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
Design heterogeneity assessments during meta-analyses are usually presented post-hoc to explain statistical heterogeneity. This study highlights the importance of reporting design heterogeneity prior to statistical summarisation, along with ways to improve its assessment, which ultimately provides more evidence for interpreting risk estimates.
The production of systematic reviews can often be delayed due to cost of production, availability of the requisite expertise and timeliness. Here, the authors evaluated the potential impact of advancements in informatics systems that support or automate different stages of the systematic review process.
Observational studies dominate the surgical literature, though the quality of statistical adjustment to account for confounders can be highly variable. This study explored the reporting and quality of statistical analyses in surgical observational studies published in medical and surgical journals, with quality assessment criteria adapted from the SAMPL guidelines.
As the number of healthcare related systematic reviews grows each year, the need for explicit and transparent guidance for integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews also grows. This study identified areas where existing guidance could be adopted or adapted, and suggests areas for future guidance development.
Systematic reviews that address practice questions need to assess the efficacy of any given intervention, as well as identify the exact components of the intervention that are relevant in particular situations. This study assessed the potential of Qualitative Comparative Analysis to facilitate the identification of necessary and sufficient conditions that explain observed outcomes.
Latest from PROSPERO
- 135° vs 155° humeral head inclination in reverse total shoulder arthroplasty: a systematic review of the literature
- A systematic review of modifiable risk factors of childhood overweight and obesity among children in China
- A systematic review of the mental health impacts of sport programs on adolescents in post-conflict countries
Network meta-analyses call for papers
Systematic Reviews is encouraging the submission of methodological papers concerning the conduct and reporting of network meta-analyses, along with network meta-analysis 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.