![]() ![]() Living systematic maps are regularly updated so the evidence stays current. Increasingly, maps are published as databases with interactive visualisations to enable the user to investigate and visualise different parts of the map. ![]() Please note that, confusingly, the 'scoping review' is sometimes used by people to describe systematic evidence maps and at other times to refer to reviews that are quick, selective scopes of the nature and size of literature in an area.Ī systematic map may be published in different formats, such as a written report or database. The studies in the map that are not synthesised can help with interpreting the synthesis and drawing conclusions. Where a subset of studies is used in the synthesis, the review question and the boundaries of the review will need to be narrowed in order to provide a rigorous approach for selecting the sub-set of studies from the map. Even with this common ground, both types vary significantly. It may be that the map shows that the studies to be synthesised are very different from each other, and it may be more appropriate to use a subset of the studies. It is common to confuse systematic and literature reviews as both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic. Systematic maps can be a standalone finished product of research, without a synthesis, or may also be a component a systematic review that will synthesise studies.Ī systematic map can help to plan a synthesis. In other words, a meta-analysis can provide a quantitative synthesis of the findings in the literature, while systematic review only provides a descriptive. They can be useful to compare trends and differences across sets of studies. A 'systematic map' can both explain what has been studied and also indicate what has not been studied and where there are gaps in the research (gap maps). This is in contrast to a synthesis that provides uses research findings to make a statement about an evidence base. Systematic evidence maps are a product that describe the nature of research in an area. This is a type of quantitative synthesis that is testing a hypothesis (that an intervention is effective) and the review methods are described in advance (using a deductive a priori paradigm). This produces an overall measure of effect of the intervention (after taking into account the sample sizes of the studies). These studies report evidence of the relative effect of an intervention compared to control conditions.Ī synthesis of these types of studies aggregates the findings of the studies together. ![]() If a systematic review question is about the effectiveness of an intervention, then the included studies are likely to be experimental studies that test whether an intervention is effective or not. ![]() Two common and different types of review are those asking about the evidence of impact (effectiveness) of an intervention and those asking about ways of understanding a social phenomena. In primary research there are many research questions and many different methods to address them. The process of combining studies and the way the output is reported varies according to the research question of the review. This output may be a written narrative, a table, or graphical plots, including statistical meta-analysis. A synthesis is also the product and output of the combined studies. About Cochrane Reviews.Synthesis is the process of combining the findings of research studies. A meta-analysis may not be appropriate if the designs of the studies are too different, if there are concerns about the quality of studies, if the outcomes measured are not sufficiently similar for the result across the studies to be meaningful.Ĭenters for Disease Control and Prevention. Not every systematic review contains a meta-analysis. A meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize the results of a systematic review. Check out the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Cochrane Reviews links to learn more about Systematic Reviews.Ī systematic review can be combined with a meta-analysis. The reason why a systematic review is conducted is to provide a current evidence-based answer to a specific question that in turn helps to inform decision making. This is followed by an extensive search of the literature and a critical analysis of the search results. In general, specific and systematic methods selected are intended to minimize bias. In a systematic review, a question needs to be clearly defined and have inclusion and exclusion criteria. A systematic review collects and analyzes all evidence that answers a specific research question. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |