A couple of considerations:
What is the definition being used for? The interaction between Susan Fowler and Mohammed Ansari begs that question, because its context will drive how restrictive
you’d want the definition to be.
Also, are we assuming that systematic reviews will always only be done in medicine? (Just because they started here doesn’t mean that other scientific fields
won’t adopt the same methodology. If so, does that other field have to come up with a different term?) If this method can be used by other disciplines, then Wikipedia and similar contexts can’t be too restrictive about medicine-oriented databases.
Teresa Benson
Clinical Lead, Evidence-Based Medicine
McKesson Health Solutions
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Tom Jefferson
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:25 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: How do you define a systematic review, meta-analysis and IPD?
Dear list members, I would be grateful if you could give me your views on the definitions of what constitutes a systematic review, meta-analysis and IPD. I have reported below definitions from the most popular sources of information (highest
Google algorithm position). I have numbered each definition 1 to 6 for ease of commenting.
Thanks for your time.
Systematic review - Wikipedia:
1. A systematic review (also systematic literature review or structured literature review, SLR) is a
literature review focused on a research question that tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question
and
A systematic review aims to provide an exhaustive summary of current literature relevant to a
research question. The first step of a systematic review is a thorough search of the literature for relevant papers. The Methodology section of the review will list the
databases and
citation indexes searched, such as
Web of Science,
Embase, and
PubMed, as well as any hand searched individual journals. Next, the titles and the abstracts of the identified articles are checked against pre-determined criteria for eligibility and relevance. This list will always depend on the research problem. Each
included study may be assigned an objective assessment of methodological quality preferably using a method conforming to the
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (the current guideline)[5] or the high quality standards of Cochrane
collaboration.[6]
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review)
Systematic review - Cochrane/PRISMA:
2. A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review.
Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies.
(http://www.cochrane.org/glossary/5#letters)
Meta-analysis - Wikipedia
3. In statistics, meta-analysis comprises statistical methods for contrasting and combining results from different studies in the hope of identifying patterns among study results, sources
of disagreement among those results, or other interesting relationships that may come to light in the context of multiple studies.[1] Meta-analysis can be thought
of as "conducting research about previous research." In its simplest form, meta-analysis is done by identifying a common statistical measure that is shared between studies, such as
effect size or
p-value, and calculating a
weighted average of that common measure. This weighting is usually related to the sample sizes of the individual studies, although it can also include other factors, such as study quality.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meta-analysis)
Meta-analysis - Cochrane
4. The use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies. Sometimes misused as a synonym for systematic reviews, where the review includes a meta-analysis.
(http://www.cochrane.org/glossary/5#letterm)
Individual patient data (IPD) - Cochrane
5. Individual patient data [In meta-analysis:] The availability of raw data for each study participant in each included study, as opposed to
aggregate data (summary data for the comparison groups in each study).
Reviews using individual patient data require collaboration of the investigators who conducted the original studies, who must provide the necessary data.
Individual patient data (IPD) - Bandolier
6. In systematic reviews this term refers to the availability of raw data for each study participant in each included trial, as opposed to aggregate data (summary data for the comparison groups in each study). Reviews using individual patient data require
collaboration of the investigators who conducted the original trials, who must provide the necessary data.
(http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/glossary/individual.html)
--
Dr Tom Jefferson
Medico Chirurgo
GMC # 2527527