NUMBER OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS relevant to the OR and produced under the auspices of the Cochrane Collaboration are explored with the aim of encouraging perioperative nurses to become familiar with, if not part of, the process of systematic review development.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗
PubMed1997

Meta-analyses using individual patient data.

Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials often provide the most reliable information on which to base treatment policy. However, to be reliable, such reviews need to contain a high proportion of all the relevant randomized evidence. This relates both to the need to find all trials and the need to analyse data on all participants. One way to achieve this is through a collaboration in which those responsible for the trials supply data on each randomized patient for an individual patient data meta-analysis. However, such projects require more time and resources than more conventional reviews and are still rare. This paper illustrates how they can help to achieve the aim of using complete data in a systematic review.

Humans↗
PubMed2007

A systematic review of the safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The safety of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis (AD), a common and morbid disease, has recently been the focus of increased scrutiny, adding confusion as how best to manage these patients. OBJECTIVES: The objective of these systematic reviews was to determine the safety of topical therapies for AD. METHODS: Databases searched included: OVID Medline, Medline In-Process and Other Non-Indexed Citations, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. In addition to the articles identified by this search, investigators were also referred to a list of links (most recently updated 25 September 2005) to recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) studies, reports and meetings regarding the topical calcineurin inhibitors for further potential references. Only fully published papers available in English and data obtained from FDA sites were included. Furthermore, the criteria for inclusion and exclusion for each systematic review were further evaluated at a meeting of all of the content and evidence-based medicine experts participating in this process and alteration of the inclusion criteria was done at that time when it was felt necessary to avoid inclusion of lower-quality data in the review. Qualitative review of the abstracted data was performed and reviewed at a meeting of all of the content and evidence-based medicine experts. RESULTS: While systemic exposure to these topical agents does occur, physiological changes appear to be uncommon and systemic complications rare and have only been found with use of topical corticosteroids. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the data that are available the overall safety of AD therapies appears to be good with the only documented systemic side-effects of therapy those occasionally seen with use of topical corticosteroids.

Administration, Topical↗