Metodologija priprave sistematičnih preglednih člankov

Avtorji

  • Nana Turk Centralna medicinska knjžnica, Medicinska fakulteta, Univerza v Ljubljani, Ljubljana, Slovenija

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.6016/ZdravVestn.3138

Ključne besede:

sistematični pregledni članek, metodologija, navodila, standardi, medicinski članki

Povzetek

Sistematični pregledni članki so tip pregleda literature, ki uporabljajo sistematične metode za zbiranje podatkov, kritično presojo in sintezo dokazov (kvantitativni pristop) oz. interpretacijo ugotovitev (kvalitativni pristop). Sistematični pregledni članki zagotavljajo celoten in izčrpen povzetek tekoče literature, ki predstavlja odgovor na raziskovalno vprašanje. Priprava sistematičnih preglednih člankov poteka v več stopnjah. Uvod v raziskave se začne z raziskovalnim vprašanjem, sledijo priprava in izvedba iskalne strategije, uporaba metod za zbiranje podatkov in kritična presoja. Uporaba metod je odvisna od tipa sistematičnega preglednega članka. V kvantitativnih sistematičnih preglednih člankih je tipična metoda metaanaliza, v kvalitativnih pa metasinteza. Sledijo standardni postopki, kot so analiza ter povzemanje dokazov, interpretacija ugotovitev in prispevek k znanju ter prikaz omejitev študij in veljavnost rezultatov. Razpravljamo tudi o prednostih in slabostih pregleda ter o posledicah za klinično prakso in zdravstveno politiko.

Prenosi

Podatki o prenosih še niso na voljo.

Literatura

1. National Institutes of Health. About NIH. Bethesda: National Insitutes of Health; 2020 [cited 2020 Sep 5]. Available from: https://www.nih.gov/about-nih/contact-us.

2. Campbell M, Egan M, Lorenc T, Bond L, Popham F, Fenton C, et al. Considering methodological options for reviews of theory: illustrated by a review of theories linking income and health. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):114.
DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-114
PMID: 25312937

3. Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to do a systematic review: a best practice guide for conductionand reporting narrative reviews, meta-analysis and meta-sintheses. 2019.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803

4. Baumeister R, Leary M. Writing narrative literature reviews. Rev Gen Psychol. 1997;1(3):311-20.
DOI: 10.1037/1089-2680.1.3.311

5. Robinson P, Lowe J. Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2015;39(2):103.
DOI: 10.1111/1753-6405.12393
PMID: 25827181

6. Arshed N, Danson M. The literature review. In: O’Gorman K, MacIntosh R. Research Methods for Business & Management. 2. Oxford: Goodfellow Publishers Ltd; 2015.
DOI: 10.23912/978-1-910158-51-7-2790

7. Munn Z, Peters MD, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):143.
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
PMID: 30453902

8. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91-108.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
PMID: 19490148

9. Cronin P, Ryan F, Couhglan M. Undertaking a literature review: A step-by-step approach. Br J Nurs. 2008;17(1):38-43.
DOI: 10.12968/bjon.2008.17.1.28059
PMID: 18399395

10. Gough D. Qualitative and mixed methods in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):181.
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0151-y
PMID: 26670769

11. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470754887

12. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376-80.
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006
PMID: 9054282

13. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: A practical guide. Malden: Blackwell Publishing; 2006.
DOI: 10.1002/9780470754887

14. Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9-14.
DOI: 10.4103/2249-4863.109934
PMID: 24479036

15. Pollock A, Berge E. How to do a systematic review. Int J Stroke. 2018;13(2):138-56.
DOI: 10.1177/1747493017743796
PMID: 29148960

16. Boyd CM, Singh S, Varadhan R, Weiss CO, Sharma R, Bass E. Methods for Benefit and Harm Assessment in Systematic Reviews. Rockvill (MD). Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.

17. Rose S, Bisson J. Brief early psychological interventions following trauma: a systematic review of the literature. J Trauma Stress. 1998;11(4):697-710.
DOI: 10.1023/A:1024441315913
PMID: 9870222

18. Ščuka L. Pomen metanalize v medicini. Zdrav Vestn. 2005;74(1):39-48.

19. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2019 [cited 2020 Sept 06]. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/.

20. Cochrane Methods Qualitative and Implementation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons; 2019 [cited 2020 Sept 07]. Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/qi/welcome/.

21. Ohlsson A. Systematic reviews—theory and practice. Scand J Clin Lab Invest Suppl. 1994;219(sup219):25-32.
DOI: 10.3109/00365519409088573
PMID: 7701235

22. Hardan A. Mixed-Methods Systematic Reviews: Integrating Quantitative and Qualitative Findings. Focus, Technical Brief. 2010(25):1-8.

23. Jahan N, Naveed S, Zeshan M, Tahir MA. How to Conduct a Systematic Review: A Narrative Literature Review. Cureus. 2016;8(11):e864.
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.864
PMID: 27924252

24. National Institute for Health Research. PROSPERO. Internatioanl prospective register for systematic reviews. York: University of York; 2020 [cited 2020 Sept 11]. Available from: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO.

25. Paez A. Grey literature: an important resource in systematic reviews. J Evid Based Med. 2017;10(3):233-40.
DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12266
PMID: 29266844

26. OpenDOAR. London: Jisc; 2020 [cited 2020 Sept 12]. Available from: https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/opendoar/.

27. Worldcat. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC; 2020 [cited 2020 Sept 12]. Available from: https://www.worldcat.org.

28. Cochrane. Trusted evidence. Informed decisions. Better health. Dublin, Ohio: OCLC; 2020 [cited 2020 Sept 12]. Available from: https://www.worldcat.orga.

29. Equator network: Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. Oxford: University of Oxford; 2020 [cited 2020 Sept 15]. Available from: https://www.equator-network.org/.

30. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71
PMID: 33782057

31. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700.
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700
PMID: 19622552

32. Campana LG, Clover AJ, Valpione S, Quaglino P, Gehl J, Kunte C, et al. Recommendations for improving the quality of reporting clinical electrochemotherapy studies based on qualitative systematic review. Radiol Oncol. 2016;50(1):1-13.
DOI: 10.1515/raon-2016-0006

33. Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018;18(1):5.
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
PMID: 29316881

34. Li D, Wang Z, Wang L, Sohn S, Shen F, Murad MH, et al. A Text-Mining Framework for Supporting Systematic Reviews. Am J Inf Manag. 2016;1(1):1-9.
PMID: 29071308

Objavljeno

2021-08-30

Številka

Rubrika

Strokovni članek

Kako citirati

1.
Metodologija priprave sistematičnih preglednih člankov. ZdravVestn [Internet]. 2021 Aug. 30 [cited 2024 Sep. 28];90(7-8):432-4. Available from: https://vestnik.szd.si/index.php/ZdravVest/article/view/3138