JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH  April 2009

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH April 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

FW: Systematic Reviews as Research

From:

"Aicken, Catherine" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Aicken, Catherine

Date:

Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:08:00 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (216 lines)

Hi,

Just as you would conduct a literature review to inform the precise research
question for a piece of primary research, you can conduct a scoping study to
gain greater knowledge of the research area of a systematic review, before
you define the research question and begin the review.  You're then likely
to have a better idea as to whether you'll be finding 100 studies or 2 - and
you can adjust the research question to be addressed by the systematic
review, appropriately.

Hope that's helpful.

Catherine

Catherine Aicken
Research Associate / MSTIC Study Co-ordinator
Centre for Sexual Health & HIV Research
Research Department of Infection & Population Health
University College London
Mortimer Market Centre
off Capper Street
London
WC1E 6JB

Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: 0845 1555 000 x8146
Fax: 020 7380 9778
www.ucl.ac.uk/sexual-health/

-----Original Message-----
From: Evidence based health (EBH)
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Richard Stevens
Sent: 21 April 2009 15:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Systematic Reviews as Research

Hi all - I'm Richard Stevens, a statistician who recently joined the
Centre 
for Evidence Based Medicine in Oxford.

I'd like to rephrase the question this way:

How can we decide, as researchers with finite resources, when to put
our 
efforts into systematic reviews and when to put our resources into new

studies?

I've been giving statistics advice to a Cochrane group, and I've been 
frustrated by the very low value of nearly all the reviews I've seen so
far.  
The reviews are done well, but they often turn up only one or two
studies for 
each research question, so the review is still unable to provide the
answers 
doctors need.  A systematic review is a lot of work. When I see a
systematic 
review that still can't answer the question, I wish the researchers had
put 
their energy into setting up a new study instead.

On the other hand, there are some areas where plenty of information is
out 
there and ripe for meta-analysis, so a systematic review is much better
value 
than setting up a whole new study.

How do we, as researchers, identify the two situations, and decide how
to 
spend our energies?

Richard

-- 

-------------------------
Richard Stevens, Ph.D.
Department of Primary Health Care,
University of Oxford
+44 1865 289355
[log in to unmask]
(Please note the '2' in the email address)


>>> "Djulbegovic, Benjamin" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> There is very important social reason why more people should be doing

> systematic reviews. There are about 10,000 key decisions to be
tackled in 
> medicine, and we simply don't have enough people to do the required
number of 
> SRs. Attached is a great paper by Iain Chalmers related to "The
lethal 
> consequences of failing to make full use of all relevant evidence
about the 
> effects of medical treatments: the importance of systematic reviews"
> 
> So, this should be convincing why you (as well as the rest of us)
should 
> pitch-in.
> 
> 
> 
> Benjamin Djulbegovic, MD, PhD
> Professor of Medicine and Oncology
> University of South Florida & H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center & Research

> Institute
> Co-Director of USF Clinical Translation Science Institute
> Director of USF Center for Evidence-based Medicine and Health
Outcomes 
> Research
> 
> 
> Mailing Address:
> USF Health Clinical Research
> 12901 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard, MDC02
>  Tampa, FL 33612
> 
> Phone # 813-396-9178
> Fax # 813-974-5411
> 
> e-mail: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
> 
> 
> ______________________
> 
> Campus Address:             MDC02
> 
> Office Address :
> 13101 Bruce B. Downs Boulevard,
> CMS3057
> Tampa, FL 33612
> 
> 
> From: Evidence based health (EBH) 
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Raval
Amit
> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 1:33 PM
> To: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: Re: Systematic Reviews as Research
> 
> 
> Hello KamleshSir,
> 
> I am student of pharmacy practice not qulified as become systemic
reviewer 
> of cochrane.but I can tell you it is risky research, If somebodyelse
doing 
> same review as you any one who publish first gets all and other
nothing but 
> frusrtationa or self satisfaction of knowing review preparation.As
research 
> some college give Ph.D. degree if a student completes review.Cochrane
is the 
> bigest nonfunding source of getting review published. Within cochrane
any one 
> can secure their reiew as intellectual property by registeing
title.sometime 
> after your protocol you can submit protocol then within year submit
fnal 
> review and then update every 2 year for lifelong.but you need to be
very 
> careful for securing your research.
> 
> From the impact poin of view I can imagine just that note down sell
of drug 
> after positive reporting of that drug in systemic review.Guideline
suggest 
> the grade based on the results of meta analysis.The publication is
sure to 
> get goo
d impact general and work can be appraised.All after benifit
to 
> patients should be prime.because mixing apple with oranges in meta
analysis 
> give results but influence by the conflits with lot of flaws.Strong
back 
> groun of methodology is must.You can find more information in South
Asia 
> cochrane network (SANC) also.
> Impact in health policy after systemic review in India has been
admirable.
> 
> Some non govermental or private organisation are also doing systemic
review 
> for their client for monetary bases.Average cost of one meta analysis

> approsximately 50000$ outside cochrane within cochrane 34000$. but it
is 
> useless as you do not get good pulication if you donot have high 
> degree.no<http://degree.no> matter ho you devote to meta analysis.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:01 PM, Kamlesh Bhargava 
> <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I have to make a presentation to the researchers in my college on the
value 
> of doing systematic reviews as research and scholarly activity.
> Would be grateful for any references, did not find much in
Pubmed/Google, 
> except the article by Lang.
> 
> --
> Dr.Kamlesh Bhargava
> Senior Consultant
> Family Medicine & Public Health
> S.Q.University Hospital
> 
> Program Director
> Family and Community Medicine Residency Program
> Oman Medical Specialty Board

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager