 |
 |
Hi Tom,
The English Editorial Board of the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Glossary recently updated its definition of systematic review (given at
http://htaglossary.net/systematic+review) to:
Systematic Review
A synthesis that collates all empirical evidence fitting pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question.
Note 1: Systematic reviews are conducted according to a pre-specified protocol. The methods used are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made.
Note 2: Many systematic reviews contain meta-analyses. A
meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of independent studies.
This definition is consistent with ISO terminology standards for multi-lingual glossary entries.
For additional context, the English terms in the HTA Glossary are translated into French, German, and Spanish (with other languages following soon). Terms
in the Glossary undergo a rolling review to reflect changes in practice and understanding. As the Glossary is a wiki, each language’s editorial Board is responsive to feedback from the public on the existing terms and definitions in the Glossary.
On a related matter, if you are interested in recent developments in the definitions of HTA product types – including rapid reviews and how systematic
reviews are performed in HTA reports - you could also have a look at a very recent paper
http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=9418627&fileId=S0266462314000543 that reported the results of three surveys of 56 international HTA agencies and developed standard definitions on the basis of the content of the documents
they all produce. To ensure standardisation in the understanding of each product type, a series of ‘marks’ have also been developed by the member agencies of INAHTA to be inserted on the inside front cover of a document to make it clear what ‘type’ of product
it is, even if the label is not informative.
All the best,
Tracy
-----------------------------------------------------------
Associate Professor Tracy Merlin
Managing Director, Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA)
School of Population Health
University of Adelaide
Tel +61 8 8313 3575 Fax +61 8 8313 6899
E-mail:
[log in to unmask]
http://www.adelaide.edu.au/ahta
CRICOS Provider Number 00123M
-----------------------------------------------------------
IMPORTANT: This message may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you think it was sent to you by mistake, please delete all copies and advise the sender. For the purposes of the SPAM Act 2003, this email is authorised by The University
of Adelaide.
Think green: read on the screen.
-----------------------------------------------------------
From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Tom Jefferson
Sent: Wednesday, 19 November 2014 9:55 PM
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