 |
 |
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