Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders 1/2021

01-06-2021 | Review article

The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine: a conceptual framework

Authors: Hamideh Moosapour, Farzane Saeidifard, Maryam Aalaa, Akbar Soltani, Bagher Larijani

Published in: Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders | Issue 1/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

A systematic review (SR) is a type of review that uses a systematic method to provide a valid summary of existing literature addressing a clear and specific question. In clinical medicine (CM), the concept of SR is well recognized, especially after the introduction of evidence-based medicine; The SR of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is considered the highest level of evidence on therapeutic effectiveness. Despite the popularity of the SRs and the increasing publication rate of SRs in CM and other healthcare literature, the concept has raised criticisms. Many of proper criticisms can be due to the deviation of some existing SRs from the original philosophy and well-established rationale behind the concept of SR. On the other hand, many criticisms are misconceptions about SRs which still exist even several decades after introducing the concept. This article presents a conceptual framework for clarifying the rationale behind SR in CM by providing the relevant concepts and their inter-relations, explaining how methodological standards of an SR and its rationale are connected, and discussing the rationale under the three-section: SR as a type of synthetic research, SR as a more informed and less biased review, and SR as an efficient scientific tool.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews. The Cochrane collaboration. 2008;5(0). Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews. The Cochrane collaboration. 2008;5(0).
2.
go back to reference Hayward RS, Wilson MC, Tunis SR, Bass EB, Guyatt G. Users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 1995;274(7):570–4.CrossRef Hayward RS, Wilson MC, Tunis SR, Bass EB, Guyatt G. Users' guides to the medical literature. JAMA. 1995;274(7):570–4.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514.CrossRef Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(6). Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K. Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(6).
5.
go back to reference Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide: John Wiley & Sons 2008. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic reviews in the social sciences: a practical guide: John Wiley & Sons 2008.
6.
go back to reference Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ. 2003;326(7392):756–8.CrossRef Petticrew M. Why certain systematic reviews reach uncertain conclusions. BMJ. 2003;326(7392):756–8.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ. 2001;322:98–101.CrossRef Petticrew M. Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: myths and misconceptions. BMJ. 2001;322:98–101.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Haddaway NR, Bilotta GS. Systematic reviews: separating fact from fiction. Environ Int. 2016;92:578–84.CrossRef Haddaway NR, Bilotta GS. Systematic reviews: separating fact from fiction. Environ Int. 2016;92:578–84.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Sofaer N, Strech D. The need for systematic reviews of reasons. Bioethics. 2011;26(6):315–28.CrossRef Sofaer N, Strech D. The need for systematic reviews of reasons. Bioethics. 2011;26(6):315–28.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Strech D, Sofaer N. How to write a systematic review of reasons. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(2):121–6.CrossRef Strech D, Sofaer N. How to write a systematic review of reasons. J Med Ethics. 2012;38(2):121–6.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Oliver S, Dickson K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid Policy. 2016;12(2):235–59.CrossRef Oliver S, Dickson K. Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production. Evid Policy. 2016;12(2):235–59.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Mullen PD, Ramírez G. The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:81–102.CrossRef Mullen PD, Ramírez G. The promise and pitfalls of systematic reviews. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:81–102.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Morrison J. The challenges of systematic reviews of educational research. BMJ. 2005;331(7513):391.CrossRef Morrison J. The challenges of systematic reviews of educational research. BMJ. 2005;331(7513):391.CrossRef
14.
15.
go back to reference Daley BJ, Durning SJ, Torre DM. Using concept maps to create meaningful learning in medical education. MedEdPublish. 2016 10;5. Daley BJ, Durning SJ, Torre DM. Using concept maps to create meaningful learning in medical education. MedEdPublish. 2016 10;5.
16.
go back to reference Me D. The Joanna Briggs institute: its contribution to evidence-based practice. Clin Nurse Spec. 2005;19(4):184–6.CrossRef Me D. The Joanna Briggs institute: its contribution to evidence-based practice. Clin Nurse Spec. 2005;19(4):184–6.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Leeuw FL. Institutionalization of Second-Order Evidence-Producing Organizations. In The Evidence Book Routledge 2017 (pp. 35–58). Leeuw FL. Institutionalization of Second-Order Evidence-Producing Organizations. In The Evidence Book Routledge 2017 (pp. 35–58).
18.
go back to reference Cook DA, West CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ. 2012;46(10):943–52.CrossRef Cook DA, West CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ. 2012;46(10):943–52.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E. The automation of systematic reviews. (2013): f139. Tsafnat G, Dunn A, Glasziou P, Coiera E. The automation of systematic reviews. (2013): f139.
20.
21.
go back to reference Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ. 1999;319(7206):358–61.CrossRef Ely JW, Osheroff JA, Ebell MH, Bergus GR, Levy BT, Chambliss ML, et al. Analysis of questions asked by family doctors regarding patient care. BMJ. 1999;319(7206):358–61.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.CrossRef Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376–80.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Pae CU. Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investig. 2015;12(3):417–9.CrossRef Pae CU. Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investig. 2015;12(3):417–9.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Cipriani A, Geddes J. Comparison of systematic and narrative reviews: the example of the atypical antipsychotics. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2003;12(3):146–53.CrossRef Cipriani A, Geddes J. Comparison of systematic and narrative reviews: the example of the atypical antipsychotics. Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci. 2003;12(3):146–53.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.CrossRef Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Sugimoto CR, Larivière V. Measuring research: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press; 2018. Sugimoto CR, Larivière V. Measuring research: what everyone needs to know. Oxford University Press; 2018.
27.
go back to reference Abramo G. Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement. J Inf Secur. 2018;12(3):590–7. Abramo G. Revisiting the scientometric conceptualization of impact and its measurement. J Inf Secur. 2018;12(3):590–7.
28.
go back to reference Ioannidis JP. Meta-research: why research on research matters. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(3):e2005468.CrossRef Ioannidis JP. Meta-research: why research on research matters. PLoS Biol. 2018;16(3):e2005468.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Moattar H, Moosapour H, Soltani A, Larijani B. The effect of Chloroquine on pro-inflammatory cytokines levels in graves‘ disease: historical cohort from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Pharmacol & Pharm. 2013;4(4):392–7.CrossRef Moattar H, Moosapour H, Soltani A, Larijani B. The effect of Chloroquine on pro-inflammatory cytokines levels in graves‘ disease: historical cohort from a pilot randomized controlled trial. Pharmacol & Pharm. 2013;4(4):392–7.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Chin YH, Ng CH, Lee MH, Koh JW, Kiew J, Yang SP, et al. Prevalence of thyroid eye disease in graves’ disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Endocrinol. 2020;93(4):363–74.CrossRef Chin YH, Ng CH, Lee MH, Koh JW, Kiew J, Yang SP, et al. Prevalence of thyroid eye disease in graves’ disease: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Clin Endocrinol. 2020;93(4):363–74.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Muñoz-Velandia OM, Fernández-Ávila DG, Patino-Hernandez D, Gómez AM. Metrics of activity in social networks are correlated with traditional metrics of scientific impact in endocrinology journals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2019;13(4):2437–40.CrossRef Muñoz-Velandia OM, Fernández-Ávila DG, Patino-Hernandez D, Gómez AM. Metrics of activity in social networks are correlated with traditional metrics of scientific impact in endocrinology journals. Diabetes Metab Syndr. 2019;13(4):2437–40.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Polit DF, Beck CT. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(11):1451–8.CrossRef Polit DF, Beck CT. Generalization in quantitative and qualitative research: myths and strategies. Int J Nurs Stud. 2010;47(11):1451–8.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Nasser M, Van Weel C, Van Binsbergen JJ, van de Laar FA. Generalizability of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of health care interventions to primary health care: concepts, methods, and future research. Fam Pract. 2012;29(suppl_1):i94–103.CrossRef Nasser M, Van Weel C, Van Binsbergen JJ, van de Laar FA. Generalizability of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of health care interventions to primary health care: concepts, methods, and future research. Fam Pract. 2012;29(suppl_1):i94–103.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Johnston BC, Supina AL, Vohra S. Probiotics for pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. CMAJ. 2006;175(4):377–83.CrossRef Johnston BC, Supina AL, Vohra S. Probiotics for pediatric antibiotic-associated diarrhea: a meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials. CMAJ. 2006;175(4):377–83.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(4):248–54.CrossRef Lau J, Antman EM, Jimenez-Silva J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of therapeutic trials for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1992;327(4):248–54.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M. Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol Methods Res 2018:0049124118799372. Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M. Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol Methods Res 2018:0049124118799372.
37.
go back to reference PLoS Medicine Editors. Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLoS Med. 2011;8(2):e1001009.CrossRef PLoS Medicine Editors. Best practice in systematic reviews: the importance of protocols and registration. PLoS Med. 2011;8(2):e1001009.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ. 2010;182(1):13–4.CrossRef Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ. 2010;182(1):13–4.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Ge L, Tian JH, Li YN, Pan JX, Li G, Wei D, et al. Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;93:45–55.CrossRef Ge L, Tian JH, Li YN, Pan JX, Li G, Wei D, et al. Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;93:45–55.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27319.CrossRef Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation. PLoS One. 2011;6(11):e27319.CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2011 Jan 5;377(9760). Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2011 Jan 5;377(9760).
42.
go back to reference Beyer F, Wright K. Comprehensive searching for systematic reviews: a comparison of database performance. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. 2011. Beyer F, Wright K. Comprehensive searching for systematic reviews: a comparison of database performance. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. 2011.
43.
go back to reference Moat KA, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Røttingen JA, Bärnighausen T. Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):44–50.CrossRef Moat KA, Lavis JN, Wilson MG, Røttingen JA, Bärnighausen T. Twelve myths about systematic reviews for health system policymaking rebutted. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2013;18(1):44–50.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine: a conceptual framework
Authors
Hamideh Moosapour
Farzane Saeidifard
Maryam Aalaa
Akbar Soltani
Bagher Larijani
Publication date
01-06-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders / Issue 1/2021
Electronic ISSN: 2251-6581
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40200-021-00773-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2021

Journal of Diabetes & Metabolic Disorders 1/2021 Go to the issue