SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi / 2023 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 4

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS WRITING PROCESS

SİSTEMATİK DERLEME VE META-ANALİZ YAZMA SÜRECİ

Hatice Akçakaya(MUĞLA SITKI KOÇMAN ÜNİVERSİTESİ, EĞİTİM FAKÜLTESİ)0000-0001-6508-9809
Pages
1995–2007
Publication Date
2023-12-25
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

This will enable clinicians working in the health sciences (medicine, psychology, etc.) to quickly and accurately use the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Because systematic review and meta-analysis studies provide clinicians with the information quickly about evidence-based practices, they are crucial.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Consequently, to ensure the accuracy of the results, systematic review and meta-analysis studies that guide clinical practices should be elaborately and systematically conducted.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:This will enable clinicians working in the health sciences (medicine, psychology, etc.) to quickly and accurately use the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
🔬Design:Lab & Field Experiment
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Derleme · Sistematik derleme · meta-analizi

Abstract

Because systematic review and meta-analysis studies provide clinicians with the information quickly about evidence-based practices, they are crucial. It was aimed in this review to explain how a systematic review and meta-analysis study is conducted and with what stages it is carried out. The stages in a systematic review and meta-analysis are; a) Determining the research question b) Identifying keywords and databases for literature review c) Describing the characteristics of studies to be included and excluded from the systematic review or meta-analysis d) Recording the systematic review and meta-analysis into a protocol e) Searching relevant databases and creating a research pool f) Reading the titles and abstracts of the studies in the research pool and choosing the studies to be included/excluded from the systematic review and meta-analysis g) Checking the inter-observer reliability h) Deciding on the statistical analysis method and analyzing the data ı) Performing additional analyses i) Determining the quality of evidence. Consequently, to ensure the accuracy of the results, systematic review and meta-analysis studies that guide clinical practices should be elaborately and systematically conducted. This will enable clinicians working in the health sciences (medicine, psychology, etc.) to quickly and accurately use the findings of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Özet

Sistematik derleme ve meta-analizi çalışmaları, kanıt temelli uygulamalar hakkında klinisyenlere en kısa yoldan bilgi sağlamaları nedeniyle son derece önemlidir. Bu derlemenin amacı bir sistematik derleme ve meta-analizi çalışmasının nasıl yapıldığı ve hangi aşamalarla yürütüldüğünü açıklamaktır. Bir sistematik derleme ve meta-analizindeki aşamalar; a) Araştırma sorusunun belirlenmesi b) Literatür taraması için anahtar sözcükleri ve veri tabanlarını belirleme c) Sistematik derleme ya da meta-analizine dahil edilecek ve dışlanacak çalışmaların özelliklerini betimleme d) Sistematik derleme ve meta-analizinin bir protokole kaydedilmesi e) İlgili veri tabanlarını tarama ve bir araştırma havuzunun oluşturulması f) Araştırma havuzundaki çalışmaların başlık ve özetlerinin okunması ve sistematik derleme ve meta-analizine dahil edilecek/dışlanacak çalışmaların seçilmesi g) Gözlemciler arası güvenirlik bakılması h) İstatiksel analiz yöntemine karar verme ve verilerin analiz edilmesi ı) Ek analizlerin yapılması i) Kanıt kalitesini belirlemedir. Sonuç olarak özellikle klinikte yapılan uygulamaları bilgilendiren sistematik derleme ve meta-analizi çalışmalarının elde edilecek sonuçların güvenirliği için titizlikle ve sistematik bir şekilde yürütülmesi gerekmektedir. Böylece sağlık bilimleri alanında klinikte uygulama yapan klinisyenler kısa yoldan güvenilir bir biçimde sistematik derleme ve meta-analizi sonuçlarını kullanabileceklerdir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Akçakaya, H. (2023). SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS WRITING PROCESS. Nevşehir Hacı Bektaş Veli Üniversitesi SBE Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 4, 1995–2007. https://doi.org/10.30783/nevsosbilen.1232051

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (41)

  1. Ahn, E., & Kang, H. (2018). Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology, 71(2), 103-112.
  2. Akçakaya, H., Jayakody, D. M., & Doğan, M. (2022). Systematic review and meta-analysis of STM and WM in long-term CI users. Contemporary School Psychology, 1-20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40688-022-00408-6
  3. Arai, L., Britten, N., Popay, J., Roberts, H., Petticrew, M., Rodgers, M., & Sowden, A. (2007). Testing methodological developments in the conduct of narrative synthesis: a demonstration review of research on the implementation of smoke alarm interventions. Evidence and Policy, 3(3), 361-383.
  4. Aslan, A. (2018). Sistematik derleme ve meta-analizi. Acta Medica Alanya, 2(2), 62-63. http://dx.doi.org/10.30565/medalanya.439541
  5. Basu, A. (2017). How to conduct meta-analysis: A basic tutorial. https://ir.canterbury.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10092/13709/peerj-preprints-2978%281%29.pdf?sequence=2 (accessed 18.06.2022).
  6. Cummings S. R., Browner W. S., & Hulley S. B. (2007). Conceiving the research question and developing the study plan. In S. B. Hulley, S. R. Cummings, & W. S. Browner (Eds.), Designing clinical research: An epidemiological approach (4th ed., p. 14-22). Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
  7. Covidence systematic review software. Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. https://www.covidence.org. Accessed 4 Sep 2023
  8. Crocetti, E. (2016). Systematic reviews with meta-analysis: Why, when, and how?. Emerging Adulthood, 4(1), 3-18.
  9. Crowther, M., Lim, W., & Crowther, M. A. (2010). Systematic review and meta-analysis methodology. Blood, The Journal of the American Society of Hematology, 116(17), 3140-3146.
  10. Davies, P. (2000). The relevance of systematic reviews to educational policy and practice. Oxford Review of Education, 26(3-4), 365-378.
  11. del Amo, I. F., Erkoyuncu, J. A., Roy, R., Palmarini, R., & Onoufriou, D. (2018). A systematic review of Augmented Reality content-related techniques for knowledge transfer in maintenance applications. Computers in Industry, 103, 47-71.
  12. Dixon-Woods, M., Cavers, D., Agarwal, S., Annandale, E., Arthur, A., Harvey, J., Hsu, R., Katbamna, S., Olsen, R., Smith, L., Riley, R., & Sutton, A. J. (2006). Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 6, 1-13.
  13. Dunst, C. J. (2018). Kanıt-temelli erken çocukluk müdahale uygulamalarının belirlenmesinde araştırma sentezlerinin rolü [Role of research syntheses for identifying evidence-based early childhood intervention practices.]. (H. Akçakaya, Çev.). H. Bakkaloğlu & Ş. Demir (Eds.). Erken çocukluk özel eğitimi el kitabı içinde (ss. 539-562). Anı Yayıncılık.
  14. Ellis, P. D. (2010). The essential guide to effect sizes: Statistical power, meta-analysis, and the interpretation of research results. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
  15. Evans, D. (2002). Systematic reviews of interpretive research: interpretive data synthesis of processed data. The Australian Journal of Advanced Nursing, 20(2), 22–26. https://search.informit.org/doi/10.3316/ielapa.405497388325103
  16. Fritz, C. O., Morris, P. E., & Richler, J. J. (2012). Effect size estimates: Current use, calculations, and interpretation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141(1), 2-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024338
  17. Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8.
  18. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health İnformation and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108.
  19. Hanratty, J. (2018). What is the difference between a systematic review and a meta-analysis? http://meta-evidence.co.uk/difference-systematic-review-meta-analysis/
  20. Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory for Glass's estimator of effect size and related estimators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6, 107-128.
  21. Hedges, L. V., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 486-504.
  22. Higgins, J. P. T., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Sterne, J. A. C. (2019). Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page & V. A. & Welch VA (Eds.), Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (2nd ed., pp. 205-228). Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons.
  23. House, A. E., House, B. J., & Campbell, M. B. (1981). Measures of interobserver agreement: Calculation formulas and distribution effects. Journal of Behavioral Assessment, 3(1), 37-57.
  24. Ioannidis, J. P., Patsopoulos, N. A., & Rothstein, H. R. (2008). Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. British Medical Journal, 336(7658), 1413-1415. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a117
  25. Lefebvre, C., Glanville, J., Briscoe, S., Littlewood, A., Marshall, C., Metzendorf, M. I., Noel-Storr, A., Rader, T., Shokraneh, F., Thomas, J., & Wieland, L. S. (2019). Searching for and selecting studies. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page, V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd Edition., pp.67-108). Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons.
  26. Lê M., Loewen, H., Monnin, C., & Neilson, C. (March, 2022). Part 1: Introduction to Systematic Reviews [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2rmhf2bz_g
  27. Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), W-65.
  28. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
  29. Moola, S., Munn, Z., Sears, K., Sfetcu, R., Currie, M., Lisy, K., Tufanaru, C., Qureshi, R., Mattis, P., & Mu, P. (2015). Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute's approach. JBI Evidence Implementation, 13(3), 163-169.
  30. Munn, Z., Aromataris, E., Tufanaru, C., Stern, C., Porritt, K., Farrow, J., Lockwood, C., Stephenson, M., Moola, S., Lizarondo, L., McArthur, A., Peters, M., Pearson, A., & Jordan, Z. (2019). The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). JBI Evidence Implementation, 17(1), 36-43.
  31. Ouzzani, M., Hammady, H., Fedorowicz, Z., & Elmagarmid, A. (2016). Rayyan-a web and mobile app for systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 5, 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0384-4
  32. Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, r., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International Journal of Surgery, 88, 105906. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906
  33. Panitvisai, P., Parunnit, P., Sathorn, C., & Messer, H. H. (2010). Impact of a retained instrument on treatment outcome: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Endodontics, 36(5), 775-780.
  34. Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
  35. Şen, S. (2019). SPSS ile Meta-Analiz Nasıl Yapılır?. Harran Maarif Dergisi, 4(1), 21-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.22596/2019.0401.21.49 Tawfik, G. M., Dila, K. A. S., Mohamed, M. Y. F., Tam, D. N. H., Kien, N. D., Ahmed, A. M., & Huy, N. T. (2019). A step-by-step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data. Tropical Medicine and Health, 47(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41182-019-0165-6
  36. Thomas, R. W. (2011). When student samples make sense in logistics research. Journal of Business Logistics, 32(3), 287-290. Retrieved from: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.2158-1592.2011.01023.x
  37. Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2008). Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-45
  38. Thomas, J., Kneale, D., McKenzie, J. E., Brennan, S. E., Bhaumik, S. (2019). Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, & T. Li, M. J. Page, & V. A. Welch (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2nd ed., pp. 13-32). Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons.
  39. Walker, D. A. (2005). A SPSS matrix for determining effect sizes from three categories: R and functions of r, differences between proportions, and standardized differences between means. Journal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods, 4(1), Article 30. https://doi.org/10.22237/jmasm/1114907400
  40. Yıldırım, İ., & Şen, S. (2019). The effects of gamification on students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis study. Interactive Learning Environments, 29(8), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/10494820.2019.1636089
  41. Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S. W., Zhang, C., Li, S., Sun, F., Niu, Y., & Du, L. (2015). The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta‐analysis, and clinical practice guideline: A systematic review. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 8(1), 2-10. https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12141