SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “systematics”

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 109 records · Page 6Linked to original sources

PubMedDate not supplied

Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy.

CONTEXT: Systematic reviews of the literature are an important resource for clinicians. Unfortunately, the few published strategies for identifying these articles involve MEDLINE interfaces not widely available outside of academic medicine. In addition, the performance of these strategies is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate a search strategy for identifying systematic reviews by using a publicly available MEDLINE interface (PubMed). DESIGN: Diagnostic test assessment. DEFINITION OF SENSITIVITY: The proportion of recognized systematic reviews (indexed in the Cochrane Library's Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness [DARE] or in ACP Journal Club) that are identified by the search strategy. DEFINITION OF POSITIVE PREDICTIVE VALUE: The proportion of articles identified in one of three sample searches (screening for colorectal cancer, thrombolytic therapy for venous thromboembolism, and treatment of dementia) that meet a minimum definition of systematic review. RESULTS: Our PubMed search strategy identified 93 of 100 DARE-indexed systematic reviews, a sensitivity of 93% (95% CI, 86% to 97%). For the sample of systematic reviews drawn from ACP Journal Club (n = 103), the PubMed strategy achieved a sensitivity of 97% (CI, 91% to 99%). When the three sample search strings were used, approximately 50% of retrieved articles met our minimum definition of systematic review. In contrast, the similar precision of a PubMed search restricted to review-type articles (as indexed by MEDLINE) was less than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: This search strategy identified most systematic reviews without over-whelming users with numerous false-positive results. A "single-click" filter based on this strategy is now available as part of the Clinical Queries feature of PubMed.

Evidence-Based Medicine↗

PubMed2026

Experiences of stigma, bias, and communication challenges among pregnant healthcare workers: A systematic review of qualitative evidence.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare work environments are fraught with occupational hazards that can impact pregnant healthcare workers' health as well as patient care. Despite the feminization of healthcare globally, systematic discrimination against pregnant workers persists across diverse healthcare settings and cultural contexts. The intersection of stigma, bias, and communication challenges creates substantial barriers to career advancement and wellbeing. However, no systematic review has synthesized qualitative evidence on how these three constructs interact across healthcare professions and cultural contexts using an integrated theoretical framework. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review and synthesize qualitative evidence on experiences of stigma, bias, and communication challenges among pregnant healthcare workers across different healthcare settings and cultural contexts using an integrated theoretical framework. DESIGN: Systematic review of qualitative studies following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines with thematic synthesis. DATA SOURCES: Seven databases were searched from inception to January 2026. REVIEW METHODS: Included qualitative studies were appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) checklist and synthesized through theory-guided thematic synthesis. Confidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (GRADE-CERQual) approach. RESULTS: Fourteen studies encompassing 1223 participants across 17 countries revealed four major themes: (1) professional identity stigma and workplace discrimination through systematic labeling and stereotyping; (2) gender-based institutional bias rooted in masculine organizational logic; (3) multilevel communication failures creating fear-based climates; and (4) individual and collective resistance strategies developed despite constraints. Occupational hazards specific to pregnancy included exposure to infectious diseases, imaging, physical tasks, cleaning products, patient violence, and medication administration. Support from coworkers and supervisors was identified as the most critical facilitator for avoiding hazards and making necessary modifications, while the desire to be 'supernurses' and fear of consequences emerged as significant barriers. These patterns were consistent across healthcare professions, settings, and cultural contexts, with specialty culture and healthcare system type moderating discrimination intensity. Confidence in core findings was rated high using GRADE-CERQual. CONCLUSIONS: Pregnant healthcare workers globally experience interconnected stigma, bias, and communication challenges that are systematically embedded within healthcare organizational structures. These challenges operate synergistically, requiring comprehensive multilevel interventions beyond policy compliance. Healthcare organizations must implement evidence-based strategies addressing stigma reduction, bias interruption, and communication transformation simultaneously to retain skilled workers and ensure quality patient care.

Female↗

PubMed2005

Criteria for the systematic review of health promotion and public health interventions.

Systematic reviews of public health interventions are fraught with challenges. Complexity is inherent; this may be due to multi-component interventions, diverse study populations, multiple outcomes measured, mixed study designs utilized and the effect of context on intervention design, implementation and effectiveness. For policy makers and practitioners to use systematic reviews to implement effective public health programmes, systematic reviews must include this information, which seeks to answer the questions posed by decision makers, including recipients of programmes. This necessitates expanding the traditional evaluation of evidence to incorporate the assessment of theory, integrity of interventions, context and sustainability of the interventions and outcomes. Unfortunately however, the critical information required for judging both the quality of a public health intervention and whether or not an intervention is worthwhile or replicable is missing from most public health intervention studies. When the raw material is not available in primary studies the systematic review process becomes even more challenging. Systematic reviews, which highlight these critical gaps, may act to encourage better reporting in primary studies. This paper provides recommendations to reviewers on the issues to address within a public health systematic review and, indirectly, provides advice to researchers on the reporting requirements of primary studies for the production of high quality systematic reviews.

Humans↗

PubMed2005

Cochrane systematic reviews in acupuncture: methodological diversity in database searching.

BACKGROUND: Since the early 1970s, the efficacy of acupuncture for treating clinical conditions has been evaluated in several hundred randomized trials. Results from these trials have been synthesized in systematic reviews. A well-designed systematic review provides the highest level of evidence for establishing the efficacy of a clinical intervention. OBJECTIVES: The present study assesses the source of original literature contributing to Cochrane reviews on acupuncture. Databases searched to retrieve original studies are evaluated. The distribution of controlled trials in acupuncture across different topic areas and journals, the ability of the reviews to provide conclusive results, and the proportion of original studies indexed with MEDLINE are evaluated. METHODS: Systematic reviews on acupuncture were extracted from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The key search term used was "acupuncture." When more than one systematic review was retrieved on the same topic, the most recent review was included. Indexing of individual clinical trials with MEDLINE was searched using the Single Citation Matcher in PubMed. RESULTS: A total of 94 papers were retrieved from the Cochrane database, of which 10 were included in the analysis. The most common subject areas were related to chronic pain. Considerable heterogeneity was observed in the number of databases searched (median 5, range 3-12). A total of 69% (74/108) papers were indexed with PubMed. Only 13% (14/108) of the papers were published in the primary acupuncture journals. Conclusive statements about the efficacy of acupuncture were made in only 2 of the 10 systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Considerable methodological diversity exists in the comprehensiveness of database searches for Cochrane systematic reviews on acupuncture. This diversity makes the reviews prone to bias and adds another layer of complexity in interpreting the acupuncture literature.

Abstracting and Indexing↗

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↗

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↗

PubMed2001

What is evidence-based medicine and the role of the systematic review: the revolution coming your way.

The practice of evidence-based medicine involves the critical application of current best evidence to the care of individual patients. This process requires clinicians to be able to efficiently locate, critically appraise and appropriately apply the best available evidence to particular clinical scenarios. The current volume of medical and scientific literature is unmanageable and traditional approaches to continuing education cannot fully address the information needs of practicing clinicians in the era of evidence-based medicine. Review articles are useful resources but traditional narrative reviews often include a selective summary of research findings mixed with personal opinion. Systematic reviews have many advantages over traditional narrative reviews; importantly, the use of systematic and explicit methods mean that bias in identifying, selecting and summarizing the evidence is minimized. For systematic reviews where meta-analysis can be performed, the quantitative synthesis of data from different studies can provide additional information. Systematic reviews are retrospective studies and like all research may be susceptible to bias. Furthermore some methodological issues related to meta-analysis have yet to be resolved. The strengths and limitations of systematic reviews are discussed in this article and useful resources for locating high quality systematic reviews are outlined. Clinical judgement and experience have a pivotal role in the practice of evidence-based medicine and clinicians must rely on this judgement when deciding how and when to apply the results of systematic reviews to particular patients.

Clinical Competence↗

PubMed1989

Random systematic versus directed ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate.

Random systematic ultrasound guided transrectal core biopsies of the prostate were compared to directed biopsies of specific hypoechoic defects in 136 men with abnormal prostates on digital rectal examination. Prostate cancer was diagnosed in 83 of 136 patients (62 per cent). In 80 of 83 individuals (94 per cent) the cancer was detected by random systematic biopsies alone. Of 57 men in whom random systematic and directed biopsies were obtained the results of biopsy agreed in 86 per cent, while in 9 per cent random systematic biopsies found cancers missed by directed biopsies and in 5 per cent directed biopsies diagnosed cancers missed by random systematic prostate biopsies. Ultrasound guided random systematic biopsy is simple and easily learned. When combined with additional directed biopsies of the rare hypoechoic areas not included in the pattern of systematic sampling, it provides a highly accurate means to diagnose prostate cancer, minimizing observer and sampling errors. This technique of prostate mapping with 6, 1.5 cm. cores provides valuable additional information on cancer volume, Gleason grade and the potential location of surgically positive margins, all without compromising the operation or the chance for a surgical cure.

Biopsy, Needle↗

PubMed2001

Methods for conducting systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness and economic efficiency of interventions to reduce injuries to motor vehicle occupants.

BACKGROUND: Motor vehicle occupant injury prevention is included in the Guide to Community Preventive Services because of the enormous health impact of these largely preventable injuries. This article describes the methods for conducting systematic literature reviews of interventions for three key injury prevention strategies: increasing child safety seat use, increasing safety belt use, and decreasing alcohol-impaired driving. METHODS: Systematic review methods follow those established for the Guide to Community Preventive Services and include: (1) recruiting a systematic review development team, (2) developing a conceptual approach for selecting interventions and for selecting outcomes that define the success of the interventions, (3) defining and conducting a search for evidence of effectiveness, (4) evaluating and summarizing the body of evidence of effectiveness, (5) evaluating other potential beneficial and harmful effects of the interventions, (6) evaluating economic efficiency, (7) identifying implementation barriers, (8) translating the strength of the evidence into recommendations, and (9) identifying and summarizing research gaps. RESULTS: The systematic review development team evaluated 13 interventions for the three strategic areas. More than 10,000 titles and abstracts were identified and screened; of these, 277 met the a priori systematic review inclusion criteria. Systematic review findings for each of the 13 interventions are provided in the accompanying articles in this supplement. CONCLUSION: The general methods established for conducting systematic reviews for the Guide to Community Preventive Services were successfully applied to interventions to reduce injuries to motor vehicle occupants.

Accidents, Traffic↗

PubMed2005

Systematic aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy versus resection of bulky nodes only in optimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The role of systematic aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy in patients with optimally debulked advanced ovarian cancer is unclear and has not been addressed by randomized studies. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to determine whether systematic aortic and pelvic lymphadenectomy improves progression-free and overall survival compared with resection of bulky nodes only. METHODS: From January 1991 through May 2003, 427 eligible patients with International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) stage IIIB-C and IV epithelial ovarian carcinoma were randomly assigned to undergo systematic pelvic and para-aortic lymphadenectomy (n = 216) or resection of bulky nodes only (n = 211). Progression-free survival and overall survival were analyzed using a log-rank statistic and a Cox multivariable regression analysis. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: After a median follow-up of 68.4 months, 292 events (i.e., recurrences or deaths) were observed, and 202 patients had died. Sites of first recurrences were similar in both arms. The adjusted risk for first event was statistically significantly lower in the systematic lymphadenectomy arm (hazard ratio [HR] = .75, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.59 to 0.94; P = .01) than in the no-lymphadenectomy arm, corresponding to 5-year progression-free survival rates of 31.2 and 21.6% in the systematic lymphadenectomy and control arms, respectively (difference = 9.6%, 95% CI = 1.5% to 21.6%), and to median progression-free survival of 29.4 and 22.4 months, respectively (difference = 7 months, 95% CI = 1.0 to 14.4 months). The risk of death was similar in both arms (HR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.74 to 1.29; P = .85), corresponding to 5-year overall survival rates of 48.5 and 47%, respectively (difference = 1.5%, 95% CI = -8.4% to 10.6%), and to median overall survival of 58.7 and 56.3 months, respectively (difference = 2.4 months, 95% CI = -11.8 to 21.0 months). Median operating time was longer, and the percentage of patients requiring blood transfusions was higher in the systematic lymphadenectomy arm than in the no-lymphadenectomy arm (300 versus 210 minutes, P<.001, and 72% versus 59%; P = .006, respectively). CONCLUSION: Systematic lymphadenectomy improves progression-free but not overall survival in women with optimally debulked advanced ovarian carcinoma.

Adult↗

PubMed2007

The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: an independent appraisal.

OBJECTIVE: To independently appraise the methodological quality of a sample of reports of meta-analyses that address critical care topics in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews compared with the quality of reports published in regular journals, using a validated assessment instrument, the Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ). DATA SOURCE: Studies were selected from a search of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1994 to 2003, using multiple search terms for critical care and sensitive filters to identify meta-analyses. STUDY SELECTION: Two authors independently selected meta-analyses that addressed topics pertinent to critical care medicine. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently extracted the data. The proportion of reports that met each component of the OQAQ was determined, as was the overall quality score. Meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were compared with those published in regular journals. DATA SYNTHESIS: There were 36 reports of meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and 103 reports of meta-analyses published in regular journals; 11 of these were reports of Cochrane reviews. The meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were more likely to fulfill most components of the OQAQ. The median overall OQAQ scores indicated significant methodological problems in the reports regardless of the source of publication, although the reports in the Cochrane database scored higher than those in regular journals (five compared with two, p<.001). Major methodological flaws, notably failure to appropriately refer to the validity of included studies, were found in meta-analyses in both the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and regular journals (44.4% and 79.3%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Although the quality of reports of meta-analyses published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews is superior to the quality of reports of meta-analyses published in regular journals, there is significant room for improvement. Clinicians should critically appraise all reports of meta-analyses before considering the results, regardless of the source of publication.

Critical Care↗

PubMed2005

Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe how the methodological quality of primary studies is assessed in systematic reviews and whether the quality assessment is taken into account in the interpretation of results. DATA SOURCES: Cochrane systematic reviews and systematic reviews in paper based journals. STUDY SELECTION: 965 systematic reviews (809 Cochrane reviews and 156 paper based reviews) published between 1995 and 2002. DATA SYNTHESIS: The methodological quality of primary studies was assessed in 854 of the 965 systematic reviews (88.5%). This occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in paper based reviews (93.9% v 60.3%, P < 0.0001). Overall, only 496 (51.4%) used the quality assessment in the analysis and interpretation of the results or in their discussion, with no significant differences between Cochrane reviews and paper based reviews (52% v 49%, P = 0.58). The tools and methods used for quality assessment varied widely. CONCLUSIONS: Cochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results. Methods for assessment of methodological quality by systematic reviews are still in their infancy and there is substantial room for improvement.

Cross-Sectional Studies↗

PubMed2006

An evaluation of search and selection methods used in dental systematic reviews published in English.

BACKGROUND: Increasing numbers of systematic reviews are published each year, though little has been done to evaluate their search and selection methodology. METHODS: The authors searched dental systematic reviews published between Jan. 1, 2000, and July 14, 2005, for descriptions of how researchers used multiple electronic databases and secondary searches. They evaluated search and selection methods of identified systematic reviews against the guidelines found in the 2005 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. RESULTS: The authors identified 220 unique dental systematic reviews. They found that all aspects of search and selection methodology had improved. In 2005, most systematic reviews documented database names and search dates (90 percent), electronic search terms (95 percent) and inclusion-exclusion criteria (95 percent), and most employed secondary searching (100 percent). Many still failed to search more than MEDLINE (20 percent), document the search strategy (20 percent), use multiple reviewers for selecting studies (25 percent) and include all languages (39 percent). CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Systematic review methodology is improving, though key components frequently are absent. Reviews should be read critically and in consideration of the methodological flaws.

Databases, Bibliographic↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[A problem of truth in biological systematics].

A possibility to put a question of truth of knowledge in biological systematics is studied. It is shown that the problem of truth in reference to systematics is wider than a question of classified information reliability. Prerequisites needed for logically accurate formulation of a definition and criteria of truth are considered. It is shown that such prerequisites are present in taxonomic practice, namely in a process of diagnosis compiling. Philosophical analysis of this work has been carried out. Interpretation of an essence of systematics as classification is connected with use of classical concept of truth (which defines truth as correspondence between knowledge and object) in its undeveloped form. Carried analysis allows supposing that a theory of systematics based on diagnostics rather than on classification would be more prospective. Use of imperfect concept of truth can be seen also in notions that system of taxa must reflect its evolutionary history. Development and modernization of Aristotle's orientation to discovery of the object form can become an alternative to such opinions. An aspiration to achieve the truth is the main motive of systematic work. An influence of this aspiration on a selection of purposes of taxonomic work and theoretical comprehension of its bases is shown. Such features of modern biological systematics as its accessibility for new results, criticism in respect of external morphological characters, and interest in intraspecific variability are connected with this aspiration. This motive comes into contradiction with a tendency to withdraw the problem of truth as such, which takes place in some brunches of theoretic systematics.

Biodiversity↗

PubMedDate not supplied

[Critical appraisal of systematic reviews of randomised trials in nephrology: theory and practice for interpreting level I evidence].

INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews represent the primary level of evidence (level I evidence) and an excellent answer to causality questions. They should be based upon high quality standards and the critical appraisal of such study design is fundamental. METHODS: In this review we introduce the primary indicators of quality and guide our readers through the process of critical appraisal of systematic reviews. RESULTS: The main criteria in critically appraising systematic reviews in nephrology are the adequate presentation of a research question, adequate selection of studies, comprehensiveness of search strategies, the quality assessment of included studies, the fact that all procedures have been performed independently by at least 2 investigators, the exploration of heterogeneity, the type of results and their applicability. In nephrology we still lack a large number of systematic reviews because of the lack of randomised trials. CONCLUSIONS: Preparing a large number of systematic reviews is an important challenge for the nephrology community. This community should prepare more randomised trials to answer intervention questions and should make an effort to synthesise the evidence in the form of systematic reviews. It is essential that available systematic reviews be critically appraised and their results implemented in the clinical practice whenever they are based on high methodological standards.

Nephrology↗

PubMed2006

Method guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group systematic reviews.

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 50 groups of the not-for-profit international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. To enhance the quality and usability of systematic reviews, the CMSG has developed tailored methodological guidelines for authors of CMSG systematic reviews. Recommendations specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review, including literature searching, inclusion criteria, quality assessment, grading of evidence, data collection, and data analysis. These guidelines will help researchers design, conduct, and report results of systematic reviews of trials in the following fields of musculoskeletal health: gout, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis, pediatric rheumatology, rheumatoid arthritis, soft tissue rheumatism, spondyloarthropathy, systemic lupus erythematosus, systemic sclerosis, and vasculitis. Systematic reviews need to be conducted according to high methodological standards. These recommendations on developing and performing a systematic review will help improve consistency among CMSG reviews.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

PubMed2025

Clinical and Genetic Predictors of Sickle Cell Nephropathy: A Global Systematic Review.

Sickle cell disease (SCD) affects nearly 300,000 newborns annually worldwide, with 80% born in Africa. Sickle cell nephropathy (SCN) affects 5-18% of patients with SCD and contributes significantly to morbidity and mortality. Identifying SCN-associated factors would promote effective clinical management. We conducted a global systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines (Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, registration number: CRD42020185763) to explore clinical and genetic correlates of SCN. We sought after cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies published up to December 31, 2024 that reported on clinical and/or genetic predictors of SCN in different populations globally. A total of 70 hospital-based study articles were finally included, with a leading percentage (45.7%) of the included studies performed in the United States, whereas 24.3% were from Sub-Saharan Africa. Most had a cross-sectional design (68.6%) involving children and adults. Genetic studies (17/70) identified associations with α-thalassemia, APOL1, and HMOX1 genes. The only genome-wide association study identified six suggestive variants in CRYL1, VWF, ADAMTS7, LRP1B, linc02288, and FPGT-TNNI3K/TNNI3K among adult patients. In conclusion, this systematic review (1) unpacks and highlights the role of clinical, genetic, and biochemical factors in the pathogenesis and progression of SCN and (2) reveals the consistent association of SCN with the 3.7 Kb deletion in HBA and variants in APOL1 and HMOX1 genes. This systematic review underscores the paucity of data from Africa, emphasizing the need for large-scale prospective studies on African SCN cohorts. Our findings also provide a foundation for the early identification of individuals at risk for SCN and the avenues for clinical and public health management strategies. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first systematic review summarizing risk factors for kidney dysfunction in SCD populations worldwide, which includes, specifically, a meta-analysis for APOL1 association with albuminuria.

Humans↗

PubMed2004

The use of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in infection control and hospital epidemiology.

Systematic review is a type of research that attempts to identify and summarize all of the evidence related to a specific research question. It can be thought of as a "pause" in the process of conducting research in a particular area, in which the following questions are asked: Based on all of the available evidence, what do we know about this specific question so far, and what future studies should be conducted to clarify areas of uncertainty? The systematic review arose as an alternative to the traditional narrative review-which allows authors to pick and choose the studies they discuss and the depth at which they discuss them-a process prone to bias. By adhering to a prospectively defined protocol that specifies how studies should be identified, evaluated, and statistically combined (the statistical process is a component of systematic review and is called "meta-analysis"), systematic reviews reduce the bias inherent to traditional narrative reviews. Systematic reviews are an increasingly common form of published research, and several of the approximately 1000 such studies that are published annually focus on topics important to infection control professionals. Consequently, it is essential that infection control professionals and hospital epidemiologists be able to understand and evaluate the quality of this useful research design. This article discusses the essential elements of a systematic review, provides a framework for evaluating the quality of such an article, and will help the infection control professional and hospital epidemiologist in determining whether the results of such reviews should change clinical practice.

Cross Infection↗