Writing and presenting a systematic review emphasizing the Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.22122/cdj.v4i1.217Keywords:
Meta-Analysis, Systematic Review, Public HealthAbstract
BACKGROUND: The systematic review is a scientific method for identifying and presenting early research, quality assessment, and integration of their results. This study aimed to describe the principles of systematic reviews and inscribe related articles emphasizing the Cochrane Handbook, for using of medical and health students.
METHODS: This study was a library review and a compilation of materials on how to conduct review studies in medical sciences and health with emphasis on the Cochrane Handbook.
RESULTS: The findings of this study indicated that review studies have different types, most notably systematic reviews. The Cochrane Handbook provides valuable information collections for conducting these studies in medical sciences, and allows systematic reviews to step by step facilitate and publish relevant articles.
CONCLUSION: Writing a systematic review involves defining the purpose and protocols, systematically searching for primary studies, critical assessment, selection of the studies, and then, analysis and integration of the final results.
References
Glasziou P, Irwig L, Bain C, Colditz G. Systematic reviews in health care: A practical guide. Trans. Gocheh-Moshkian N. Tabriz, Iran: Sotudeh Publications; 2008. [In Persian].
Glasziou PP, Del Mar C, Salisbury J. Evidence-Based Practice Workbook. 2nd ed. Trans. Siofi AM, Nosrati L, Ebrahimi M, Haj Ebrahimi S. Tabriz, Iran: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences; 2008. [In Persian].
Harden M. Mixed-methods systematic reviews: Integrating quantitative and qualitative findings. Focus: Technical Brief 2010; (25): 1-8.
Dixon-Woods M, Bonas S, Booth A, Jones DR, Miller T, Sutton AJ, et al. How can systematic reviews incorporate qualitative research? A critical perspective. Qual Res 2006; 6(1): 27-44.
Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: Considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int 2011; 31(11): 1409-17.
Rajabnejad M, Shirvani A, Khazanehdari S. Systematic review. Tehran, Iran: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences; 2006. [In Persian].
Torgerson C. Systematic reviews. London, UK: A&C Black; 2003.
Moghimi A, Chehrei A, Bayat A, Fereshtehnajad M, Kahbazi M. The basic principles of writing medical articles. Tehran, Iran: Pezvak Elme Arya Publications; 2007. [In Persian].
Simons M. Guidelines for writing systematic reviews [Online]. [cited 2011]. Available from: URL: https://es.scribd.com/document/273809929/Guidelines-for-Writing-Systematic-Reviews
Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2011.
Students 4 Best Evidence. Traditional reviews vs. systematic reviews [Online]. [cited 2011]. Available from: URL:
https://www.students4bestevidence.net/traditional-reviews-vs-systematic-reviews
Hannah A. Systematic reviews 101: Systematic reviews vs. Narrative reviews [Online]. [cited 3 Feb. 2016]; Available from: URL:
Rother ET. Systematic literature review X narrative review. Acta Paul Enferm 2007; 20(2): v-vi.
Dochy F. A guide for writing scholarly articles or reviews for the Educational Research Review. Educational Research Review 2006; 4: 1-2.
YourDictionary. Enrollee [Online]. [cited 2018]. Available from: URL:
http://www.yourdictionary.com/enrollee
How to Write a Notable Editorial [Online]. [cited 2017]; Available from: URL:
https://www.wikihow.com/Write-a-Notable-Editorial.
WikiHow. How to Write Letters to the Editor [Online]. [cited 2016]; Available from: URL: https://www.wikihow.com/Write-Letters-to-the-Editor
Definition of commentary [Online]. [cited 2018]; Available from: URL: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commentary
Commentary Meaning in the Cambridge English Dictionary [Online]. [cited 2018]; Available from: URL: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/commentary.
Rastmanesh R, Khoshnevisan F, Ansaryan A, Moradi
B. How to read a paper, evidence-based medicine. Tehran, Iran: Serva Mediseh; 2010. [In Persian].
Badenoch D, Heneghan C. Evidence- based medicine toolkit. Trans, Ghojazadeh M, Nostati L. Tabriz, Iran: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences; 2007. [In Persian].
Mahbob Ahari M, Hajebrahimi S, Sadeghi Bazargani H, Ghyasi F. Clinical effectiveness. Tabriz, Iran: Tabriz University of Medical Sciences; 2011. [In Persian].
Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996; 17(1): 1-12.
Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001; 1: 2.
Brand RA. Standards of reporting: the Consort, Quorum, And Strobe guidelines. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009; 467(6): 1393-4.
Haghdost A, Sadegi Rad B. Systematic review and meta-analysis: Concepts, applications and computing. Rasht, Iran: Gap Publications; 2014.
Bayhaghi H, Ehtshamiafshar B, Hasani S, Rahmani Z, Safizadeh M, Yazdaninaja S. Critical appraisal. Tehran, Iran: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences; 2006. [In Persian].
Shirvani A, Hatami M, Tabatabaei V. Health technology assessment. Tehran, Iran: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences; 2006. [In Persian].
Rejeh N, Haravi-Karimooi M. Qualitative researches and evidence based caring. Proceedings of the National Congress of Evidence-Based Care. 20-21 October 2010; Mashhad, Iran. [In Persian].
Jones ML. Application of systematic review methods to qualitative research: Practical issues. J Adv Nurs 2004; 48(3): 271-8.
Bearman M, Dawson P. Qualitative synthesis and systematic review in health professions education. Med Educ 2013; 47(3): 252-60.
Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K, Booth A. Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: Higgins JP, Green S, Editors. Cochrane Handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0.2. London, UK: Cochrane Collaboration; 2008.
