Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews

被引:315
作者
Counsell, C
机构
[1] Western General Hospital, Edinburgh
[2] Department of Clinical Neurosciences, Bramwell Dott Building, Western General Hospital
基金
英国惠康基金;
关键词
D O I
10.7326/0003-4819-127-5-199709010-00008
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Much time and effort are spent on designing primary research studies. Similar care must be given to planning systematic reviews. The review should be based on an important, well-focused question that is relevant to patient care. By formulating the question properly, the criteria that primary studies must meet to be included in the review become clear. These criteria, which comprise the types of persons involved, exposure, control group, outcomes, and study designs of interest, can then be refined so that they are clinically relevant, sensible, and workable. Inclusion criteria that are too narrow will limit the amount of data in the review, thereby increasing the risk for chance results and making the review less useful for the reader. Reviews should include studies whose designs offer the least biased answer to the question being asked. To maximize available data and reduce the risk for bias, as many relevant studies as possible need to be identified, regardless of publication status or language. Multiple overlapping search strategies should therefore be used and must be carefully planned. Strategies include searching the many electronic databases available (after careful consideration of which terms to enter), manually searching journals and conference proceedings, searching bibliographies of articles, searching existing registers of studies, and contacting companies or researchers. The time taken to formulate the question adequately and develop appropriate searches will increase the chance of producing a high-quality, meaningful review.
引用
收藏
页码:380 / 387
页数:8
相关论文
共 57 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], 1992, Setting Priorities for Health Technology Assessment: A Model Process
  • [2] A COMPARISON OF RESULTS OF METAANALYSES OF RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF CLINICAL EXPERTS - TREATMENTS FOR MYOCARDIAL-INFARCTION
    ANTMAN, EM
    LAU, J
    KUPELNICK, B
    MOSTELLER, F
    CHALMERS, TC
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1992, 268 (02): : 240 - 248
  • [3] INVITED COMMENTARY - BENEFITS OF HETEROGENEITY IN METAANALYSIS OF DATA FROM EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES
    BERLIN, JA
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1995, 142 (04) : 383 - 387
  • [4] THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION - PREPARING, MAINTAINING, AND DISSEMINATING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH-CARE
    BERO, L
    RENNIE, D
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (24): : 1935 - 1938
  • [5] WHAT DO I WANT FROM HEALTH RESEARCH AND RESEARCHERS WHEN I AM A PATIENT
    CHALMERS, I
    [J]. BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 1995, 310 (6990) : 1315 - 1318
  • [6] UNDERREPORTING RESEARCH IS SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT
    CHALMERS, I
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1990, 263 (10): : 1405 - 1408
  • [7] METAANALYSIS OF CLINICAL-TRIALS AS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE .1. CONTROL OF BIAS AND COMPARISON WITH LARGE COOPERATIVE TRIALS
    CHALMERS, TC
    LEVIN, H
    SACKS, HS
    REITMAN, D
    BERRIER, J
    NAGALINGAM, R
    [J]. STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 1987, 6 (03) : 315 - &
  • [8] *COCHR CONTR TRIAL, 1996, COCHR LIB
  • [9] *COCHR CTR, 1995, J HAND SEARCH MAN BA
  • [10] SHOULD UNPUBLISHED DATA BE INCLUDED IN METAANALYSES - CURRENT CONVICTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES
    COOK, DJ
    GUYATT, GH
    RYAN, G
    CLIFTON, J
    BUCKINGHAM, L
    WILLAN, A
    MCLLROY, W
    OXMAN, AD
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1993, 269 (21): : 2749 - 2753