![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IMO this article doesn't get a "high" importance rating because it's unlikely to attract very much attention from non-professionals. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned that a systematic review is not only a review of biomedical research but many other types of healthcare related research?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.105.161 ( talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The term 'scoping review' appears in some research literature to describe knowledge synthesis. Should we include either a summary sentence or a link (or both) in the article? [1] [2] The article on scoping (perhaps originally a Disambiguation article) goes only to the article on Scope in computer science.
References
Either the universal qualifier should be removed or the set of individuals designated specified. Is this saying that RNs. physician assistants, EMTs, etc. for example, are either not medical professionals or should be capable of conducting a systematic review? 96.243.13.36 ( talk) 19:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've recently started the Systematic Reviews article, about the open-access journal of that name. Editors here will find that journal a rich source for content. Enjoy! LeadSongDog come howl! 21:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You might want to create REDIRECTs from Systematic literature review and Structured literature review to this article, as these are widely used synonyms. 192.38.121.229 ( talk) 22:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Given that Cochrane Collaboration already has its own article, isn't it overly discussed in this article?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 08:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
See discussion here Problems with Systematic review usage /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) prokaryotes ( talk) 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
There are a few problems with the first sentence: a structured literature review isn't necessarily a systematic review (it's a term people sometimes use to distinguish when they haven't gone through all the steps after the structured search for literature). Literature review isn't precise enough either, as many look for unpublished studies, not just published ones. Nor is it restricted only to high quality research - mostly that's not a criterion.
Here's an open access definition. But I think that has problems too, as a systematic review can address multiple questions.
How about something like: A systematic review is a research study that collects and analyzes multiple studies. Systematic reviewers use pre-specified methods to frame one or more questions, and identify, select, and critically appraise relevant studies.
I think "high-quality" should go from second sentence too. People might think if a trial is in a systematic review, then that means it's high quality. Ping User:Doc_James Hildabast ( talk) 17:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The chacteristics section is missing 2 important issues: @ Doc James:. The first step is formulating a structured question that can shape the review [1] - and you have a page on PICO, so that would be good to mention there too. And it needs to explain what is meant by search strategy, especially as it's crucial and is a bit misleading down under stages (where there's not enough room to explain it).
It's a core part of a systematic review, and should include the search terms ( good definition of that part here), which is shorter than Cochrane's, although it's saying the same thing. Hildabast ( talk) 20:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
References
For general comments. This source was used to support a new section on business reviews, but I rejected it here because it appears to be a theoretical guide for reviewing supply chain management, rather than a systematic review itself. IP user 80.71.142.166 discussed it on my Talk page:
@ Qwfp: Grammar is faulty. 79.49.127.90 ( talk) 19:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Systematic review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear everyone,
I have some issues with the Review Tools part. Disclaimer, I am one of the authors of the cited paper, but the way the information currently is presented is (potentially) misleading and there is a better source for this part.
The currently cited paper is about tools that can be used for screening references in a systematic review. This is only one part of the process and there are many Systematic Reviews tools not mentioned because they are not used for screening of references.
A better, more exhaustive source is the Systematic Review Toolbox, this is a constantly updated repository with SR tools for all parts of a systematic review.
I'm not very familiar with editing Wikipedia and I don't know the guidelines by heart, so I would request somebody more knowledgable to change the source and to expand the list of tools (or alter it completely) as I feel that the way it is now gives a skewed overview.
With kind regards, Equites22
Equites22 ( talk) 08:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
IMO this article doesn't get a "high" importance rating because it's unlikely to attract very much attention from non-professionals. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned that a systematic review is not only a review of biomedical research but many other types of healthcare related research?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.105.161 ( talk) 22:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
The term 'scoping review' appears in some research literature to describe knowledge synthesis. Should we include either a summary sentence or a link (or both) in the article? [1] [2] The article on scoping (perhaps originally a Disambiguation article) goes only to the article on Scope in computer science.
References
Either the universal qualifier should be removed or the set of individuals designated specified. Is this saying that RNs. physician assistants, EMTs, etc. for example, are either not medical professionals or should be capable of conducting a systematic review? 96.243.13.36 ( talk) 19:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
I've recently started the Systematic Reviews article, about the open-access journal of that name. Editors here will find that journal a rich source for content. Enjoy! LeadSongDog come howl! 21:53, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
You might want to create REDIRECTs from Systematic literature review and Structured literature review to this article, as these are widely used synonyms. 192.38.121.229 ( talk) 22:44, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Given that Cochrane Collaboration already has its own article, isn't it overly discussed in this article?__ DrChrissy ( talk) 08:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
See discussion here Problems with Systematic review usage /info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) prokaryotes ( talk) 22:10, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
There are a few problems with the first sentence: a structured literature review isn't necessarily a systematic review (it's a term people sometimes use to distinguish when they haven't gone through all the steps after the structured search for literature). Literature review isn't precise enough either, as many look for unpublished studies, not just published ones. Nor is it restricted only to high quality research - mostly that's not a criterion.
Here's an open access definition. But I think that has problems too, as a systematic review can address multiple questions.
How about something like: A systematic review is a research study that collects and analyzes multiple studies. Systematic reviewers use pre-specified methods to frame one or more questions, and identify, select, and critically appraise relevant studies.
I think "high-quality" should go from second sentence too. People might think if a trial is in a systematic review, then that means it's high quality. Ping User:Doc_James Hildabast ( talk) 17:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The chacteristics section is missing 2 important issues: @ Doc James:. The first step is formulating a structured question that can shape the review [1] - and you have a page on PICO, so that would be good to mention there too. And it needs to explain what is meant by search strategy, especially as it's crucial and is a bit misleading down under stages (where there's not enough room to explain it).
It's a core part of a systematic review, and should include the search terms ( good definition of that part here), which is shorter than Cochrane's, although it's saying the same thing. Hildabast ( talk) 20:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
References
For general comments. This source was used to support a new section on business reviews, but I rejected it here because it appears to be a theoretical guide for reviewing supply chain management, rather than a systematic review itself. IP user 80.71.142.166 discussed it on my Talk page:
@ Qwfp: Grammar is faulty. 79.49.127.90 ( talk) 19:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Systematic review. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Dear everyone,
I have some issues with the Review Tools part. Disclaimer, I am one of the authors of the cited paper, but the way the information currently is presented is (potentially) misleading and there is a better source for this part.
The currently cited paper is about tools that can be used for screening references in a systematic review. This is only one part of the process and there are many Systematic Reviews tools not mentioned because they are not used for screening of references.
A better, more exhaustive source is the Systematic Review Toolbox, this is a constantly updated repository with SR tools for all parts of a systematic review.
I'm not very familiar with editing Wikipedia and I don't know the guidelines by heart, so I would request somebody more knowledgable to change the source and to expand the list of tools (or alter it completely) as I feel that the way it is now gives a skewed overview.
With kind regards, Equites22
Equites22 ( talk) 08:48, 9 July 2019 (UTC)