Systematic Review

The purpose of a systematic review is to attempt to find, evaluate and synthesize high quality research relevant to the research question. A systematic review uses carefully developed data collection and sampling procedures that are put in place in advance as a protocol. (Polit, 2012). A systematic review must contain the following: a clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, an explicit search strategy, systematic coding and analysis of included studies, and a meta-analysis if possible. (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009). Systematic reviews are conducted by nurse researchers to avoid reaching incorrect or misleading conclusions that

The current review was managed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines (Moher et al., 2009) and established guidelines for narrative synthesis by Popay et al. (2006).

1. Is the article proposing to answer a specific clinical question or questions? What are the questions?

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that all infants breastfeed exclusively until six months old to achieve optimum growth. Despite this recommendation, only one out of every three children are exclusively breastfed for the first six months. This includes countries that have a high rate of breastfeeding initiation. Recent data has shown that the exclusive breastfeeding rates over the last 15 years have only risen about six per cent, from 33% to 39%. Breask milk protects children against childhood illnesses such as gastroenteritis, respiratory tract infections, otitis media, atopic dermatitis, asthma, and SIDS.

The use of this systematic approach allows the reader to quickly discard papers which do not meet inclusion criteria.

Both clinicians who are enquiring clinical questions and researchers who are conducting in-depth searches for systematic reviews come across a few

We used a broad range of keywords in our search strategy, including free text in addition to the controlled vocabulary terms of individual databases. This is especially important for CPWs where the terminology is inconsistent. The search strategy was developed with the assistance of an information specialist. We also screened relevant publications from the EPOC (Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Group) Register of Studies.40 Bibliographies of CPW systematic reviews were also searched for missed publications. A recent study suggests that English language restriction does not introduce systematic bias into systematic reviews with meta-analysis.39 Therefore, we restricted the language of publication to either English or French. Studies identified from the search strategy were entered into the reference manager Endnote® (version X4, Thomson-Reuters). They were then manually

The first point is discovery research, followed by evidence summary, translation guidelines, practice integration, and process or outcome evaluation. Discovery research is comprised of research results generated through primary research studies. Evidence summaries take the bulk of research knowledge and summarize it into a single, meaningful statement. It also generates knowledge simultaneously by combining all the findings. Forms of evidence summaries include systematic reviews, reviews of literature, and meta-analyses. Furthermore, they have several advantages, including reducing large quantities into a manageable form, increasing power in suggesting the cause and effect relationship, and increases efficiency between research and clinical implementation (Stevens, 2012). The next points, translation to guidelines and practice integration, are the two crucial stages in bringing evidence to practice. Translation to guidelines involves summarizing evidence in a cost and time effective way to clinicians. These well-developed recommendations, termed clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), consociate clinical recommendation and supporting evidence or recommendations. Leading into the following step, integration involves change of practice through an individual and/or organizational scale. Process, or outcome evaluation, is the final point in

Source I: The Obesity Epidemic in the United States: Gender, Age, Socioeconomic, Racial/ethnic, and Geographic Characteristics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Regression Analysis.

Although it is a systematic review, some of the research utilized were qualitative studies. The studies reviewed were a quasi-experimental study, a randomized descriptive study, a qualitative descriptive study, and a literature review. All were described in detail as a basis for the study performed in the article. The other studies used for research purposes in this study included one randomized controlled trial (RCT), one quasi-experimental study, one qualitative study, and three literature reviews. If all the studies used for research in the article were RCT’s or “a combination of RCT’s and quasi-experimental or quasi-experimental only” (jhnebp) this research would have garnered a ranking of level I or level II. The inclusion of even one qualitative study dropped the ranking to level

On the contrary, the qualitative research focuses on the quality and patient satisfaction of bedside reporting. Associated levels of evidence that would highly benefit these studies would be Level I (Evidence from systematic review of all RCT’s), Level II(Evidence that is received from one or more well-designed RCT), Level III, (Evidence from well-designed and controlled trials without the use of randomization), and Level V (Evidence with systematic reviews of qualitative and descriptive studies) (Webling Library, 2016). The design of these studies can widely influence bedside report in a number of ways which can involve adjustment or adaptation of the method to improve patient safety, outcome and

Traditionally, systematic reviews (SR) are descriptive secondary research, which may or may not be accompanied by statistical methods (metaanalysis) of pooling the results of primary, quantitative studies to answer a clinical question or test a hypothesis (Chalmers 1996). Similarly, qualitative primary studies can be pooled and synthesised in order to develop new theories to aid decision making, re-shape policies, and influence professional practices. Over the past 20 years, patient and public involvement (PPI) in research have become increasingly crucial, which has fuelled the increasing popularity of qualitative research as better ways of incorporating public and patient views into health, social and economic policies. There is however a confusing array of methods available for conducting secondary qualitative research. In this paper epistemological concepts guiding a number of methods are discussed. The consensus on enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ) is also reviewed

The most important criterion that distinguishes and characterizes systemic reviews from other narrative reviews is “being comprehensive “. That’s why developing an explicit and comprehensive search strategy is considered a must and an indispensable step of systematic reviews, failure to attain such step through searching all available channels of information is a potential threat to the validity of the systematic review.

There are numerous specific systematic review methods described in the literature with each method having a specific fit for purpose, appropriately considering the purpose of the reviews, the types of questions to be answered, and evidence available for inclusion in

"A systematic literature review (often referred to as a systematic review) is a means of identifying, evaluating and interpreting all available research relevant to a particular research question, or topic area, or phenomenon of interest" (p.8).