You are reading a published report of a systematic review into an intervention intended to improve outcomes in a critically ill population.
Outline what you would expect to be included in the report.
Syllabus topic/section:
2.5.1 Research and Evidence Based practice in Intensive Care.
Aim:
To assess the candidate familiarity with research publications.
Discussion:
Candidates scored well if they gave a structured, detailed answer touching upon:
• Methods section including research protocol, criteria for including and excluding studies in the systematic review, analytic framework and key questions, databases and other information sources used to identify relevant studies, search strategy, study selection process, data extraction process, methods for handling missing information, information to be extracted from included studies, methods to appraise the quality of individual studies, summary measures of effect size (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means), rationale for pooling (or not pooling) results of included studies, methods of synthesizing the evidence (qualitative and meta-analysis).
• Result section including Study selection process, list of excluded studies and reasons for their exclusion, appraisal of individual studies’ quality, qualitative synthesis, meta-analysis of results. Defined Meta- analysis and differentiated it from SR.
• Discussion section with summary of evidence, strengths, and weaknesses of the conclusion for each key question, gaps in evidence, future research.
Candidates scored poorly due to limited answers lacking detail and demonstrated confusion by describing an RCT rather than a MA/SR. Lack of knowledge was the main reason for scoring poor marks.
Strategies to improve:
• Structure the answer.
• Must gain knowledge of how a systematic review is conducted – in a structured, reproducible, and unbiased way.
Meta-analysis was not included in the stem, and so one cannot flaw the candidates for not describing the methodological qualities of an "MA/SR", or for not defining the terms. What follows is specific for the evaluation of a systematic review, and comes from the excellent article on systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses from a series by Deutsches Ärzteblatt International, the JBI checklist for systematic reviews, and the Systematic review checklist from the CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Program).
Definitions:
Methods
Results
Discussion
JBI checklist for systematic reviews
CASP checklist for systematic reviews
Ressing, Meike, Maria Blettner, and Stefanie J. Klug. "Systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses: part 6 of a series on evaluation of scientific publications." Deutsches ärzteblatt international 106.27 (2009): 456.2009): 335.
Oxman, Andrew D. "Systematic reviews: checklists for review articles." Bmj 309.6955 (1994): 648-651.