Hi
I think what you've already done is very useful. Assuming your search strategy was good, and your inclusion/exclusion criteria reasonable, you've demonstrated that an important question hasn't been adequately answered by the research conducted, because studies show such heterogeneous results. Perhaps this is where we should put the critical appraisal frameworks aside for a moment, and think about whether there might be other explanations for the different results, that were not clear when we adhere to a 'one size fits all' framework.
Kevin
> On 7 Jan 2016, at 01:15, Ibrahim Ethem YAYLALI <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi
> We are conducting a systematic review currently, but we have some difficulties in interpreting the finding of the included studies.
>
> 3 studies included in the review. All of them have high methodological quality, according to the JBI critical appraisal checklist.Due to methodological heterogeneity, we did not conduct a MA.
>
> All the three included studies reported conflicted outcomes.
>
> The A study reported that no significant difference Intervention A and Intervention B in terms of postoperative pain.
> The B study reported that Intervention A has significantly more postop pain than Intervention B in first 24 h, however no significant difference after 24 h.
> The C study reported that Intrvention A has significantly more postop pain than Inervention B in first 4 days.
>
> So, how should we interpret these findings in our Systematic review?
>
> Thanks
|