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  May 2009

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH May 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: FW: Systematic Reviews as Research

From:

Dean Giustini <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Dean Giustini <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Mon, 11 May 2009 16:31:51 -0700

Content-Type:

TEXT/PLAIN

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (392 lines)

Julie et al,

A recurring issue here at this teaching hospital is what databases to 
search first for the 'scoping' part of a SR. To try to answer this 
definitively in some quantitative way, we did the following study in 
orthopaedic surgery:

- Slobogean et al. "MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane index most primary 
studies but not abstracts included in orthopedic meta-analyses."
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Apr 11.


My sense is that as the web scales up in size, including open access 
journals unindexed, this will change. However we were looking at SRs 
published in a niche area from 1995-2005. Our conclusion is that MEDLINE, 
EMBASE and the Cochrane Library index more than 90% of the primary studies 
in the one area we studied.

Dean Giustini
UBC Biomedical Librarian
http://blogs.ubc.ca/dean


On Wed, 22 Apr 2009, Julie Glanville wrote:

> Paul's email reminds me of a discussion maybe a year ago on this list when
> the list discussed which resources to search first to find out whether
> systematic reviews had been conducted (Cochrane Library first etc) and
> whether there were gaps in the evidence - the details are in the list
> archive, but if anyone is interested I can dig them out. The CENTRAL
> (trials) database on the Cochrane Library along with a search of MEDLINE and
> EMBASE over the last three years (to fill in for publication lags in
> CENTRAL)  is also a very quick easy way to identify trials on a topic,
> especially once you have determined your PICO.
>
> There is also a resource called DUETS (http://www.library.nhs.uk/duets/)
> which aims to collect information on where research is needed, based on
> recommendations for future research from systematic reviews and other
> research - this is often a place to go if I want to check whether there is a
> gap in the evidence on an intervention.
>
> Julie
>
> Julie Glanville
> Project Director - Information Services
>
> York Health Economics Consortium Ltd
> University of York
> Market Square
> Vanbrugh Way
> Heslington
> YORK   YO10 5NH
>
> Tel:  01904 434832 (Direct)   433620 (General)
> Fax: 01904 433628
> email:  [log in to unmask]
>
> website:  www.yhec.co.uk
>
> This e-mail is for the use of the intended addressee only.  If you receive
> this e-mail by mistake please delete it and notify the sender immediately.
>
> Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained in
> this e-mail and any attachments.  You are not permitted to copy, forward, or
> disclose the information (or any part of it) contained in this message.  To
> do so is prohibited.
>
> This message and any attachments have been scanned for viruses using Sophos
> antivirus software (www.sophos.com)
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> From: Evidence based health (EBH)
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Elias
> Sent: 22 April 2009 04:22
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: FW: Systematic Reviews as Research
>
>
>
> Hi, I think that the question really lends the weight to the evidence based
> approach and that deciding where to put resources e.g. a SR or a new study
> can be made when a sufficiently exhaustive search of the evidence base is
> done. This can be done initially and quickly, cheaply, comprehensively based
> on suitable search/key word/MeSH terms etc., a suitable PICO search methods
> etc. I think this is a sensible approach and can let one see if any
> controlled clinical studies exist and this can thejn drive further testable
> hypotheses and studies. As well, a suitable and thorough initial search and
> selection of studies can show what reviews are already done, what they have
> found, or did not find, and what would be needed next. So a good, rogorous
> initial PICO/PIO etc. type search to me is the first step to flesh out
> suitable terms and then a godd broad search of the literature e.g.
> Medline/Ovid, Cochrane, EMBASE, TRIP, MEDION, PUBMED, clinicaltrials.gov
> etc...trials should be designed in light of existing knowledge. One limiting
> factor still seems to be in the discussion section of most papers, there is
> still a paucity of reference to prior SR or review evidence. The aim of
> conducting trials is to build on what was done prior and enlarge the
> evidence base. Moreover, in designing trials, one should use prior SR as
> background to shape the direction of the trial...
>
>
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Paul
>
>
> --- On Tue, 4/21/09, Rakesh Biswas <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>
>
> From: Rakesh Biswas <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: FW: Systematic Reviews as Research
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Received: Tuesday, April 21, 2009, 5:55 PM
>
>
> What would be the role of the systematic reviewer's experience in the study
> topic?
>
> For example, would a person with training in Otorhinolaryngology be the best
> person to do a review of say " Barotrauma in air travel" or would it bias
> the reviewer?
>
> Going by the previous discussions it appears that persons with practical
> training in the topic area would be able to guage the scope of the review
> and if necessary plan a new study rather than a review (without perhaps even
> having to do a scoping study? ).
>
>
> rakesh
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 9:38 PM, Aicken, Catherine <[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]> >
> wrote:
>
>
> 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]
> <http://ca.mc1113.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=caicken@gum.ucl.ac..uk>
> 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]
> <http://ca.mc1113.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAI
> L.AC.UK> ] On Behalf Of Richard Stevens
> Sent: 21 April 2009 15:56
> To: [log in to unmask]
> <http://ca.mc1113.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAI
> L.AC.UK>
> 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]
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask].
> uk>
> (Please note the '2' in the email address)
>
>
>>>> "Djulbegovic, Benjamin" <[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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]
> <http://ca.mc1113.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAI
> L..AC.UK> ] On Behalf Of Raval
> Amit
>> Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 1:33 PM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
> <http://ca.mc1113.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAI
> L.AC.UK>
>> 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/> <http://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]
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[log in to unmask]>
> <mailto:[log in to unmask]
> <[log in to unmask]" target="_blank">http:[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
>
>
>
>
>  _____
>
> Instant message from any web browser! Try the new
> <http://ca.messenger.yahoo.com/webmessengerpromo.php> Yahoo! Canada
> Messenger for the Web BETA
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

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

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