Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of NS vs. We searched PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane library databases. Members of the Institute of Population Health belong to the Evidence Synthesis Research Network which is jointly run my University of Manchester and NICE. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy of NS versus HS in the maintenance of the patency of CVCs in adult patients. When few or no studies are found this can help to pinpoint crucial areas and questions that need further research.
What can a systematic review offer?Ĭombining results can increase power and precision of estimates of effectiveness (see forest plot below).
Systematic review are undertaken with rigorous methodology to avoid this. and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. This is inevitably limited and may be biased. Systematic reviews are characterized by a methodical and replicable methodology and. A small but significant association between depression and IR was observed that was attenuated in analyses. It is always easy to find research articles to support your own point of view. To our knowledge, this study represents one of the first systematic reviews and meta-analysis of the evidence for an association between depression and IR using data from observational studies, controlled trials, and unpublished data. Traditional literature reviews are often one individual’s opinion of the current state of knowledge. So how are systematic reviews different from a normal (literature) review? Primary research designs and study characteristics are appraised, data are synthesised, and results are interpreted. These strategies include a comprehensive search of all potentially relevant articles and the use of explicit, reproducible criteria in the selection of articles for review. They synthesise the results of multiple primary investigations by using strategies that limit bias and random error. Systematic reviews are scientific investigations in there own right and are frequently as demanding as conducting primary research. A systemic review is a concise summary of all the best evidence on a specific question.