Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1

1

1 Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School,Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane,
1 Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School,Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane,
1 Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School,Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane,
1 Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School,Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane,
1 Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School,Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane,
1 Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School,Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane,

Peninsula Technology Assessment Group (PenTAG), University of Exeter Medical School,Veysey Building, Salmon Pool Lane, Exeter EX2 4SG Cite: L.Long Routine piloting in systematic reviews a modified approach?Syst Rev, 2014 Jul 18.3(1):77

Background

A continuous growth in the publication of research papers

mean that there is an expanding volume of data available to the systematic reviewer. Sometimes, researchers can become overwhelmed by the sheer volume of data processed, leading to inefficient data extraction. The paper seeks to address this problem by proposing a modification to the current systematic review methodology.

Stages of Proposed Method

Fig 1: Theoretical Process Model For Pilot Method

Included n=41 Papers

(36 individual studies)

Pilot Method Included n=41 Papers (36 individual studies) In this paper it is proposed that current

In this paper it is proposed that current guidelines in conducting systematic reviews are followed up to the stage where papers

have been assessed for inclusion in the

review. The pilot method is then employed (fig 1) and a purposive sample (reporting a wide range of outcome measure scales and time points) of included papers are chosen from the total number of included studies to pilot up to synthesis stage (step 1). Data from the sample papers are extracted (step 2) and

critically appraised for quality and validity

(step 3) and a sample synthesis is then performed (step 4). Results from this pilot synthesis are then used to inform modification of data extraction forms in the light of these preliminary synthesis findings (step 5), to ensure efficient and meaningful extraction of data from all included papers.

STEP 1

Pilot Paper Sample (e.g. n=10)

STEP 2 STEP 5 Sample Data Refine Data Extraction / Extraction / Checking Checking STEP
STEP 2
STEP 5
Sample Data
Refine Data
Extraction /
Extraction /
Checking
Checking
STEP 3
Appraise /
Full Data
Analyse
Extraction /
Sample Studies
Checking
STEP 4
Appraise /
Sample
Analyse All
Synthesis
Individual
Studies
Full Synthesis Dissemination
Full Synthesis
Dissemination

Proposed Method

This paper details the routine piloting of systematic reviews all

the way through to evidence synthesis stage using data from a sample of included papers.

Results and Discussion

The result of piloting a sample of papers through to evidence synthesis stage is to produce a “mini-systematic review”. Insights from such a pilot review may be used to modify criteria

in the data extraction form. It is proposed that this approach

will ensure that in the full review the most useful and relevant information is extracted from all the papers in one phase, without needing to re-visit the individual papers at a later stage.

Theoretical Case Study

A systematic review of adults with type 2 diabetes exploring the association between biomedical outcomes (e.g. HbA1c,

BMI/weight and blood pressure) and

quality of life (including low mood and depression) following a diabetic drug intervention. Extraction of quantitative data would be performed using a structured data extraction form to include key study details, patient characteristics, diabetes-related factors, intervention,

setting and outcome measures. It may

emerge through the piloting process that in addition to baseline diagnosis of depression, a patient’s history of depression is important in predicting changes in blood glucose levels (as measured by HbA1c) and so the data extraction form would need to be modified to extract history of depression data from all the review papers. It may also emerge during the piloting process that some studies record single follow-up points for biomedical outcome measures, while others have multiple follow-up time points. After consideration of the pilot synthesis stage, the data extraction form could be modified to ensure that only the most clinically relevant time points required to answer the review question are extracted in the full review.

Conclusions

Routine piloting in systematic reviews has been developed in response to advances in information technology and the

subsequent increase in rapid access to clinical papers and data.

It is proposed that the routine piloting of large systematic

reviews will enable themes and meaning in the data to become apparent early in the review process. This, in turn, will facilitate the efficient extraction of data from all the papers in the full review. It is proposed that this approach will result in increased validity of the review, with potential benefits for increasing

efficiency.

review, with potential benefits for increasing efficiency. Strengths and Weaknesses of Piloting Systematic Reviews

Strengths and Weaknesses of Piloting Systematic Reviews Prior to Full Review

ADVANTAGES

WEAKNESSES

Efficient and potentially time-saving when processing large numbers of studies

Not necessary for reviews with small numbers of included studies

Greater flexibility for optimally efficient data extraction

Need to have access to most of the potentially eligible studies in order to draw the purposive sample.

Can be used in large umbrella overviews (a “review of reviews”)

Not necessary for overviews with small numbers of included systematic reviews

Future Research Recommendations It is hoped that this paper will serve as stimulation for further

Future Research Recommendations It is hoped that this paper will serve as stimulation for further discourse on the subject of maximising validity and efficiency in systematic reviews, given the increasing volume of research papers available both now and in the future. Details of approaches developed by other research teams to address this issue, or evaluation of the above routine piloting method, would be most welcome. Contact L.Long@exeter.ac.uk

Оценить