Science topic
Systematic Reviews - Science topic
A systematic review 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. Systematic reviews of high-quality randomized controlled trials are crucial to evidence-based medicine.
Questions related to Systematic Reviews
The risk of bias significantly influences the validity of systematic review conclusions, as studies with higher bias are more likely to overestimate treatment effects. Systematic reviews that incorporate assessments of bias, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, tend to provide more reliable estimates of intervention effectiveness.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. [Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org]
After checking the eligibility criteria, are both high-quality and low-quality articles included in the review?
What is Cochrane's recommendation?
The objective is to publish in a high-quality journal
Such as a study, or a PhD, or a systematic review, or something else?
If so, I'd love to know what you are studying and why.
I'd also love to know what your top 3 go to mindset references are?
I am currently working on a review manuscript titled Precision Livestock Farming in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture. A reviewer from a Q2 journal asked if PRISMA guidelines were followed for the selection of articles, even though my manuscript is not a systematic review but a narrative review.
Is it common to apply PRISMA to narrative reviews, or is there a different set of guidelines that should be followed in such cases? I would appreciate any insights or experiences related to the use of PRISMA in non-systematic reviews.
Why would a well-designed systematic review exclude studies conducted by crossover, or cluster randomization methods? As the linked article proudly did. My understanding is that crossover and cluster randomization methods are indicative of a well-designed study, not the reverse.
Want to know how the grey literature can be used in the research ...
1. Scopus = Embase?
2. Scopus = Web of Science?
3. Scopus = Embase+Web of Science?
or
1. Scopus ≠ Embase?
2. Scopus ≠ Web of Science?
3. Scopus ≠ Embase+Web of Science?
If researchers use both Embase and Web of Science but do not include Scopus, how does this choice affect their search results?
A meta analysis has been done considering the articles published between the year 1997 and 2004. I am interested to do meta analysis in the same topic. Is it valid?. can I take all articles without time restrictions or is it better to take articles after 2004?
Dear respected Professor's and Scholar's,
I need your kind professional advice.
I want to conduct a systematic review on "Thermally Insulation through 3D printing: Materials, Properties and Applications", I try to investigate some scholary works regarding this topic. However, I am not satisfied or I did not get an answer which met my specific issues.
I kindly ask you;
1. What are the possible issues must be raised?
2. What contents are must be included to fulfilled the systematic review?
3. Can you share me your outlines or drafts you craft on this topic?
Thank you inadvance for your kind help.
What are the key differences between descriptive,
integrative, narrative, and systematic reviews? How
does this choice impact your approach?
I am at the end of conducting a large systematic review and meta-analysis. I have experience of meta-analysis and have attempted to meta-analyse the studies myself, but I am not happy with my method. The problem is that almost all the studies are crossover studies and I am not sure how to analyse them correctly. I have consulted the Cochrane Handbook, and it seems to suggest a paired analysis is best, but I do not have the expertise to do this - https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-23#section-23-2-6
I am seeking a statistician familiar with meta-analysis to consult with, and if possible, undertake the meta-analysis. There are only two authors on this paper (me and a colleague), so you would either be second or last author. We aim to publish in a Q1 or Q2 journal, and from my own analysis I can see we have very interesting results.
Please let me know if you are interested.
🌐 Introduction: Hello ResearchGate community! 👋 Are you passionate about systematic reviews? We're excited to kick off a discussion on a topic close to every researcher's heart. Let's delve into the world of systematic reviews and explore groundbreaking ways to enhance this crucial aspect of academic research.
🚀 SysReview AI: A New Frontier: Ever wondered how AI could revolutionize the systematic review process? We're here to discuss SysReview AI, an innovative tool designed to accelerate the creation of systematic reviews. Join us to explore how technology is reshaping the way researchers approach review articles.
💡 Key Discussion Points:
- The Future of Systematic Reviews: Share your thoughts on the evolving landscape of systematic reviews and the role of AI in shaping its future.
- Challenges and Solutions: Discuss the challenges you face in creating systematic reviews and explore potential solutions or innovations.
- SysReview AI in Focus: Curious about SysReview AI? Engage with us to learn about its features, benefits, and how it could transform your research process.
- Community Insights: Let's build a community where researchers exchange insights, experiences, and best practices in systematic reviews.
🔍 How to Participate:
- Share your experiences with systematic reviews.
- Discuss the impact of AI on literature reviews.
- Ask questions or seek advice on systematic review methodologies.
- Express interest in joining a live demo session of SysReview AI.
🌟 Why Join?
- Connect with like-minded researchers.
- Stay updated on the latest advancements in systematic reviews.
- Explore opportunities to shape the future of academic publishing.
Ready to be part of the conversation? Drop your thoughts below! Let's embark on this exciting journey together.
#SysReviewAI #SystematicReviews #ResearchGateDiscussion #ResearchCommunity #AIinResearch
Twitter @reviewaitool
I am conducting a systematic review and meta analysis; as I am extracting data I realized there is a consort diagram that shows the number of patients from randomization till end of the study. So all the data is available if I want to extract based on intention to treat or based on per protocol ( patients who completed the intervention). I am wondering how should I proceed?
check these papers. one of them report PP and the other report ITT; however data is available for both to extract either one. what should I do?
Context: I am writing a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) as part of my master's thesis project. After initially screening the titles and abstracts of 338 papers from four selected databases, I identified 138 papers that matched my inclusion criteria. During the full-text review phase, I encountered difficulty obtaining 3 papers out of the 138. I couldn't access these 3 papers because our university wasn't subscribed to these journals, and the Science Hub Mutual Aid community couldn't help either.
Questions:
(1) Is this acceptable to reviewers in reputable journals?
(2) How should I address this in my SLR?
(3) Is it appropriate to email the authors for copies of their papers?
Hello everyone,
I have written a narrative review on a topic obtaining the literature from other research articles and review papers. But I wish to convert it to systematic review (without meta analysis) now. I have noticed that most systematic reviews are based on clinical trials. Is it still possible to get it done based on my sources?
I am currently writing a systematic review
To the best of my knowledge, a systematic review aims to collect and summarize all the published & unpublished literature revolving around a certain topic/sub-topic.
Sometimes, I encounter results in ClinicalTrials.gov which are yet to be published, or abstracts which do not have their full-texts available yet, or conference proceedings which do not include their methodologies in fine detail.
In this case, when the methods section is not addressed appropriately, what tools could be employed to assess the risk of bias/quality of such research types?
Thank you beforehand.
¿Should a pilot study be done before conducting a systematic review?
I am doing a systematic review, and I am measuring risk of bias with RoB2 for RCT, and ROBINS-I for non RCT. My questions is, for single arm studies, can I use ROBINS-I? I am not sure how to answer the questions for the domain regarding confounding in this case.
Thank you!
We have conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of a treatment for a psychological disorder. We aim to report effect sizes and p values of the reviewed studies but one study has only reported CI 95, p value and t score regarding the effect of the treatment on a variable between baseline and post-treatment. Given that the used t test was from a paired t test, is it possible to determine the Cohen's d based on the available information?
I'd very much appreciate it if you help me with this problem.
Hi everybody,
We are trying to write a systematic review meta-analysis paper. But I could find 19 references. I think 19 references are not enough to do a meta-analysis section and it is better to just write a systematic review. What do you think?
In addition, about 4 of them are non-English (Farsi) references. Can we use them? Or Can we use reference paper?
Maryam
Dear all,
We have submitted a manuscript for publication that presents a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the influence of a gene polymorphism on cancer risk. The study involved the selection of published case-control studies from various countries across all continents, comparing the allele frequencies of a specific gene polymorphism in populations with cancer to those of healthy subjects.
The reviewer has requested "External validity is missing, please provide."
However, I am unfamiliar with what constitutes external validity in this context.
If we consider an RCT, a case control study, an opinion article or grey unpublished literature all together due to the unavailability of papers in a systematic review knowing the fact that it will not be 100% quality assurance but comes with its own limitations, would you go ahead?.
or
Is it better to do a scoping review?.,
Looking forward for expert opinions
Many thanks
Punitha
I read one or two articles about systematic reviews conducted in descriptive/ epidemiological studies, but those articles were published in 2000 and 2010 respectively. So I want to be sure about conducting systematic reviews using descriptive studies rather than RCT's. Thank you.
I´m planning a systematic review including cohort and registry studies to evaluate if the patient´s sex has an influence on the outcome. I know a lot of established and validated tools and approaches for writing a systematic review of interventional studies (GRADE approach, Cochrane Risk of Bias tool...). But I´m having a hard time finding similar approaches for a systematic review of observational studies. For assessing the risk of bias I have read about the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the ROBINS-E tool, but I haven’t found anything on how to assess the strength of the final body of evidence. Does anyone have suggestions or can share some experience? Thank you!
It is well known in current scenario, the importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as I could see a lot questions related to it, would a skilled supportive community can play a crucial role in enriching the society with quality reviews and meta analysis with 24*7 support system.
If so, how many would
1. Recommend,
2. Highly recommend
3. Not necessarily required
How many of you would be interested being a part of support community? and what would be your role?
I want to write a systematic literature review. Can anyone share the standard technique .
Hi, I am doing a systematic literature review for my MPhil. Does anyone know what philosophy/research paradigm is a systematic review?
Can anyone guide me where I can find and understand the GRADE approach method for my ongoing systematic review? I referred to Cochrane and it's way too complicated to understand.
Thank you in advance.
Dear Colleagues,
I hope you’re all doing well. As we know, systematic reviews are crucial for synthesizing evidence and providing comprehensive insights into specific research questions. However, the process of conducting these reviews can be complex, demanding and time consuming.
We are in the process of developing an AI-based software solution designed to assist with the article screening and data extraction stages of systematic reviews. To ensure our tool effectively addresses the needs of the research community, we’d like to learn more about your experiences and get your perspective on common problems.
· What are the most time-consuming aspects of your workflow?
· Are there particular pain points or frustrations you regularly encounter?
· How do you currently address these challenges, and what improvements would you like to see in an AI tool?
If you are interested in trying the tool or have any questions, please don't hesitate to send me a message (or visit www.revisio.ai )
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
For my PhD dissertation:
If Chapter 1 is a systematic literature review (QUANTS/QUALS) while Chapters 2, 3, and 4 are empirical chapters (QUALS), is this considered a mixed methods research design?
References would be very helpful. Thanks!
What are the differences between narrative and systematic
reviews, and why are systematic reviews considered the
gold standard?
Can you explain the process involved in preparing a
systematic review, as outlined in the article?
What are the key considerations when searching for and
evaluating studies to include in a systematic review?
Is it acceptable to include secondary literature, such as other scoping reviews, umbrella reviews, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews, in the process of conducting a scoping review?
The topic can cover any area of this specialty.
I have been working on a review that has been structured as a systematized review. I was told that we may need to conduct a systematic review to get published. I have seen systematized reviews published before. Just wanting some insight? Also, what journals should I target for publication for a systematized review?
Hi everyone, for some years now I've been interested in doing meta-analysis in my field of study. I am a botanist, who recently worked in seed biology. during my self-learning, I already knew how to do systematic reviews, but stuck there while I wanted to improve myself in meta-analysis.
Thus, I write to express my desire to reach everyone who may have experience in this topic and is willing to let me learn from their experience. thanks.
Menurut Bapak/Ibu, apakah editor jurnal lebih memilih Systematic Literature Review 10-20 tahun daripada yang menelaah 5 tahun?
In your opinion (Mr and Ms), what do you think, journal editors prefer Systematic Literature Reviews of 10-20 years over those of 5 years?
I am working on an article concerning a systematic literature review on the determinants of the business environment (business climate). thank you!
Dear Researchers,
due to a huge problem analysing the data for a systematic review, i ask for your help!
My topic focuses digital Interventions on cannabis consumption.
Which results should i focus on, when evaluating the data.
Should i just focus on Complete Cases or the ITT-Analysis or both.
For some values studies mentionend significant effects for the CC
but not in the ITT analysis. How can i evaluate this data?
(Does it mean that if a person uses the digital programm as intentend the significant effects apply?)
OR do other factors like attrition bias play a role and the results cannot be transfered to all people who use the program?
Is the ITT-Analysis the best way to draw a conclusion on the efficacy to transfer the results on the general public??
Looking forward to conduct a systematic review on a new topic which primarily contains opinions and communications. Kindly provide your valuable answer.
l need an assistance on how to carry out a systematic review of causes and preventive measures against maternal mortality in Ogun State, Nigeria, 2018-23?
I was doing a systematic literature review about the acceptance of Adaptive cruise control (ACC). The topic of ACC began in the 1990s. I want to select peer-reviewed articles and I believe that the recent studies should be included in the study. However, I don't know the year I should begin to filter the literature review works. Are there any scholarly-based decision criteria for selecting the year range I should take to perform the systematic review analysis?
#systematic #literature #review#ACC# ADAS #year range
I’m writing a mixed methods systematic review, and I was about to start my write up when I realised the majority of my papers are cross sectional studies. I know that this isn’t technically primary data. Would this invalidate my dissertation.
According to the study of Pan et al. (2023) entitled "Diagnostic Efficacy of Serological Antibody Detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," How do the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis impact current clinical practices related to HDV diagnosis and management?
According to the research of Pan et al. (2023) entitled, “Diagnostic Efficacy of serological Antibody detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” what measures could future researchers or scientists employ to standardize HDV diagnosis with PCR in the future?
In relation to an article titled "Diagnostic Efficacy of Serological Antibody Detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" by Zhenzhen Pan et al. (2023), what factors contribute to the prolonged presence of anti-HDV IgG antibodies in individuals with HDV infection?
Hi guys. I'm working in a systematic review and meta-analysis. How can I combine 4 groups to calculate the mean and standard deviation of a total cohort of patients?
I need to calculate the mean volume and SD of intracerebral hemorrhage and I have 4 studies.
What is the difference between a systematic review and a review article?
I need gain an insight into which type of a review paper that contributes significantly to establishing a rationale for the significance of a PhD thesis?
I am preparing to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency and its associated factors among adult individuals with diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa. If you have expertise in this topic area and are interested in contributing to and co-authoring this systematic review, please contact me.
Contributing roles may include:
- Identifying and screening studies for inclusion
- Extracting data from included studies
- Assessing risk of bias in included studies
- Performing statistical analyses and meta-analyses
- Assisting with drafting and revising the manuscrip
When I try to do the metatrim on STATA I get the following error:
db metatrim
. metatrim _ES _seES, reffect eform
Note: default data input format (theta, se_theta) assumed.
subcommand meta __000005 is unrecognized
r(199);
Does anyone know how to solve it? I couldn't find anything on the internet.
The main reason is lack of well designed studies in the area of interest. Is there a standard tool for quality assessment of case reports?
Do you know systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses that have chosen to exclude articles from (or suspected to be) predatory journals/publishers in their work ?
Hi
i am trying to conduct an umbrella review.
there are some systematic reviews that report the same outcome and have same included RCTs (not all of the RCTs are similar but some of them repeated in two same meta analysis). I can not delete any of the systematic reviews because they reported different studies as well ( it seems that it is because of using different data sources)
can i include all of the systematic review and meta analyses?
I submitted a manuscript of bibliometric anato a journal and got reviewers' comments. One reviewer indicated that PRISMA and SLR should be applied. I never do PRISMA in bibliometric studies because systematic review is different from bibliometrics, and I am thinking of a proper way to respond to this reviewer. Could any one give me advices? Thanks.
I'm writing a paper review / prospective paper about the use of XR tools in the space training domain - research gaps and future applications/investigations.
There are not so many papers about the topic, expect several conference papers. So I'd like to mention XR projects ongoing from companies and I'd like to do it systematically. Do you know if there's a way to do it systematically? Like a systematic Google review?
With PRIMA, we can make a systematic literature review. So I would like to search on Google terms such as 'virtual reality space training' and nominate in the papers, the companies / projects that came out from the Google search, to provide practical examples. So I hope that I would not miss any XR company which it is currently working on the topic.
Meta-analyses and systematic reviews seem the shortcut to academic success as they usually have a better chance of getting published in accredited journals, be read more, and bring home a lot of citations. Interestingly enough, apart from being time-consuming, they are very easy; they are actually nothing but carefully followed protocols of online data collection and statistical analysis, if any.
The point is that most of this can be easily done (at least in theory) by a simple computer algorithm. A combination of if/thenstatements would simply allow the software to decide on the statistical parameters to be used, not to mention more advanced approaches that can be available to expert systems.
The only part needing a much more advanced algorithm like a very good artificial intelligence is the part that is supposed to search the articles, read them, accurately understand them, include/exclude them accordingly, and extract data from them. It seems that today’s level of AI is becoming more and more sufficient for this purpose. AI can now easily read papers and understand them quite accurately. So AI programs that can either do the whole meta-analysis themselves, or do the heavy lifting and let the human check and polish/correct the final results are on the rise. All needed would be the topic of the meta-analysis. The rest is done automatically or semi-automatically.
We can even have search engines that actively monitor academic literature, and simply generate the end results (i.e., forest plots, effect sizes, risk of bias assessments, result interpretations, etc.), as if it is some very easily done “search result”. Humans then can get back to doing more difficult research instead of putting time on searching and doing statistical analyses and writing the final meta-analysis paper. At least, such search engines can give a pretty good initial draft for humans to check and polish them.
When we ask a medical question from a search engine, it will not only give us a summary of relevant results (the way the currently available LLM chatbots do) but also will it calculate and produce an initial meta-analysis for us based on the available scientific literature. It will also warn the reader that the results are generated by AI and should not be deeply trusted, but can be used as a rough guess. This is of course needed until the accuracy of generative AI surpasses that of humans.
It just needs some enthusiasts with enough free time and resources on their hands to train some available open-source, open-parameter LLMs to do this specific task. Maybe even big players are currently working on this concept behind the scene to optimize their propriety LLMs for meta-analysis generation.
Any thoughts would be most welcome.
Vahid Rakhshan
In relation to the systematic review and meta-analysis of Zhenzhen Pan et al. (2023) about the Diagnostic Efficacy of Serological Antibody Detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus.
Hello,
My Masters research is a systematic review and meta analysis. One thing I am struggling with is when a study has undertaken a split head comparison (intervention on one side of the head, placebo/control on the other side). how is this defined in terms of population?
If there are 10 participants who received placebo and intervention, is n.i = 10 and n.c = 10 or is n.i = 5 and n.c 5? I'm mindful of double counting etc. Any advice welcomed.
basic steps of the PRISMA model and how they relate to systematic reviews in management.
Dear ResearchGate Community,
We are currently facing a pivotal stage in revising our manuscript for submission to a prestigious journal in the fields of pharmaceutics and ophthalmology. Our article is a systematic review of observational studies, encompassing diverse study designs such as case-control, quasi-experimental studies, case series, and case reports. During the revise before peer review stage, the editor has requested that we provide a risk of bias assessment in our manuscript.
We have already conducted a qualitative assessment using JBI Checklists; however, we are unsure how to address the editor's request for a risk of bias assessment specifically tailored to the included article types. Are there specific risk-of-bias tools available for these diverse study designs? How should we approach integrating a risk of bias assessment into our systematic review effectively?
Any insights or guidance on how to respond to the editor's request and incorporate a robust risk of bias assessment into our manuscript would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your expertise and assistance.
Can I publish a paper analyzing original data after a systematic review has been done on that topic?
Why do we need systematic review of reasons? Are there any differences between systematic review and meta-analysis?
I am conducting a meta-analysis. The systematic review resulted in 5 eligible studies; of them, one study included a pooled analysis of 14 cohorts that were not published before. Is it possible to consider the pooled analysis as one study and combine it with the remaining studies as usual?
I would be grateful if someone could help me with the sources or strategy I should use. Thanks
I must write a systematic review study. Who is better and accepted in scientific journals?
I am trying to conduct a systematic review for my dissertation at university. I am struggling to find the advanced search filter to add my desired words to narrow my results. My terms are: ("bat" OR "UK bats") AND ("UK") AND ("policy" OR "legislation") AND ("impact" OR "population change"). Would I just enter these key terms in the regular search bar or is there a specific section?
I would like to conduct the systematic review for causality. I wanna select the studies with SEM and path analysis. Pls suggestions to me.
Can a rapid review study be done, if a systematic review is available recently with similar research? Is there any other alternative review which can be done?
Dear professors,
Any recommendations of systematic review of structural analysis optimization using genatic algorithms or related.
If any, Please attach me.
Thank you all
Hello academic colleagues.
I need a research collaboration to write systematic review on the said topic. drop a message if someone is interested.