They support decision-making and development of best practice and can make recommendations for further research. These reviews seek to find, critique and synthesise all the available evidence for a focused question to determine the effectiveness of interventions, the levels of harm in interventions or to prepare for a meta-analysis.
Systematic reviews are comprehensive evidence syntheses that are considered the gold standard review with a focus on high level evidence (often randomised controlled trials, but this depends on the question type). *timeframe may vary from this guide, depending on the number of eligible articles included in the review and other demands on the reviewers' time Systematic Review To provide a detailed understanding to policy makers and practitioners of the intervention and how it can be implemented to maximise effectiveness. To maintain currency of findings by ongoing review of the literature most appropriate when the research field covered is rapidly evolving and new evidence is emerging. Most useful when there are competing interventions to consider. Will usually have multiple questions or several aspects to research question, to provide a more comprehensive picture of the issue.
Increase self-knowledge of an area, provide a broad overview or identify gaps in the literature, or as background for research. May assist with determining areas for new research or the usefulness of a future systematic review. Useful for addressing issues needing quick decisions, or synthesising the evidence as part of a systematic review is not practical, often due to time constraints. May assist where diverse methodologies are required to answer a question, or where empirical evidence may not exist. May be useful for clinical decision-making, determining best practice.
Determines the effectiveness of interventions by applying statistical analysis to the combined results of individual studies.Īn interpretive synthesis of qualitative data which provides new insights into the research
0 kommentar(er)
