Advertisement

Conducting Systematic Evidence Reviews: Core Concepts and Lessons Learned

      Abstract

      Brown PA, Harniss MK, Schomer KG, Feinberg M, Cullen NK, Johnson KL. Conducting systematic evidence reviews: core concepts and lessons learned.
      A systematic review (SR) is an essential component of evidence-based practice, because it synthesizes information on a particular topic that is necessary to inform health-related decision making. The purpose of this article is to document the process of producing a high-quality SR within the field of rehabilitation in contrast to other fields (eg, pharmaceutic research). We describe the notable methodologic challenges to producing high-quality SRs for rehabilitation researchers. Broadly, we outline how the quality of SRs is evaluated and suggest mechanisms for researchers to address potential pitfalls. Because meaningful SRs can and should be conducted in this field, we provide practical guidance regarding how to conduct such an SR. We outline a series of 8 important steps in the production of an SR: forming a committee, creating a development plan, conducting a literature review, selecting articles for inclusion, extracting data, preparing tables of evidence, facilitating external review and publication, and forming conclusions and recommendations. For each step of the SR process, we provide detailed description about the methodologic decisions involved and recommended strategies that researchers can implement to produce a high-quality SR. Using these preestablished steps and procedures as a guideline will not only help to increase the efficiency of the SR process, but also to improve the quality. The availability of high-quality SRs with plain language summaries promotes access to the best quality information for all involved in decision making.

      Key Words

      List of Abbreviations:

      AAN (American Academy of Neurology), AMSTAR (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews), GCS (Glasgow Coma Scale), GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation), EBP (evidence-based practice), PEDro (Physiotherapy Evidence Database), RCT (randomized controlled trial), SCI (spinal cord injury), SR (systematic review), TBI (traumatic brain injury)
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Dijkers M.P.
        • Murphy S.L.
        • Krellman J.
        Evidence-based practice for rehabilitation professionals: concepts and controversies.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: S164-S176
        • Liberati A.A.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Mulrow C.
        • et al.
        The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: e1-e34
        • Johnston M.
        • Vanderheiden G.
        • Farkas M.
        • Rogers E.
        • Summers J.
        • Westbrook J.
        The challenge of evidence in disability and rehabilitation research and practice: a position paper.
        SEDL, Austin2009
        • Victora C.G.
        • Habicht J.P.
        • Bryce J.
        Evidence-based public health: moving beyond randomized trials.
        Am J Public Health. 2004; 94: 400-405
        • Ylvisaker M.
        • Turkstra L.
        • Coelho C.
        Behavioral and social interventions for individuals with traumatic brain injury: a summary of the research with clinical implications.
        Semin Speech Lang. 2005; 26: 256-267
        • Kennedy M.R.
        • Coelho C.
        • Turkstra L.
        • et al.
        Intervention for executive functions after traumatic brain injury: a systematic review, meta-analysis and clinical recommendations.
        Neuropsychol Rehabil. 2008; 18: 257-299
        • Kung J.
        • Chiappelli F.
        • Cajulis O.O.
        • et al.
        From systematic reviews to clinical recommendations for evidence-based health care: validation of Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) for grading of clinical relevance.
        Open Dent J. 2010; 4: 84-91
        • Lewin S.
        • Oxman A.D.
        • Lavis J.N.
        • Gruen R.L.
        • Fretheim A.
        SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review.
        Health Res Policy Syst. 2009; 7
        • Moher D.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Sampson M.
        • Altman D.G.
        Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
        PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e78
        • O'Mathúna D.P.
        Critical appraisal of systematic reviews.
        Int J Nurs Pract. 2010; 16: 414-418
        • Shea B.
        • Bouter L.
        • Peterson J.
        • et al.
        External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR).
        PloS One. 2007; 2: e1350
        • Shea B.
        • Grimshaw J.
        • Wells G.
        • et al.
        Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007; 7: 10
        • Teasdale G.
        • Jennett B.
        Assessment and prognosis of coma after head injury.
        Acta Neurochir (Wien). 1976; 34: 45-55
        • Sampson M.
        • McGowan J.
        Errors in search strategies were identified by type and frequency.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2006; 59: 1057-1063
        • Johnston M.
        • Sherer M.
        • Whyte J.
        Applying evidence standards to rehabilitation research.
        Am J Phys Med Rehabil. 2006; 85: 292-309
        • Schünemann H.
        • Fretheim A.
        • Oxman A.
        Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 9.
        Health Res Policy Syst. 2006; 4: 21
        • Moseley A.M.
        • Herbert R.D.
        • Sherrington C.
        • Maher C.G.
        Evidence for physiotherapy practice: a survey of the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro).
        Aust J Physiother. 2002; 48: 43-49
        • Downs S.H.
        • Black N.
        The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions.
        J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998; 52: 377-384
        • Sackett D.L.
        • Straus S.E.
        • Richardson W.S.
        • Rosenberg W.
        • Haynes R.B.
        Evidence-based medicine: how to practice and teach EBM.
        Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh2000
        • Edlund W.
        • Grosneth G.
        • So Y.
        • Franklin G.
        Clinical practice guidelines process manual.
        American Academy of Neurology, St. Paul, MN2004
        • Dikmen S.
        • Machamer J.
        • Temkin N.
        • McLean A.
        Neuropsychological recovery in patients with moderate to severe head injury: 2-year follow-up.
        J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. 1990; 12: 507-519
        • Johnston M.V.
        • Dijkers M.P.
        Toward improved evidence standards and methods for rehabilitation: recommendations and challenges.
        Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2012; 93: S185-S199
        • Sampson M.
        • McGowan J.
        • Cogo E.
        • Grimshaw J.
        • Moher D.
        • Lefebvre C.
        An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 944-952
        • Hartling L.
        United States. Agency for Healthcare R, Quality, University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice C. Developing and testing a tool for the classification of study designs in systematic reviews of interventions and exposures.
        Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville2010
        • Elamin M.
        • Flynn D.
        • Bassler D.
        • et al.
        Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62: 506-510
      1. Plain Writing Act (Public Law 111-274—Oct. 13, 2010). 5 USC 301 (2010).

        • Mazur B.
        Revisiting plain language.
        Technical Communication. 2000; 47: 205-211
        • Steinberg E.R.
        Plain language: principles and practice.
        Wayne State Univ Pr, Detroit1991
        • Redish J.C.
        What is information design?.
        Technical Communication. 2000; 47: 163-166