scholarly journals A Randomized Survey of the Preference of Gastroenterologists for a Cochrane Review versus a Traditional Narrative Review

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
John WD McDonald ◽  
Jeffrey Mahon ◽  
Kelly Zarnke ◽  
Brian Feagan ◽  
Lorinda Simms ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Clinical Scenario ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
Specific Therapy ◽  
Azathioprine Therapy ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

BACKGROUND: Clinicians often rely on review material rather than analysis of primary research to guide therapy. Systematic reviews use methods to insure thoroughness and to minimize bias, but many clinicians are not familiar with systematic reviews and continue to rely on narrative reviews.OBEJCTIVES: To determine whether a traditional narrative review or a systematic review is perceived to be more useful.METHODS: A clinical scenario (patient with chronic Crohn’s disease considered for azathioprine therapy) was circulated to gastroenterologists, along with a narrative review of therapy (including azathioprine) for inflammatory bowel disease written by an acknowledged expert, or with a systematic Cochrane review of the use of azathioprine for this disease. Whether knowledge of authorship and journal source influences the perception of usefulness of a narrative review was investigated.RESULTS: The Cochrane review was rated significantly more highly than the narrative review on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (21.3 mm; 95% CI 14.5 to 28 mm). The proportion of respondents who considered the review to be a useful guide was also higher in the group that received the Cochrane review (91%) than in the group that received the narrative review, with author and journal concealed (62%) or identified (70%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Ratings from the two groups that received the narrative review were not significantly different.CONCLUSIONS: The focused systematic review was perceived to be more useful than a traditional broad narrative review as a guide to making a decision concerning the use of specific therapy. The possible strengths of systematic reviews should be more fully investigated. If there is additional evidence supporting their greater value to clinicians, they should be made more widely available to clinicians and their strengths should be publicized.

scholarly journals Study protocol epidemiology of inflammatory bowel disease in childhood and adolescence: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (12) ◽  
pp. e037669
Author(s):  
Jens Weidner ◽  
Ivana Kern ◽  
Ulf Manuwald ◽  
Joachim Kugler ◽  
Ulrike Rothe
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Childhood And Adolescence ◽  
Chronic Inflammatory Bowel Diseases ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Bowel Diseases ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Chronic Inflammatory Bowel

IntroductionThe incidence and prevalence of chronic inflammatory bowel diseases in childhood and adolescence is increasing and varies internationally. The systematic literature review aims to describe international epidemiological trends of chronic inflammatory bowel diseases in the child and adolescence age. A period from 1970 to 2019 will be taken into account when searching for suitable studies as well as geographical differences in the development of incidences will be presented.Methods and analysisThe literature databases PubMed and Embase will be searched for the period from 01 January 1970 to 31 December 2019 using linked keywords. A manual search in bibliographies of already published and relevant systematic reviews will complete the systematic literature search. The included studies will be combined in a qualitative and quantitative synthesis and statistically evaluated.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this study as it is a systematicreview. The results will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals and presented in national andinternational meetings. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency inthe public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors. This systematic review protocol was registeredwith the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO-NR:CRD42020168644).

Domestic Homicide: A Synthesis of Systematic Review Evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802110438
Author(s):  
Bitna Kim ◽  
Alida V. Merlo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Child Homicide ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
Domestic Homicide ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Perpetrators And Victims

Domestic homicide (DH) is the most extreme form of domestic violence (DV). There has been a growing worldwide interest in DH offenses and the characteristics of perpetrators and victims, and it is evidenced in part by the increase in the number of primary research studies in this area. The findings of a large number of the available primary literature have already been summarized into several systematic reviews. The principal purposes of this study were to identify what types and aspects of DH have been reviewed systematically (research trends), to synthesize findings from recent systematic reviews of the theoretical and empirical literature on the different types of DH (main findings), and to consider what existing reviews can tell us about the implications for policy and practice as well as future primary research (implications). The current study utilized a systematic review approach to locate systematic reviews of studies on DH. The final sample included 25 systematic review articles published from 2010 to 2020, including 12 on intimate partner homicide, eight on child homicide, and five on familicide. The main research questions varied across systematic reviews, but they included risk factors, statistics on incidence and prevalence, theories, risk assessment tools, punishment and disposition, and prevention strategies. Building on the synthesis findings, the current study concludes with suggestions for future systematic review research and implications for practice and policy efforts.

scholarly journals Infant milk-feeding practices and diagnosed celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease in offspring: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 838S-851S ◽  
Author(s):  
Darcy Güngör ◽  
Perrine Nadaud ◽  
Carol Dreibelbis ◽  
Concetta C LaPergola ◽  
Yat Ping Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel Disease ◽  
Celiac Disease ◽  
Human Milk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Bowel Disease ◽  
Case Control ◽  
Reverse Causality ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel ◽  
Milk Feeding

ABSTRACTBackgroundDuring the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project, the USDA and US Department of Health and Human Services initiated an evidence review on diet and health in these populations.ObjectiveThe aim of these systematic reviews was to examine the relationships of never versus ever feeding human milk, shorter versus longer durations of any and exclusive human milk feeding, and feeding a lower versus a higher intensity of human milk to mixed-fed infants with diagnosed celiac disease and inflammatory bowel disease (IBD).MethodsThe Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team (formerly called the Nutrition Evidence Library) conducted systematic reviews with external experts. We searched CINAHL, Cochrane, Embase, and PubMed for articles published January, 1980 to March, 2016, dual-screened the results using predetermined criteria, extracted data from and assessed risk of bias for each included study, qualitatively synthesized the evidence, developed conclusion statements, and graded the strength of the evidence.ResultsWe included 9 celiac disease and 17 IBD articles. Limited case-control evidence suggests never versus ever being fed human milk is associated with higher risk of celiac disease, but concerns about reverse causality precluded a conclusion about the relationship of shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding with celiac disease. Evidence examining never versus ever feeding human milk and IBD was inconclusive, and limited, but consistent, case-control evidence suggests that, among infants fed human milk, shorter versus longer durations of any human milk feeding are associated with higher risk of IBD. For both outcomes, evidence examining the duration of exclusive human milk feeding was scant and no articles examined the intensity of human milk fed to mixed-fed infants.ConclusionLimited case-control evidence suggests that feeding human milk for short durations or not at all associates with higher risk of diagnosed IBD and celiac disease, respectively. The small number of studies and concern about reverse causality and recall bias prevent stronger conclusions.

THE TYPICAL COCHRANE REVIEW

2002 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 820-823 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Mallett ◽  
Mike Clarke
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Descriptive Study ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Interquartile Range ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
The Cochrane Library

Objectives: To describe the number of trials and participants in a typical systematic review from The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.Methods: The number of trials in 1,000 Cochrane systematic reviews in issue 1, 2001 of The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was counted for three categories of trial: included trials, ongoing trials, and trials awaiting assessment for inclusion. (The term trial is used in this paper, although a small number of Cochrane reviews include studies that are not trials.) The total number of participants in included trials was extracted from a sample of reviews.Results: A total of 9,778 trials were included in the Cochrane reviews. There were a further 356 ongoing trials and 1,138 trials awaiting assessment for inclusion. A typical review contained six included trials. Forty percent of the reviews listed ongoing trials and/or trials awaiting assessment for inclusion. Based on a sample of 258 reviews, the median number of participants per review was 945 (interquartile range, 313 to 2,511) per review and 118 (interquartile range, 60 to 241) per trial.Conclusion: This report is a descriptive study of the number of trials and participants in a typical Cochrane review from The Cochrane Library, issue 1, 2001.

scholarly journals Outcome reporting bias in Cochrane systematic reviews: a cross-sectional analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e032497
Author(s):  
Kieran Shah ◽  
Gregory Egan ◽  
Lawrence (Nichoe) Huan ◽  
Jamie Kirkham ◽  
Emma Reid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Reporting Bias ◽  
Outcome Reporting Bias ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Knowledge Of Results ◽  
Outcome Reporting ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

BackgroundDiscrepancies in outcome reporting (DOR) between protocol and published studies include inclusions of new outcomes, omission of prespecified outcomes, upgrade and downgrade of secondary and primary outcomes, and changes in definitions of prespecified outcomes. DOR can result in outcome reporting bias (ORB) when changes in outcomes occur after knowledge of results. This has potential to overestimate treatment effects and underestimate harms. This can also occur at the level of systematic reviews when changes in outcomes occur after knowledge of results of included studies. The prevalence of DOR and ORB in systematic reviews is unknown in systematic reviews published post-2007.ObjectiveTo estimate the prevalence of DOR and risk of ORB in all Cochrane reviews between the years 2007 and 2014.MethodsA stratified random sampling approach was applied to collect a representative sample of Cochrane systematic reviews from each Cochrane review group. DOR was assessed by matching outcomes in each systematic review with their respective protocol. When DOR occurred, reviews were further assessed if there was a risk of ORB (unclear, low or high risk). We classified DOR as a high risk for ORB if the discrepancy occurred after knowledge of results in the systematic review.Results150 of 350 (43%) review and protocol pairings contained DOR. When reviews were further scrutinised, 23% (35 of 150) of reviews with DOR contained a high risk of ORB, with changes being made after knowledge of results from individual trials.ConclusionsIn our study, we identified just under a half of Cochrane reviews with at least one DOR. Of these, a fifth were at high risk of ORB. The presence of DOR and ORB in Cochrane reviews is of great concern; however, a solution is relatively simple. Authors are encouraged to be transparent where outcomes change and to describe the legitimacy of changing outcomes in order to prevent suspicion of bias.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document