Systematic reviews: understanding the best evidence for clinical decision-making in health care: pros and cons

Memon, Muhammed A. and Khan, Shahjahan ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0446-086X and Alam, Khorshed ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2232-0745 and Rahman, Md Mizanur and Yunus, Rossita M. (2021) Systematic reviews: understanding the best evidence for clinical decision-making in health care: pros and cons. Surgical Laparoscopy, Endoscopy and Percutaneous Techniques, 31 (2). pp. 234-240. ISSN 1530-4515

[img] Text (Accepted Version)
Memon_Authors_ver.pdf
Restricted - Available after 1 April 2022.


Abstract

In the era of evidence-based decision-making, systematic reviews (SRs) are being widely used in many health care policies, government programs, and academic disciplines. SRs are detailed and comprehensive literature review of a specific research topic with a view to identifying, appraising, and synthesizing the research findings from various relevant primary studies. A SR therefore extracts the relevant summary information from the selected studies without bias by strictly adhering to the review procedures and protocols. This paper presents all underlying concepts, stages, steps, and procedures in conducting and publishing SRs. Unlike the findings of narrative reviews, the synthesized results of any SRs are reproducible, not subjective and bias free. However, there are a number of issues related to SRs that directly impact on the quality of the end results. If the selected studies are of high quality, the criteria of the SRs are fully satisfied, and the results constitute the highest level of evidence. It is therefore essential that the end users of SRs are aware of the weaknesses and strengths of the underlying processes and techniques so that they could assess the results in the correct perspective within the context of the research question.


Statistics for USQ ePrint 41813
Statistics for this ePrint Item
Item Type: Article (Commonwealth Reporting Category C)
Refereed: Yes
Item Status: Live Archive
Additional Information: Accepted version deposited in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher.
Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: Current - Faculty of Business, Education, Law and Arts - School of Business (18 Jan 2021 -)
Faculty/School / Institute/Centre: Current - Institute for Resilient Regions - Centre for Health Research (1 Apr 2020 -)
Date Deposited: 19 Apr 2021 07:01
Last Modified: 19 Apr 2021 07:01
Uncontrolled Keywords: systematic reviews; research synthesis, evidence-based decision-making; study design and bias; evidence-informed
Fields of Research (2008): 17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences > 1799 Other Psychology and Cognitive Sciences > 179999 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences not elsewhere classified
11 Medical and Health Sciences > 1117 Public Health and Health Services > 111717 Primary Health Care
17 Psychology and Cognitive Sciences > 1701 Psychology > 170106 Health, Clinical and Counselling Psychology
Fields of Research (2020): 42 HEALTH SCIENCES > 4206 Public health > 420603 Health promotion
Socio-Economic Objectives (2020): 20 HEALTH > 2001 Clinical health > 200199 Clinical health not elsewhere classified
28 EXPANDING KNOWLEDGE > 2801 Expanding knowledge > 280112 Expanding knowledge in the health sciences
20 HEALTH > 2099 Other health > 209999 Other health not elsewhere classified
Identification Number or DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/SLE.0000000000000889
URI: http://eprints.usq.edu.au/id/eprint/41813

Actions (login required)

View Item Archive Repository Staff Only