Cargando…

Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shenkin, Susan D., Harrison, Jennifer K., Wilkinson, Tim, Dodds, Richard M., Ioannidis, John P. A.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5860219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28655142
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx105
_version_ 1783307962282934272
author Shenkin, Susan D.
Harrison, Jennifer K.
Wilkinson, Tim
Dodds, Richard M.
Ioannidis, John P. A.
author_facet Shenkin, Susan D.
Harrison, Jennifer K.
Wilkinson, Tim
Dodds, Richard M.
Ioannidis, John P. A.
author_sort Shenkin, Susan D.
collection PubMed
description Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written—and if possible published—before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5860219
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58602192018-03-21 Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people Shenkin, Susan D. Harrison, Jennifer K. Wilkinson, Tim Dodds, Richard M. Ioannidis, John P. A. Age Ageing Review Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written—and if possible published—before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews. Oxford University Press 2017-09 2017-06-24 /pmc/articles/PMC5860219/ /pubmed/28655142 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx105 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Review
Shenkin, Susan D.
Harrison, Jennifer K.
Wilkinson, Tim
Dodds, Richard M.
Ioannidis, John P. A.
Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people
title Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people
title_full Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people
title_fullStr Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people
title_full_unstemmed Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people
title_short Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people
title_sort systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5860219/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28655142
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ageing/afx105
work_keys_str_mv AT shenkinsusand systematicreviewsguidancerelevantforstudiesofolderpeople
AT harrisonjenniferk systematicreviewsguidancerelevantforstudiesofolderpeople
AT wilkinsontim systematicreviewsguidancerelevantforstudiesofolderpeople
AT doddsrichardm systematicreviewsguidancerelevantforstudiesofolderpeople
AT ioannidisjohnpa systematicreviewsguidancerelevantforstudiesofolderpeople