wk 4- intervention Flashcards
what are systematic reviews?
is a summary of the medical literature that uses explicit and reproducible methods to systematically search, critically appraise, and synthesize on a specific issue. It synthesizes the results of multiple primary studies related to each other by using strategies that reduce biases and random errors
how do quantitive and qualitative reviews differ?
In a quantitative review the results from two
A quantitative systematic review will include studies that have numerical data- measure of effect which is combined and compared.
A qualitative systematic review derives data from observation, interviews, or verbal interactions and focuses on the meanings and interpretations of the participants. this type of evidence provides more understanding for the topic.
mixed methods review is
quantitative, qualitative or mixed-methods primary studies are combined and a mixed-method approach is used to synthesise and integrate the findings.
what is the premier source for systematic reviews about intervention questions
Cochrane database of systematic reviews
what are other places to find systematic reviews and examples of them 3
-specialist evidence databases - TRIP database
-dscipline-specific databases - PEDro
-large biomedical databases -PubMed
interpreting results from a meta analysis (forest plot)
check descriptors on the horizontal axis of the plot to indicate which side of the line of no effect is associated with benefit from the intervention.
difference between systematic review and meta analysis?
systematic gathers different studies that answers the same question to arrive at a decision.
meta analysis is the statistical process of analyzing and combining results from similar studies to arrive at a decision.
interpreting the results from a systematic review 3 conclusions include:
• The results from a review consistently show positive (or negative) effects of an intervention. In this case, a review might state that the results (that is, the evidence) are convincing.
• Where there are conflicting results from studies within the review, the authors might state that the evidence is inconclusive.
• Several reviews find only a few studies (or sometimes none) that meet their eligibility criteria and conclude that there is insufficient evidence about that intervention.
how do literature and systematic reviews differ
Systematic reviews differ from literature reviews because they are prepared using explicit, transparent and pre-specified methods to increase the reproducibility of the review and lower the risk of bias. They usually involve a comprehensive search of all potentially relevant articles; use explicit, reproducible and uniformly applied criteria in the selection of articles for the review; rigorously assess the risk of bias or quality of individual studies; and systematically synthesise the results of included studies.
what are systematic reviews
Systematic reviews synthesise the findings from different primary study designs dictated by the research question of interest.
how. do systematic reviews help? and qualitative types?
A well-conducted systematic review can hasten the assimilation of research into practice. It can help to understand conflict (heterogeneity) between individual studies, and establish generalisability of the overall findings. A review of qualitative studies can deepen the understanding of a phenomenon or situation and help clarify unexpected outcomes.
what does pico stand for in an intervention question
p- patient or problem
i- intervention
c-comparison
o-outcome
where would you acquire/ find evidence for an interveniton question?
systematic review of RCT or RCT
cochrane databse of systematic reviews
PubMed
EMBASE
where do the questions for critical appraise come from?
CASP checklist, critical appraisal skills program
what are the 6 key questions when appraising a RCT
- was the assignment of participants to groups randomised?
- was the allocation sequence concealed?
- were groups similar at baseline
- were all participants in the study blind to group allocation
- were participants accounted for at the conclusion and how complete was follow up
- was an intention to treat analysis performed?
