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 469 records · Page 26Linked to original sources

PubMed2002

Clinical competence assessment in nursing: a systematic review of the literature.

BACKGROUND: The assessment of clinical competence has returned to centre stage of nurse education. However, there is little evidence to support the use of clinical competence and a wide variety of methods for its use. RESEARCH QUESTION: The present study was designed to investigate the evidence for the use of clinical competence assessment in nursing. DESIGN: A review using systematic methods of literature pertaining to clinical competence in nursing was conducted using defined dates, databases and search terms. RESULTS: There is still considerable confusion about the definition of clinical competence and most of the methods in use to define or measure competence have not been developed systematically and issues of reliability and validity have barely been addressed. CONCLUSION: The assessment of clinical competence remains almost universally accepted in the nurse education literature as a laudable pursuit yet there are aspects of it that remain at odds with the higher education of nurses.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed2006

Skin problems in lower limb amputees: a systematic review.

PURPOSE: Skin problems of the stump in lower limb amputees are relative common in daily rehabilitation practice, possibly impeding prosthetic use. This impediment may have great impact in daily life. Our objective was to review literature systematically concerning incidence and prevalence of skin disorders of the stump in lower limb amputees. METHOD: A literature search was performed in several medical databases (MEDLINE, CINAHL, EMBASE, RECAL) using database specific search strategies. Reference lists in the identified publications were used as threads for retrieving more publications missed in the searches. Only clinical studies and patient surveys were eligible for further assessment. RESULTS: 545 publications were initially found. After selection, 28 publications were assessed for research methodology. Only one publication fulfilled the selection criteria. The prevalence of skin problems in a series of 45 lower leg amputees of 65 years and older was 16%. CONCLUSIONS: Prevalence and incidence of skin problems of the stump in lower limb amputees are mainly unknown.

Amputation Stumps↗

PubMed2004

Promoting walking and cycling as an alternative to using cars: systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To assess what interventions are effective in promoting a population shift from using cars towards walking and cycling and to assess the health effects of such interventions. DATA SOURCES: Published and unpublished reports in any language identified from electronic databases, bibliographies, websites, and reference lists. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic search and appraisal to identify experimental or observational studies with a prospective or controlled retrospective design that evaluated any intervention applied to an urban population or area by measuring outcomes in members of the local population. RESULTS: 22 studies met the inclusion criteria. We found some evidence that targeted behaviour change programmes can change the behaviour of motivated subgroups, resulting (in the largest study) in a shift of around 5% of all trips at a population level. Single studies of commuter subsidies and a new railway station also showed positive effects. The balance of best available evidence about publicity campaigns, engineering measures, and other interventions suggests that they have not been effective. Participants in trials of active commuting experienced short term improvements in certain measures of health and fitness, but we found no good evidence on effects on health of any effective intervention at population level. CONCLUSIONS: The best available evidence of effectiveness in promoting a modal shift is for targeted behaviour change programmes, but the social distribution of their effects is unclear and some other types of intervention have yet to be rigorously evaluated.

Automobile Driving↗

PubMed2003

Clinical and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and tegafur with uracil for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and tegafur with uracil (UFT/LV) as first-line treatments for patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, as compared with 5-fluorouracil/folinic acid (5-FU/FA) regimens. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases, reference lists of relevant articles and sponsor submissions were also consulted. REVIEW METHODS: Systematic searches, selection against criteria and quality assessment were performed to obtain data from relevant studies. Costs were estimated through resource-use data taken from the published trials and the unpublished sponsor submissions. Unit costs were taken from published sources, where available. An economic evaluation was undertaken to compare the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine and UFT/LV with three intravenous 5-FU/LV regimens widely used in the UK: the Mayo, the modified de Gramont regimen and the inpatient de Gramont regimens. RESULTS: The evidence suggests that treatment with capecitabine improves overall response rates and has an improved adverse effect profile in comparison with 5-FU/LV treatment with the Mayo regimen, with the exception of hand-foot syndrome. Time to disease progression or death after treatment with UFT/LV in one study appears to be shorter than after treatment with 5-FU/LV with the Mayo regimen, although it also had an improved adverse effect profile. Neither capecitabine nor UFT/LV appeared to improve health-related quality of life. Little information on patient preference was available for UFT/LV, but there was indicated a strong preference for this over 5-FU/LV. The total cost of capecitabine and UFT/LV treatments were estimated at 2111 pounds and 3375 pounds, respectively, compared with the total treatment cost for the Mayo regimen of 3579 pounds. Cost estimates were also presented for the modified de Gramont and inpatient de Gramont regimens. These were 3684 pounds and 6155 pounds, respectively. No survival advantage was shown in the RCTs of the oral drugs against the Mayo regimen. Cost savings of capecitabine and UFT/LV over the Mayo regimen were estimated to be 1461 pounds and 209 pounds, respectively. Drug acquisition costs were higher for the oral therapies than for the Mayo regimen, but were offset by lower administration costs. Adverse event treatment costs were similar across the three regimens. It was inferred that there was no survival difference between the oral drugs and the de Gramont regimens. Cost savings of capecitabine and UFT/LV over the modified de Gramont regimen were estimated to be 1353 pounds and 101 pounds, respectively, and over the inpatient de Gramont regimen were estimated to be 4123 pounds and 2870 pounds, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that there are cost savings associated with the use of oral therapies. No survival difference has been proven between the oral drugs and the Mayo regimen. In addition, no evidence of a survival difference between the Mayo regimen and the de Gramont regimens has been identified. However, improved progression-free survival and an improved adverse event profile have been shown for the de Gramont regimen over the Mayo regimen. Further research is recommended into the following areas: quality of life data should be included in trials of colorectal cancer treatments; the place of effective oral treatments in the treatment of colorectal cancer, the safety mechanisms needed to ensure compliance and the monitoring of adverse effects; the optimum duration of treatment; the measurement of patient preference; and a phase III comparative trial of capecitabine and UFT/LV versus modified de Gramont treatment to determine whether there was any survival advantage and to collate the necessary economic data.

Antimetabolites, Antineoplastic↗

PubMed2002

Statistical heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials: a critical appraisal of guidelines and practice.

OBJECTIVE: Heterogeneity between study results can be a problem in any systematic review or meta-analysis of clinical trials. Identifying its presence, investigating its cause and correctly accounting for it in analyses all involve difficult decisions for the researcher. Our objectives were: to collate recommendations on the subject of dealing with heterogeneity in systematic reviews of clinical trials; to investigate current practice in addressing heterogeneity in Cochrane reviews; and to compare current practice with recommendations. METHODS: We review guidelines for those undertaking systematic reviews and examine how heterogeneity is addressed in practice in a sample of systematic reviews, and their protocols, from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. RESULTS: Advice to reviewers is on the whole consistent and sensible. However, examination of a sample of Cochrane protocols and reviews demonstrates that the advice is difficult to follow given the small numbers of studies identified in many systematic reviews, the difficulty of pre-specifying important effect modifiers for subgroup analysis or meta-regression and the unresolved debate concerning fixed versus random effects meta-analyses. There was disagreement between protocols and reviews, often either regarding choice of important potential effect modifiers or due to the review identifying too few studies to perform planned analyses. CONCLUSION: Guidelines that address practical issues are required to reduce the risk of spurious findings from investigations of heterogeneity. This may involve discouraging statistical investigations such as subgroup analyses and meta-regression, rather than simply adopting a cautious approach to their interpretation, unless a large number of studies is available. The notion of a priori specification of potential effect modifiers for a retrospective review of studies is ill-defined, and the appropriateness of using a statistical test for heterogeneity to decide between analysis strategies is suspect.

Clinical Protocols↗

PubMed2001

Use of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines: case study of smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the extent to which recommendations in the national guidelines for the cessation of smoking are based on evidence from systematic reviews of controlled trials. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of recommendations for the national guidelines for the cessation of smoking. MATERIALS: National guidelines in clinical practice on smoking cessation published in English. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The type of evidence (systematic review of controlled trials, individual trials, other studies, expert opinion) used to support each recommendation. We also assessed whether a Cochrane systematic review was available and could have been used in formulating the recommendation. RESULTS: Four national smoking cessation guidelines (from Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) covering 105 recommendations were identified. An explicit evidence base for 100%, 89%, 68%, and 98% of recommendations, respectively, was detected, of which 60%, 56%, 59%, and 47% were based on systematic reviews of controlled studies. Cochrane systematic reviews could have been used to develop between 39% and 73% of recommendations but were actually used in 0% to 36% of recommendations. The UK guidelines had the highest proportion of recommendations based on Cochrane systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Use of systematic reviews in guidelines is a measure of the "payback" on investment in research synthesis. Systematic reviews commonly underpinned recommendations in guidelines on smoking cessation. The extent to which they were used varied by country and there was evidence of duplication of effort in some areas. Greater international collaboration in developing and maintaining an evidence base of systematic reviews can improve the efficiency of use of research resources.

Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2002

Preconception care: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To perform a systematic review of published research trials of preconception care services to determine what evidence for effectiveness of care at improving the course of pregnancy or its outcomes has accumulated since the last major review in 1990. METHODS: The review was conducted adapting the systematic methods developed by the Cochrane Collaboration to collect evidence from published clinical research literature with as little bias as possible. The review included literature published after January 1990, and posted on MEDLINE by July 1999. RESULTS: Although more than 40 preconception risk conditions were searched and 470 articles were abstracted, only four problem areas and 19 research trials met the review criteria. New evidence of effectiveness was found for screening women who are seeking family planning for risk conditions; having sexually active women of reproductive age take dietary folate supplements; and providing women affected by certain metabolic conditions (diabetes and hyperphenylalanemia) with nutrition services. CONCLUSIONS: To help improve pregnancy outcomes MCH professionals need to promote the concept of readiness for pregnancy and help see that women are as healthy and appropriately nourished as possible before they become pregnant.

Abortion, Spontaneous↗

PubMed2006

The process of systematic review and its application in agri-food public-health.

Foodborne illness is an important public-health concern. Livestock operations represent the original source of many foodborne pathogens. Policy- and decision-makers in the area of agri-food public-health need dependable information on interventions to reduce foodborne diseases. While individual studies might be weak or reach contradictory conclusions, the body of information contained in all studies might reveal a clearer picture of the state of knowledge. A formal process has been developed for conducting systematic reviews of the human healthcare literature. Systematic reviews differ from traditional narrative reviews in that systematic reviews follow a structured research protocol to reduce sources of bias at all stages of the review. This includes the objective, the literature search, the identification of relevant literature, quality assessment of relevant studies, summarization or statistical analysis of data, and conclusions. To date, systematic reviews have not been widely used in agri-food public-health. Existing systematic reviews on agri-food public-health topics revealed a scarcity of rigorously conducted intervention research, indicating a need for additional high quality primary studies. The specific protocols used to conduct systematic reviews in agri-food public-health need to accommodate the use of challenge studies and observational studies, the lack of randomized controlled trials, and the clustering of animal populations.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests: a guide to methods and application.

This chapter describes the basic steps in a systematic review to evaluate test accuracy, and the threats to validity of reviews inherent in each step. First, the problems to be addressed are specified in the form of well-structured questions (Step 1). This is a key step, as all other aspects of the review follow directly from the questions. Second, thorough literature searches are conducted to identify potentially relevant studies that shed light on the questions (Step 2). This is one essential feature that makes a review systematic. Third, the quality of the selected studies is assessed (Step 3). Fourth, the evidence concerning study characteristics and results is summarized, and differences between studies are explored (Step 4). When feasible and appropriate, meta-analysis helps in collating results. Finally, inferences and recommendations for practice are generated from interpretation and exploration of clinical relevance of the findings (Step 5). These steps are illustrated using a published review concerning the cervicovaginal fetal fibronectin test.

Decision Making↗

PubMed2006

Evaluation of the quality of prognosis studies in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: To provide valid assessments of answers to prognostic questions, systematic reviews must appraise the quality of the available evidence. However, no standard quality assessment method is currently available. PURPOSE: To appraise how authors assess the quality of individual studies in systematic reviews about prognosis and to propose recommendations for these quality assessments. DATA SOURCES: English-language publications listed in MEDLINE from 1966 to October 2005 and review of cited references. STUDY SELECTION: 163 systematic reviews about prognosis that included assessments of the quality of studies. DATA EXTRACTION: A total of 882 distinct quality items were extracted from the assessments that were reported in the various reviews. Using an iterative process, 2 independent reviewers grouped the items into 25 domains. The authors then specifically identified domains necessary to assess potential biases of studies and evaluated how often those domains had been addressed in each review. DATA SYNTHESIS: Fourteen of the domains addressed 6 sources of bias related to study participation, study attrition, measurement of prognostic factors, measurement of and controlling for confounding variables, measurement of outcomes, and analysis approaches. Reviews assessed a median of 2 of the 6 potential biases; only 2 (1%) included criteria aimed at appraising all potential sources of bias. Few reviews adequately assessed the impact of confounding (12%), although more than half (59%) appraised the methods used to measure the prognostic factors of interest. LIMITATIONS: Reviews may have been missed by the search or misclassified because of incomplete reporting. Validity and reliability testing of the authors' recommendations are required. CONCLUSIONS: Quality appraisal, a necessary step in systematic reviews, is incomplete in most reviews of prognosis studies. Adequate quality assessment should include judgments about 6 areas of potential study biases. Authors should incorporate these quality assessments into their synthesis of evidence about prognosis.

Bias↗

PubMed2026

Association Between Statin Use and Dry Eye Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

TOPIC: This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the literature-pooled association between statins and dry eye disease (DED). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Statins, a common treatment modality for dyslipidemia, have been proposed as a potential contributor to DED via their activity in meibomian gland epithelial cells. However, single studies show mixed evidence, and there remains an unmet clinical need to clarify whether statin exposure is associated with DED. METHODS: This review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (PRISMA) 2020 statement and was registered a priori on PROSPERO (CRD420251238004). Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and the reference lists of relevant reviews were searched from inception to November 2025 for studies reporting the association between statin use and DED. Random-effects meta-analysis using inverse-variance weighting was conducted to pool effect estimates as odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Study risk of bias was appraised using the ROBINS-E tool, and the certainty of the evidence was reported using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: Six observational studies were included in the meta-analysis (n = 560,821; 356,012/559,141 [63.7%] statin users). The pooled analysis revealed a significant positive association between statins and DED (odds ratio 1.09, 95% CI 1.05-1.13, P < .001), with an absolute risk difference of 10.2 more DED cases per 1000 (95% CI 5.5 more to 15.2 more). This result was derived from very low-certainty evidence given limitations in study design and serious inconsistency. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses for risk of bias (P = .123), method of outcome ascertainment (P = .737), type of effect estimate (P = .496), and leave-one-out analyses showed no evidence of effect modification and demonstrated consistent direction of association across studies. CONCLUSION: Statin use was associated with a small but statistically significant increase in DED, limited by very low-certainty evidence. Physicians should monitor for and educate patients on ocular surface symptoms in patients using statins with pre-existing DED risk factors. Future studies should use standardized DED diagnostic criteria to investigate the impact of statin dose, type, and duration to better characterize this potential association.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

Assessing harmful effects in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Balanced decisions about health care interventions require reliable evidence on harms as well as benefits. Most systematic reviews focus on efficacy and randomised trials, for which the methodology is well established. Methods to systematically review harmful effects are less well developed and there are few sources of guidance for researchers. We present our own recent experience of conducting systematic reviews of harmful effects and make suggestions for future practice and further research. METHODS: We described and compared the methods used in three systematic reviews. Our evaluation focused on the review question, study designs and quality assessment. RESULTS: One review question focused on providing information on specific harmful effects to furnish an economic model, the other two addressed much broader questions. All three reviews included randomised and observational data, although each defined the inclusion criteria differently. Standard methods were used to assess study quality. Various practical problems were encountered in applying the study design inclusion criteria and assessing quality, mainly because of poor study design, inadequate reporting and the limitations of existing tools. All three reviews generated a large volume of work that did not yield much useful information for health care decision makers. The key areas for improvement we identified were focusing the review question and developing methods for quality assessment of studies of harmful effects. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic reviews of harmful effects are more likely to yield information pertinent to clinical decision-making if they address a focused question. This will enable clear decisions to be made about the type of research to include in the review. The methodology for assessing the quality of harmful effects data in systematic reviews requires further development.

Anticonvulsants↗

PubMed2004

Systematic review of the literature on postpartum care: methodology and literature search results.

BACKGROUND: The postpartum period is a time for multiple clinical interventions. To date, no critical review of these interventions exists. This systematic review examined evidence for the effectiveness of postpartum interventions that have been reported in the literature. METHODS: MEDLINE, Cinahl, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Library were searched for randomized controlled trials of interventions initiated from immediately after birth to 1 year in postnatal women that were conducted in North America, Europe, Australia, or New Zealand. The initial literature search was done in 1999, using postpartum content search terms, and was enhanced in 2003. In both years, bibliographic databases were searched from their inception. Studies were categorized into key topic areas. Data extraction forms were developed and completed for each study, and the quality of each study was systematically reviewed. Groups of studies in a topic area were reviewed together, and clinically relevant questions emanating from the studies were identified to determine whether the studies, alone or together, provided evidence to support the clinical intervention. RESULTS: In the 1999 search, of 671 studies identified, 140 studies were randomized controlled trials that met the selection criteria: 41 studies related to breastfeeding, 33 to postpartum perineal pain management, and 63 to 11 other key topic areas (Papanicolaou test, rubella immunization, contraception, postpartum support, early discharge, postpartum depression and anxiety, postpartum medical disorders, smoking cessation, nutrition supplements other than breastfeeding, effects of pelvic floor exercise, and effects of early newborn contact). The results of the systematic review of each topic will be summarized in separate papers as they are completed. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic search has identified key topic areas in postpartum care for which randomized controlled trials have been conducted. Our ultimate goal is to provide evidence-based guidelines on the use of routine postpartum interventions.

Breast Feeding↗

PubMed2003

Electronic searching of the literature for systematic reviews of screening and diagnostic tests for preterm birth.

BACKGROUND: Published systematic reviews on prediction of preterm birth have tended to focus on a limited number of tests and their search strategies have often been relatively simple. Evaluation of all available tests in a systemic review will require a broad search strategy. AIM: To describe a case study of electronic searching for a systematic review of accuracy studies evaluating all tests for predicting preterm birth. METHODS: The search strategy, developed to capture literatures concerning all the tests en-masse consisted of formulation of an appropriate combination of search terms, pilot searches to refine the search term combination, selection of relevant databases, and citation retrieval from the refined searches for selection of potentially relevant papers. Electronic searches were carried out on general bibliographic databases (Biosis, Embase, Medline, Pascal and Scisearch), specialised databases (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Medion, National Research Register, Cochrane Controlled Trial Register and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews). RESULTS: A total of 30076 citations were identified. Of these 8855 (29%) citations were duplications either within a database or across databases. Of the remaining 21221 citations, 3333 were considered potentially relevant to the review after assessment by two reviewers. These citations covered 19 different tests for predicting preterm birth. CONCLUSIONS: This case study suggests that with use of a concerted effort to organise and manage the electronic searching it is feasible to undertake broad searches for systematic reviews with multiple questions.

Databases, Bibliographic↗

PubMed2005

Scope for improvement in the quality of reporting of systematic reviews. From the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality of reporting in Cochrane musculoskeletal systematic reviews (excluding back and injury reviews). METHODS: This study assessed all the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group's systematic reviews from Issue 4, 2002, of the Cochrane Library Database of Systematic Reviews. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality. Two assessment tools were used, including an 18 item checklist and flow chart developed by the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) consensus group, and a 10 item scale, the Oxman-Guyatt Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ). One question on the latter scale (item 10) scores overall quality on a 7 point scale, with high scores indicating superior quality. Data were analyzed using univariate approaches. RESULTS: The 57 systematic reviews assessed were found to have good overall quality, with scores on individual items revealing only minor flaws. Documenting the flow of included and excluded studies and summarizing the results are 2 areas needing improvement in reporting. According to the Oxman-Guyatt scale the overall scientific quality of the Cochrane musculoskeletal reviews was good [mean 5.02 (95% CI 3.71-6.32)]. CONCLUSION: Our study found that the reporting quality of Cochrane musculoskeletal systematic reviews was generally good, although there was room for improvement. For example, it might be feasible to develop specific guidelines for reporting protocols. Certainly more work is needed in reporting search results, documentation of the flow of studies, identification of the type of studies, and summarization of the key findings.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMed2026

Predictive Models for Hypoglycemia Risk in Haemodialysis Patients With Diabetic Kidney Disease: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

AIM: To provide evidence for selecting and developing reliable clinical assessment tools for hypoglycemia in diabetic kidney disease patients during haemodialysis. DESIGN: Review. METHODS: Systematic searches were performed in 9 Chinese and English databases to collect literature regarding the development of hypoglycemia risk prediction models in haemodialysis patients with diabetic kidney disease. Two reviewers independently performed literature screening, data extraction, risk-of-bias assessment, and applicability evaluation. The Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used to assess the risk of bias and applicability of the included studies. Meta-analysis was conducted using R software. DATA SOURCES: CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMbase, Web of Science, and CINAHL. The search period covered from the establishment date of each database to December 2025. RESULTS: Six studies, comprising six prediction models, were included. Two studies performed internal validation, and three conducted external validation. All models reported the area under the curve, ranging from 0.813 to 0.866, and calibration measures. Four studies were rated as having a high risk of bias, while all six demonstrated good overall applicability. The meta-analysis showed that the pooled AUC value of the six studies was 0.846 (95% CI: 0.823-0.867). CONCLUSION: Research on hypoglycemia risk prediction models in haemodialysis patients with diabetic kidney disease remains in the developmental stage. Although the included prediction models exhibited satisfactory apparent discriminatory ability and clinical applicability, most of the original studies suffered from a high risk of bias and lacked adequate validation. The true predictive performance and clinical application value of these models remain to be further verified. Accordingly, routine and unconditional clinical application is not recommended at this stage. Future studies should include more high-quality, multicenter external validation and develop models with high generalizability, favourable clinical applicability, and robust predictive performance to facilitate early identification of hypoglycemia risk in this population. IMPACT: This study systematically evaluated the hypoglycemia risk prediction models for diabetic kidney disease patients during haemodialysis, and the research on hypoglycemia risk prediction models for maintenance haemodialysis patients during dialysis is still in the development stage. This study provides a reference for clinical medical staff to select or develop hypoglycemia risk prediction and assessment tools for diabetic kidney disease patients during haemodialysis. REPORTING METHOD: This study was conducted in accordance with the relevant guidelines of the EQUATOR Network and followed the TRIPOD-SRMA Checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD420251243352.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

[Primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people: a Cochrane Systematic Review].

The Cochrane Collaboration is an international no-profit organization established in 1992 in UK. The aim of the Collaboration is the conduction, update and dissemination of systematic reviews about health care. Systematic reviews are electronic documents systematically updated which synthesise the results of randomized controlled studies about treatments. The Cochrane Group on Drugs and Alcohol has the editorial base in Rome (Department of Epidemiology ASL RME) where the Coordinator, the Coordinating Editor and the Trial Search Coordinator, coordinate the work of seven editors based in several countries. As of April 2003 we published 17 reviews and 11 protocols of review. The systematic reviews on primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people, was conducted by David Foxcroft and published by the group in 2002. The objectives of the systematic review were the identification and synthesis of the studies on psychosocial and educational programs for prevention of alcohol abuse and the assessment of long term interventions (over three years).

Adolescent↗

PubMed2001

Elements of a systematic review.

This paper examines the subject of systematic reviews from a nursing viewpoint. The history of the evidence-based healthcare movement and the major differences between systematic reviews and traditional literature reviews are discussed. The steps of the process used by those conducting reviews are examined in detail. These include structuring a research question, searching and appraising the literature, data extraction, analysis and synthesis, and reporting the results. It is this process that ensures reviews can be considered as a legitimate form of nursing research.

Data Collection↗