E Linares-Espinós1, V Hernández2, J L Domínguez-Escrig3, S Fernández-Pello4, V Hevia5, J Mayor6, B Padilla-Fernández7, M J Ribal8. 1. Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, España. Electronic address: estefania.linares@salud.madrid.org. 2. Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Madrid, España. 3. Instituto Valenciano de Oncología, Valencia, España. 4. Hospital Universitario de Cabueñes, Gijón, Asturias, España. 5. Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, España. 6. Hospital Universitario Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, España. 7. Hospital Universitario de Canarias, Tenerife, España. 8. Hospital Clínic, Barcelona, España; EAU Guidelines Office Board Member.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The objective of evidence-based medicine is to employ the best scientific information available to apply to clinical practice. Understanding and interpreting the scientific evidence involves understanding the available levels of evidence, where systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are at the top of the levels-of-evidence pyramid. ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE: The review process should be well developed and planned to reduce biases and eliminate irrelevant and low-quality studies. The steps for implementing a systematic review include (i) correctly formulating the clinical question to answer (PICO), (ii) developing a protocol (inclusion and exclusion criteria), (iii) performing a detailed and broad literature search and (iv) screening the abstracts of the studies identified in the search and subsequently of the selected complete texts (PRISMA). SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE: Once the studies have been selected, we need to (v) extract the necessary data into a form designed in the protocol to summarise the included studies, (vi) assess the biases of each study, identifying the quality of the available evidence, and (vii) develop tables and text that synthesise the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review involves a critical and reproducible summary of the results of the available publications on a particular topic or clinical question. To improve scientific writing, the methodology is shown in a structured manner to implement a systematic review.
CONTEXT: The objective of evidence-based medicine is to employ the best scientific information available to apply to clinical practice. Understanding and interpreting the scientific evidence involves understanding the available levels of evidence, where systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials are at the top of the levels-of-evidence pyramid. ACQUISITION OF EVIDENCE: The review process should be well developed and planned to reduce biases and eliminate irrelevant and low-quality studies. The steps for implementing a systematic review include (i) correctly formulating the clinical question to answer (PICO), (ii) developing a protocol (inclusion and exclusion criteria), (iii) performing a detailed and broad literature search and (iv) screening the abstracts of the studies identified in the search and subsequently of the selected complete texts (PRISMA). SYNTHESIS OF THE EVIDENCE: Once the studies have been selected, we need to (v) extract the necessary data into a form designed in the protocol to summarise the included studies, (vi) assess the biases of each study, identifying the quality of the available evidence, and (vii) develop tables and text that synthesise the evidence. CONCLUSIONS: A systematic review involves a critical and reproducible summary of the results of the available publications on a particular topic or clinical question. To improve scientific writing, the methodology is shown in a structured manner to implement a systematic review.
Authors: Alicia María de Pedro Negri; María Jesús Ruiz Prieto; Esther Díaz-Mohedo; Rocío Martín-Valero Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-10 Impact factor: 4.614
Authors: Javier Ordóñez-Piedra; Jose Antonio Ponce-Blandón; Jose Miguel Robles-Romero; Juan Gómez-Salgado; Nerea Jiménez-Picón; Macarena Romero-Martín Journal: Nurs Open Date: 2021-03-10
Authors: Thomas Radulesco; Jerome R Lechien; Leigh J Sowerby; Sven Saussez; Carlos Chiesa-Estomba; Zoukaa Sargi; Philippe Lavigne; Christian Calvo-Henriquez; Chwee Ming Lim; Napadon Tangjaturonrasme; Patravoot Vatanasapt; Puya Dehgani-Mobaraki; Nicolas Fakhry; Tareck Ayad; Justin Michel Journal: Eur Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2020-07-24 Impact factor: 2.503