Volume 23, Issue 4 (July - August 2024)
Payesh 2024, 23(4): 507-527 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Mosadeghrad A, Isfahani P. Methodology of systematic review in the health system. Payesh 2024; 23 (4) :507-527
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-2184-en.html
URL: http://payeshjournal.ir/article-1-2184-en.html
1- School of Public Health, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2- School of Public Health, Zabol University of Medical Sciences, Zabol, Iran
2- School of Public Health, Zabol University of Medical Sciences, Zabol, Iran
Abstract: (1657 Views)
Objective(s): Systematic reviews are a valuable resource for policy makers, managers and health workers for evidence-based policy making, planning and delivery of health services. However, some systematic reviews are poorly conducted and reported. This study aimed to explain the methodology of systematic review in the health system.
Methods: This study was conducted using a scoping review method. Published articles on systematic review methodology in the health system until April 19, 2024 were searched in 3 databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science and Google Scholar search engine. Overall, 109 articles were selected after screening and analysed using narrative analysis method.
Results: A systematic review is "an explicit and systematic secondary study to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize primary research evidence to answer a specific research question." Systematic reviews help policymakers, managers, health workers, patients, and the public to apply the best current evidence to practice at a lower cost. Moreover, systematic review is used to develop a new theory or evaluate an existing theory. A simple and comprehensive protocol for conducting a systematic review was proposed. It includes seven steps of formulating research question, searching the literature, screening and selecting studies, appraising the quality of studies, extracting data from included studies, analysing and synthesizing data, and interpreting findings and presenting a conclusion. In addition, the structure of writing a systematic review article was explained and a checklist for evaluating systematic review articles was presented.
Conclusion: Methodological limitations of systematic reviews affect the conclusions of these studies. In this study, a suitable model for conducting a systematic review was presented.
Methods: This study was conducted using a scoping review method. Published articles on systematic review methodology in the health system until April 19, 2024 were searched in 3 databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science and Google Scholar search engine. Overall, 109 articles were selected after screening and analysed using narrative analysis method.
Results: A systematic review is "an explicit and systematic secondary study to identify, critically appraise, and synthesize primary research evidence to answer a specific research question." Systematic reviews help policymakers, managers, health workers, patients, and the public to apply the best current evidence to practice at a lower cost. Moreover, systematic review is used to develop a new theory or evaluate an existing theory. A simple and comprehensive protocol for conducting a systematic review was proposed. It includes seven steps of formulating research question, searching the literature, screening and selecting studies, appraising the quality of studies, extracting data from included studies, analysing and synthesizing data, and interpreting findings and presenting a conclusion. In addition, the structure of writing a systematic review article was explained and a checklist for evaluating systematic review articles was presented.
Conclusion: Methodological limitations of systematic reviews affect the conclusions of these studies. In this study, a suitable model for conducting a systematic review was presented.
type of study: Systematic Reviw |
Subject:
Helath Services Management
Received: 2023/06/24 | Accepted: 2024/06/30 | ePublished ahead of print: 2024/08/3 | Published: 2024/08/19
Received: 2023/06/24 | Accepted: 2024/06/30 | ePublished ahead of print: 2024/08/3 | Published: 2024/08/19
References
1. Klein V, Laan E, Brunner F, Briken P. Sexual 1. Densen P. Challenges and opportunities facing medical education. Transactions of the American Clinical and Climatological Association 2011; 122: 48-58
2. Mosadeghrad AM, Isfahani P. Unnecessary hospital admissions in Iran: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Tehran University Medical Journal 2019; 77:392-400 [In Persian]
3. Mosadeghrad AM, Dehnavi H. Evaluation of hospital performance in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Payesh 2018; 17:603-615 [in Persian]
4. Mosadeghrad AM, Esfahani P, & Nikafshar M. Hospitals' efficiency in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis of two decades of research. Payavard 2017; 11:318-331 [in Persian]
5. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. The Milbank Quarterly 2016; 94:485-514 [DOI:10.1111/1468-0009.12210]
6. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, Helbach J, Hoffmann A, Mathes T, Pieper D. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2021;138:1-1 [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.022]
7. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine 2009; 151: 65-94 [DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136]
8. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Medicine 2007;4:1-9 [DOI:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078]
9. Arksey H, O'Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework, International Journal of Social Research Methodology 2005; 8: 19-32 [DOI:10.1080/1364557032000119616]
10. Holstein JA, Gubrium JF. Varieties of narrative analysis. 1st Edition, Sage Publications: USA, 2011 [DOI:10.4135/9781506335117.n1]
11. Lind J. A treatise on the scurvy. In three parts. Containing an inquiry into the nature, causes, and cure, of that disease. 1st Edition, Millar: London, 1753
12. Biondi-Zoccai G, Lotrionte M, Landoni G, Modena MG. The rough guide to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. HSR Proceedings in Intensive Care & Cardiovascular Anesthesia 2011;3:161
13. Clarke M, Chalmers I. Reflections on the history of systematic reviews. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2018;23: 121-2 [DOI:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110968]
14. Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and efficiency: random reflections on health services. 1st edition, London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972
15. Chalmers I, Hedges LV, Cooper H. A brief history of research synthesis. Evaluation & The Health Professions 2002; 25:12-37 [DOI:10.1177/0163278702025001003]
16. Oxford Dictionary. Systematic. Available at https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/systematic [Access date 17/05/2024]
17. Oxford Dictionary. Review. Available at https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/review_1#:~:text=%2Fr%C9%AA%CB%88vju%CB%90%2F,the%20film%20a%20glowing%20review. [Access date 17/05/2024]
18. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. CRD's Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. 2nd Edition, University of York publication: UK, 2001
19. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2nd Edition. John Wiley & Sons: Uk, 2019 [DOI:10.1002/9781119536604]
20. Jones T, Evans D. Conducting a systematic review. Australian Critical Care 2000;13: 66-71 [DOI:10.1016/S1036-7314(00)70624-2]
21. Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions, BMJ 2003; 326: 756-758 [DOI:10.1136/bmj.326.7392.756]
22. Tranfield D, Denyer D, Smart P. Towards a methodology for developing evidence‐informed management knowledge by means of systematic review. British Journal of Management 2003; 14:207-22 [DOI:10.1111/1467-8551.00375]
23. Khan KS, Kunz R. Kleijnen J, Antes G. Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 2003; 96: 118-121 [DOI:10.1177/014107680309600304]
24. Wright RW, Brand RA, Dunn W, Spindler KP. How to write a systematic review. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 2007;455:23-9 [DOI:10.1097/BLO.0b013e31802c9098]
25. Gough D, Oliver S and Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews. 1st Edition, SAGE Publications: Uk, 2012
26. Mittal N, Goyal M, Mittal PK. Understanding and appraising systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry 2017; 41: 317-26 [DOI:10.17796/1053-4628-41.5.317]
27. Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology 2018; 71: 103-112 [DOI:10.4097/kjae.2018.71.2.103]
28. Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology 2019; 70:747-70 [DOI:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803]
29. Mosadeghrad AM, Afshari M, Isfahani P. Prevalence of nosocomial infection in Iranian hospitals: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Iranian Journal of Epidemiology 2021; 16: 352-62
30. Tawfik GM, Dila KA, Mohamed MY, Tam DN, Kien ND, Ahmed AM, Huy NT. A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Tropical Medicine and Health 2019;47:1-9 [DOI:10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6]
31. Martinez EC, Valdés JR, Castillo JL, Castillo JV, Montecino RM, Jimenez JE, Escamilla DA, Diarte E. Ten steps to conduct a systematic review. Cureus 2023; 15: 1-11
32. Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 2005; 366: 107-108 [DOI:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66846-8]
33. Cooper, H. M., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. 2nd edition, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 2009
34. Fox, D. M. Evidence of Evidence-Based Health Policy: The Politics of Systematic Reviews in Coverage Decisions. Health Affairs 2005; 24: 114-122 [DOI:10.1377/hlthaff.24.1.114]
35. Gough D. Weight of evidence: A framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Applied and Practice-based Research 2007; 22: 213-228 [DOI:10.1080/02671520701296189]
36. O'Connor AM, Anderson KM, Goodell CK, Sargeant JM. Conducting systematic reviews of intervention questions I: writing the review protocol, formulating the question and searching the literature. Zoonoses and Public Health 2014; 61: 28-38 [DOI:10.1111/zph.12125]
37. Jahan N, Naveed S, Zeshan M, Tahir MA. How to conduct a systematic review: a narrative literature review. Cureus 2016; 8: 1-6 [DOI:10.7759/cureus.864]
38. Knoll T, Omar MI, Maclennan S, Hernandez V, Canfield S, Yuan Y, Bruins M, Marconi L, Van Poppel H, N'Dow J, Sylvester R. Key steps in conducting systematic reviews for underpinning clinical practice guidelines: methodology of the European Association of Urology. European Urology 2018; 73: 290-300 [DOI:10.1016/j.eururo.2017.08.016]
39. Xiao Y, Watson M. Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research 2019; 39: 93-112 [DOI:10.1177/0739456X17723971]
40. Muka T, Glisic M, Milic J, Verhoog S, Bohlius J, Bramer W, Chowdhury R, Franco OH. A 24-step guide on how to design, conduct, and successfully publish a systematic review and meta-analysis in medical research. European Journal of Epidemiology 2020; 35: 49-60 [DOI:10.1007/s10654-019-00576-5]
41. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Systematic Reviews 2012; 1: 1-4 [DOI:10.1186/2046-4053-1-7]
42. Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Moore G, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Global Health 2019; 4: e001107 [DOI:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001107]
43. Guyatt G, Drummond R, Meade M, Cook D. The Evidence Based-Medicine Working Group Users' Guides to the Medical Literature. 2nd Edition. McGraw Hill; Chicago, 2008
44. Booth A. Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Library Hi Tech 2006; 24: 355-68 [DOI:10.1108/07378830610692127]
45. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qualitative Health Research 2012; 22:1435-43 [DOI:10.1177/1049732312452938]
46. Wildridge V, Bell L. How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Information & Libraries Journal 2002; 19: 113-5 [DOI:10.1046/j.1471-1842.2002.00378.x]
47. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, Moher D, Tugwell P, Welch V, Kristjansson E, Henry DA. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017; 358: 1-9 [DOI:10.1136/bmj.j4008]
48. Vassar M, Atakpo P, Kash MJ. Manual search approaches used by systematic reviewers in dermatology. Journal of the Medical Library Association 2016; 104:302 [DOI:10.3163/1536-5050.104.4.009]
49. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: 1-9 [DOI:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4]
50. Mosadeghrad AM, Isfahani P, Yousefinezhadi T. Medical errors in Iranian hospitals: systematic review. Tehran University Medical Journal 2020; 78: 239-247 [in Persian]
51. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savović J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ 2011; 343: 1-9 [DOI:10.1136/bmj.d5928]
52. Lo CK, Mertz D, Loeb M. Newcastle-Ottawa Scale: comparing reviewers' to authors' assessments. BMC medical research methodology 2014;14:1-5 [DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-14-45]
53. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, Henry D, Altman DG, Ansari MT, Boutron I, Carpenter JR. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016; 355: 1-7 [DOI:10.1136/bmj.i4919]
54. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Higgins JP. Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review. BMJ open 2018; 8:1-16 [DOI:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019703]
55. Wannemuehler TJ, Lobo BC, Johnson JD, Deig CR, Ting JY, Gregory RL. Vibratory stimulus reduces in vitro biofilm formation on tracheoesophageal voice prostheses. The Laryngoscope 2016; 126: 2752-7 [DOI:10.1002/lary.25969]
56. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, Mallett S, Deeks JJ, Reitsma JB, Leeflang MM, Sterne JA, Bossuyt PM, QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of Internal Medicine 2011; 155:529-36 [DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009]
57. Hayden JA, van der Windt DA, Cartwright JL, Côté P, Bombardier C. Assessing bias in studies of prognostic factors. Annals of Internal Medicine 2013;158:280-6 [DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-158-4-201302190-00009]
58. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, Kunz R, Vist G, Brozek J, Norris S, Falck-Ytter Y, Glasziou P, DeBeer H, Jaeschke R. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2011; 64:383-94 [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026]
59. Elamin MB, Flynn DN, Bassler D, Briel M, Alonso-Coello P, Karanicolas PJ, Guyatt GH, Malaga G, Furukawa TA, Kunz R, Schünemann H. Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009; 62: 506-10 [DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016]
60. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. Canadian Medical Association Journal 1997; 156:1411-6
61. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?. BMJ 2008; 336:1472-4 [DOI:10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47]
62. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O. Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167-70 [DOI:10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167]
63. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2007;7:1-7 [DOI:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and Permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |