Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal aims to publish high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modeling. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
- David Moher, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
- Paul G Shekelle, RAND Corporation
- Lesley A Stewart, CRD, University of York
Health Technology Assessment (HTA) is becoming increasingly popular at the local or hospital level. Current evidence suggests that each approach has its own strengths and weaknesses; overall, studies highlighted positive impacts related to HTA on hospital decisions, budgets and perceptions from stakeholders.
With various studies investigating the use of incentive strategies to prevent lifestyle-related diseases, this systematic review will focus on the effectiveness of financial incentive programs at the population-level in workplace cafeterias, vending machines and kiosks that aim to improve dietary habits, nutrient intake and prevent obesity.
Publication bias affects the validity of estimated effects of medical interventions in systematic reviews. A cross sectional analysis found 35% of systematic reviews reported using a registry to identify trials; of the reviews that provided registry search results, 52% identified at least one completed trial for inclusion.
Health and economic impacts of research can be challenging to measure. Nearly one third of systematic reviews produced between 2007 and 2011 by UK Cochrane Review Groups were cited in policy guidance documents, though barriers to the use included reviews being out of date and lack of communications between groups.
Theoretical reviews are becoming increasingly common, but there is no consensus on the best methodological approach. Assessment of how the stages of conducting a systematic review can be adapted for a review of theory is discussed, using the casual relationship between income and health as a working example.
Latest from PROSPERO
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the comparative efficacy of e-health interventions for tobacco smoking cessation among general population
- A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies on barriers and facilitators to fertility preservation care
- A systematic review of European clinical management guidelines for syndromes with epidemic potential
- A systematic review of self management interventions to improve coping and resilience in common long term conditions?
Rapid reviews call for papers
Systematic Reviews is encouraging the submission of methodological papers concerning the conduct and reporting of rapid reviews, along with rapid review results papers. Please see the call for papers information page for more details.
Dr. David Moher is a senior scientist at the Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa. Dr. Moher has been involved in systematic reviews for more than 20 years and has made contributions to the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Dr. Moher is associated with many journals, is a member of the advisory board for the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, and a member of the EQUATOR Network's steering group.
In addition to currently serving as a Staff Physician at the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dr. Shekelle has served as the Director of the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center for the RAND Corporation since 1997. He is also a Professor of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine. He is widely recognized in the field of guidelines, quality measurement, and evidence-based medicine. Dr. Shekelle has extensive experience in the health care arena and was previously the methodologist for the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ]) Low-Back Guidelines Panel, and he has participated in a number of other guideline development activities. He is currently the chair of the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.
Professor Lesley Stewart is Director of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York and is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. Lesley has been involved in evidence synthesis in healthcare since the late 1980's, previously running the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit meta-analysis research programme. Together with colleagues in Cambridge and Oxford, she helped establish the methodology and framework for individual patient data (IPD) reviews and was a founding member of the Cochrane Collaboration. Her research interests include the avoidance of bias and development of IPD methods and approaches to systematic review. Recently, she has instigated the development of PROSPERO an international register for the prospective registration of systematic reviews.