Keywords: sampling, sequencing, assembly, binning, annotation, data storage, data sharing, DNA extraction, microbial ecology, microbial diversity. List of free sample resumes, resume templates, resume examples, resume formats and cover letters. Resume writing tips, advice and guides for different jobs and companies. Idea Rover is a note-taking automation tool with a clean interface. Idea Rover automates organizing your research material into outline-structured notes. Distilling your doctoral dissertation research problem. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta- analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. Title and abstract. Item 1: Title. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta- analysis, or both. Examples “Recurrence rates of video- assisted thoracoscopic versus open surgery in the prevention of recurrent pneumothoraces: a systematic review of randomised and non- randomised trials”2. Mortality in randomised trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta- analysis”2. Explanation Authors should identify their report as a systematic review or meta- analysis. Terms such as “review” or “overview” do not describe for readers whether the review was systematic or whether a meta- analysis was performed. A recent survey found that 5. Although sensitive search strategies have been developed to identify systematic reviews,2. We advise authors to use informative titles that make key information easily accessible to readers. Ideally, a title reflecting the PICOS approach (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design) (see item 1. Specifying the design(s) of the studies included, as shown in the examples, may also help some readers and those searching databases. Some journals recommend “indicative titles” that indicate the topic matter of the review, while others require declarative titles that give the review’s main conclusion. Busy practitioners may prefer to see the conclusion of the review in the title, but declarative titles can oversimplify or exaggerate findings. Thus, many journals and methodologists prefer indicative titles as used in the examples above. Item 2: Structured summary Provide a structured summary including, as applicable, background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; funding for the systematic review; and systematic review registration number. Suggested citation: Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC). EPOC Resources for review authors. Oslo: Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services; 2015. Available at: http://epoc.cochrane.org/epoc-specific. The Cochrane Public Health Group Guide for developing a Cochrane protocol This Guide has been produced by the Cochrane Public Health Group (CPHG) to make the process of preparing a protocol for a public health review. Paliperidone is the primary active metabolite of the older antipsychotic risperidone. While its specific mechanism of action is unknown, it is believed paliperidone and risperidone act via similar, if not. Future users of large data banks must be protected from having to know how the data is organized in the machine (the internal representation). A prompting service which supplies such information is not a satisfactory solution. Evidence of Effectiveness of Health Care Professionals Using Handheld Computers: A Scoping Review of Systematic Reviews. Example “Context: The role and dose of oral vitamin D supplementation in nonvertebral fracture prevention have not been well established. Objective: To estimate the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation in preventing hip and nonvertebral fractures in older persons. Data Sources: A systematic review of English and non- English articles using MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (1. EMBASE (1. 99. 1- 2. Additional studies were identified by contacting clinical experts and searching bibliographies and abstracts presented at the American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (1. Search terms included randomised controlled trial (RCT), controlled clinical trial, random allocation, double- blind method, cholecalciferol, ergocalciferol, 2. D, fractures, humans, elderly, falls, and bone density. Study Selection: Only double- blind RCTs of oral vitamin D supplementation (cholecalciferol, ergocalciferol) with or without calcium supplementation vs calcium supplementation or placebo in older persons (> 6. Data Extraction: Independent extraction of articles by 2 authors using predefined data fields, including study quality indicators. Data Synthesis: All pooled analyses were based on random- effects models. 1.3 UNDERTAKING THE REVIEW 1.3.1 Identifying research evidence for systematic reviews. This section describes how to undertake a systematic search using a range of methods to identify studies, manage the references. Data Extraction Template Cochrane Reviews DatabaseFive RCTs for hip fracture (n=9. RCTs for nonvertebral fracture risk (n=9. All trials used cholecalciferol. Heterogeneity among studies for both hip and nonvertebral fracture prevention was observed, which disappeared after pooling RCTs with low- dose (4. IU/d) and higher- dose vitamin D (7. IU/d), separately. A vitamin D dose of 7. IU/d reduced the relative risk (RR) of hip fracture by 2. RCTs with 5. 57. 2 persons; pooled RR, 0. No significant benefit was observed for RCTs with 4. IU/d vitamin D (2 RCTs with 3. RR for hip fracture, 1. CI, 0. 8. 8- 1. 5. RR for any nonvertebral fracture, 1. CI, 0. 8. 6- 1. 2. Conclusions: Oral vitamin D supplementation between 7. IU/d appears to reduce the risk of hip and any nonvertebral fractures in ambulatory or institutionalised elderly persons. An oral vitamin D dose of 4. IU/d is not sufficient for fracture prevention.”2. Explanation Abstracts provide key information that enables readers to understand the scope, processes, and findings of a review and to decide whether to read the full report. The abstract may be all that is readily available to a reader, for example, in a bibliographic database. The abstract should present a balanced and realistic assessment of the review’s findings that mirrors, albeit briefly, the main text of the report. We agree with others that the quality of reporting in abstracts presented at conferences and in journal publications needs improvement. While we do not uniformly favour a specific format over another, we generally recommend structured abstracts. Structured abstracts provide readers with a series of headings pertaining to the purpose, conduct, findings, and conclusions of the systematic review being reported. They give readers more complete information and facilitate finding information more easily than unstructured abstracts. A highly structured abstract of a systematic review could include the following headings: Context (or Background); Objective (or Purpose); Data sources; Study selection (or Eligibility criteria); Study appraisal and Synthesis methods (or Data extraction and Data synthesis); Results; Limitations; and Conclusions (or Implications). Alternatively, a simpler structure could cover but collapse some of the above headings (such as label Study selection and Study appraisal as Review methods) or omit some headings such as Background and Limitations. In the highly structured abstract mentioned above, authors use the Background heading to set the context for readers and explain the importance of the review question. Under the Objectives heading, they ideally use elements of PICOS (see box 2) to state the primary objective of the review. Under a Data sources heading, they summarise sources that were searched, any language or publication type restrictions, and the start and end dates of searches. Study selection statements then ideally describe who selected studies using what inclusion criteria. Data extraction methods statements describe appraisal methods during data abstraction and the methods used to integrate or summarise the data. The Data synthesis section is where the main results of the review are reported. If the review includes meta- analyses, authors should provide numerical results with confidence intervals for the most important outcomes. Ideally, they should specify the amount of evidence in these analyses (numbers of studies and numbers of participants). Under a Limitations heading, authors might describe the most important weaknesses of included studies as well as limitations of the review process. Then authors should provide clear and balanced Conclusions that are closely linked to the objective and findings of the review. Additionally, it would be helpful if authors included some information about funding for the review. Finally, although protocol registration for systematic reviews is still not common practice, if authors have registered their review or received a registration number, we recommend providing the registration information at the end of the abstract. Taking all the above considerations into account, the intrinsic tension between the goal of completeness of the abstract and its keeping into the space limit often set by journal editors is recognised as a major challenge. Introduction. Item 3: Rationale Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Example “Reversing the trend of increasing weight for height in children has proven difficult. It is widely accepted that increasing energy expenditure and reducing energy intake form the theoretical basis for management. Therefore, interventions aiming to increase physical activity and improve diet are the foundation of efforts to prevent and treat childhood obesity. Such lifestyle interventions have been supported by recent systematic reviews, as well as by the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. However, these interventions are fraught with poor adherence. Thus, school- based interventions are theoretically appealing because adherence with interventions can be improved. Consequently, many local governments have enacted or are considering policies that mandate increased physical activity in schools, although the effect of such interventions on body composition has not been assessed.”3. Explanation Readers need to understand the rationale behind the study and what the systematic review may add to what is already known. Authors should tell readers whether their report is a new systematic review or an update of an existing one. If the review is an update, authors should state reasons for the update, including what has been added to the evidence base since the previous version of the review. An ideal background or introduction that sets context for readers might include the following. First, authors might define the importance of the review question from different perspectives (such as public health, individual patient, or health policy). Second, authors might briefly mention the current state of knowledge and its limitations. As in the above example, information about the effects of several different interventions may be available that helps readers understand why potential relative benefits or harms of particular interventions need review. Third, authors might whet readers’ appetites by clearly stating what the review aims to add. They also could discuss the extent to which the limitations of the existing evidence base may be overcome by the review. Item 4: Objectives Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. Archives
December 2016
Categories |