Mindmap
Systematic review
Inhalt der Mindmap
Systematic review
Highest hierarchy of the clinical evidence
- Systematic reviews
- RCTs
- Observational
- Consensus
- Case report
- Expert opinion
Meaning
- Meta-analysis
- Biostatistics technique that pools all results (> 2 studies)
- Reported as Forest plot
- Biostatistics technique that pools all results (> 2 studies)
- Scoping review
- Identify types of literature, key concepts, gaps of knowledge
- Precursor of systematic review
- Identify types of literature, key concepts, gaps of knowledge
- Narrative review
- Explain mechanisms of disease/development of technique
- Risks of selection bias, specific use
- Explain mechanisms of disease/development of technique
- Systematic review
- Methods including analysis and summary of evidence
- Meta-analysis
Characteristics
- Several steps to decrease risks of bias
- Bias = systematic errors
- Define risks of bias to prevent misinterpretation
- Cochrane RoB
- Review author judgement
- Low
- High
- Unclear
- Not enogh information
- 7 domains
- Random sequence generation
- Decrease selection bias
- Low risk: unpredictable
- High risk: predictatble
- Decrease selection bias
- Allocation concealment
- Blinding participants/personnel
- Decrease performance bias
- Fail: high risk
- Blinding outcome assessment
- Decrease detection bias
- Some objective outcomes are not affected: low risk
- Subjective outcomes
- Incomplete outcome data
- Decrease attrition bias
- Missing data
- How many?
- From what?
- How to analyze?
- Intention-to-treat
- Prefered for efficacy
- Per-protocol
- Preferred for adverse events
- As treated
- High risk of bias
- Imputation
- Need some assumption
- Consult statistician
- Need some assumption
- Intention-to-treat
- Selective reporting
- Decrease reporting bias
- Different between protocol/method and reported results
- Decrease reporting bias
- Others
- Include
- Non-parallel RCT, baseline imbalance, block without blind, DDx
- Not include
- Sample size, diversity, EC, funding
- Include
- Random sequence generation
- Overall: aggregated effect
- Selection/subgroup/meta-regression: prespecified
- Review author judgement
- Summarized by outcomes, by studies
- Cochrane RoB
- Define risks of bias to prevent misinterpretation
- Bias = systematic errors
- Specific PICOT question
- Intervention
- Diagnosis
- Prognosis
- Use PRISMA guideline
- Define inclusion criteria for screening
- PROSPERO registration
- Searching strategies
- At least 2 electronic databases
- References of searched studies
- Grey literature
- Communication to researchers/sponsors
- No language restriction
- Duplicate process: at least 2 assessors
- Kappa > 0.6
- At least for screening for inclusion, extraction, RoB
- Results
- Qualitative (narrative)
- Meta-analysis
- Increase effect size, precision
- Risks of overestimation/contaminated from poor study
- Heterogeneity: I2 fixed/random effect
- Summary of findings
- Confidence of evidence
- Veryl low/low/moderate/high
- GRADE system
- Decreased if...
- Risks of bias
- Inprecision
- Inconsistency
- Indirectness
- Publication bias
- Funnel plot
- Increase if...
- Large effect
- Dose-response effect
- Demonstrating plausible confounding (opposite direction)
- Decreased if...
- Starting GRADE
- RCT: high, moderate
- Observational: low/very low
- Confidence of evidence
- Several steps to decrease risks of bias
Applicability
- Patients' values and preferences
- Before giving recommendation
- Benefits and harms
- Implementation (health care rescource)
- Feasibility
- Acceptablity
Conclusion
- PICO: critical steps
- Teamworks
- Meta-analysis if applicable only
- Confidence: GRADE system
Informationen
- Beschreibung
- Mindmap am Systematic review, erstellt von Sintip Patt am 19/04/2024.
- Erstellt von
- Sintip Patt
- Aufrufe
- 1
- Bewertung