[article]
| Titre : |
Not all systematic reviews are created equal |
| Type de document : |
texte imprimé |
| Auteurs : |
Janine F. Farragher ; Samantha E. Seaton ; Katherine E. Stewart ; Clarice R.S. Araujo |
| Année de publication : |
2018 |
| Article en page(s) : |
p. 180-184 |
| Note générale : |
doi.org/10.1177/0008417418773328 |
| Langues : |
Anglais (eng) |
| Résumé : |
In this era of information overload, the systematic review has become exceedingly important for the busy practitioner who wants to remain abreast of research developments. A systematic review “summarizes results of available carefully designed healthcare studies (controlled trials) and provides a high level of evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions” (Cochrane Collaboration, 2018, para. 1). Well-conducted systematic reviews are invaluable tools that we, as occupational therapists, can use to appraise the evidence on a given intervention. However, not all systematic reviews are created equal, and drawing conclusions from systematic reviews that lack methodological rigour can be problematic for an individual practitioner and a profession committed to evidence-based practice. We, a group of occupational therapists who are in the process of completing our PhDs, became aware of this when, at a recent lab meeting, we undertook to discuss a series of four recently published review articles as a learning exercise. We used the criteria validated for the critical appraisal of the quality of systematic reviews to inform our discussion. Our findings revealed important variations in quality. What follows is a brief overview of some of our findings and the implications of these findings on how the reviews should be interpreted and integrated into practice. We assessed the reviews on how the reviews should be interpreted and integrated into practice. We assessed the reviews using the 16 criteria from a validated critical appraisal tool, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2; Shea et al., 2017). Our intention in sharing our findings is to underscore some key issues of which occupational therapy practitioners and researchers should be cognizant when conducting, interpreting, and/or appraising systematic reviews. |
| Permalink : |
./index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=84196 |
in Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy > 85(3) (Juin 2018) . - p. 180-184
[article] Not all systematic reviews are created equal [texte imprimé] / Janine F. Farragher ; Samantha E. Seaton ; Katherine E. Stewart ; Clarice R.S. Araujo . - 2018 . - p. 180-184. doi.org/10.1177/0008417418773328 Langues : Anglais ( eng) in Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy > 85(3) (Juin 2018) . - p. 180-184
| Résumé : |
In this era of information overload, the systematic review has become exceedingly important for the busy practitioner who wants to remain abreast of research developments. A systematic review “summarizes results of available carefully designed healthcare studies (controlled trials) and provides a high level of evidence on the effectiveness of healthcare interventions” (Cochrane Collaboration, 2018, para. 1). Well-conducted systematic reviews are invaluable tools that we, as occupational therapists, can use to appraise the evidence on a given intervention. However, not all systematic reviews are created equal, and drawing conclusions from systematic reviews that lack methodological rigour can be problematic for an individual practitioner and a profession committed to evidence-based practice. We, a group of occupational therapists who are in the process of completing our PhDs, became aware of this when, at a recent lab meeting, we undertook to discuss a series of four recently published review articles as a learning exercise. We used the criteria validated for the critical appraisal of the quality of systematic reviews to inform our discussion. Our findings revealed important variations in quality. What follows is a brief overview of some of our findings and the implications of these findings on how the reviews should be interpreted and integrated into practice. We assessed the reviews on how the reviews should be interpreted and integrated into practice. We assessed the reviews using the 16 criteria from a validated critical appraisal tool, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2; Shea et al., 2017). Our intention in sharing our findings is to underscore some key issues of which occupational therapy practitioners and researchers should be cognizant when conducting, interpreting, and/or appraising systematic reviews. |
| Permalink : |
./index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=84196 |
|  |
Not all systematic reviews are created equal in Canadian Journal of Occupational Therapy, 85(3) (Juin 2018)
