Introduction to Systematic Reviews

Editorial Systematic reviews of the literature represent a very specific type of research paper.

English-language PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched on May 27, 2019.

Published meta-analyses and systematic reviews however also reveal that biodiversity's beneficial roles are context specific, depending on the particular production system and environment.

The review will include eligible studies indexed in Medline, PsychINFO, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Library from inception to 1 April 2019.

This review employed a meta-aggregative approach and partially followed the Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for systematic reviews of qualitative evidence.

METHODS The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were used to guide this review.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews.

MethodsThe study was conducted using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

The WHO leprosy guidelines were published after the Guidelines Development Group (GDG), an expert committee, considered the evidence generated by commissioned systematic reviews and formulated guidance.

A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the standards set forth by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, using a random-effects model.

In the present study, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) guideline was employed to determine the prevalence and geographical distribution of zoonotic helminths in food animals slaughtered in Nigerian abattoirs between 1970 and 2016.

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), and Systematic Reviews (SR) and Meta‐Analyses (MA) on VLU management approaches published from January 2015 to December 2018 were included in this review.

The same numbers for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were four publications in 2000–2009 and 169 publications in 2010–2018.

Longer time since publication was significantly associated with a greater number of mentions and citations, as were systematic reviews and randomized controlled trial designs.

ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to identify, examine and compare what outcomes are measured and reported, and how outcomes are measured, in intervention studies and systematic reviews of interventions for pelvic girdle pain and for lumbopelvic pain (which includes pelvic girdle pain).

The methodological quality of each included study was assessed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions guideline.

A search was performed by two reviewers according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines on nine databases: PEDro, EBSCO, PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, EMBASE, ICI, Scopus, and PROQUEST.

Reference lists of included studies and of previously published guidelines and systematic reviews were also searched.

Background and aims Previous systematic reviews have reported manifestations of pain sensitisation as a feature of painful knee disorders, in particular osteoarthritis, with moderate evidence for pain sensitisation in patellofemoral pain (PFP).

METHODS Four systematic reviews covering the areas of alveolar ridge preservation/bone grafting, immediate early and delayed implant placement and alveolar bone augmentation at the time of implant placement in a healed ridge formed the basis of the deliberations.

Methods: The authors followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guideline to search the PubMed, Web of Science, EMBASE, and EBSCO databases from January 1996 to March 2018.

Methods: In January 2018, we searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Google database.

Only randomized controlled trials of HIIT on pediatric obesity will be included, and observational studies, prospective cohort studies, and systematic reviews will be excluded.

All retrospective, prospective and systematic reviews articles published in the English language, with evaluation of men and/or women, were considered for review.

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 3, Art No: CD004408.

The USDA's Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) team specializes in conducting systematic reviews (SRs) to inform federal nutrition policy and programs.

A systematic review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.

Interventions to improve safe and effective medicines use by consumers: an overview of systematic reviews.

Registration: This systematic review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO).

Trials were reviewed using preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane handbook.

Recent systematic reviews have shown that specimens resected with CME have superior pathological outcomes along with survival benefits, especially for Stage III disease (2).

This systematic review and meta-analysis is reported in accordance with the Preferred Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) Statement and was registered at International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (number CRD42018095979).

BACKGROUND In order for authors of systematic reviews to address missing data in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), they need to first identify the number of trial participants with missing data.

Design Overview of systematic reviews (SRs) using Revised-AMSTAR approach to assess quality.

Kleijnen Systematic Reviews Ltd, in collaboration with Maastricht University Medical Centre+, was commissioned to act as the independent Evidence Review Group (ERG).

METHODS Recent meta-analyses, systematic reviews and current consensus documents relating to first-time patellar dislocation were sourced.

While there have been numerous studies in recent years on adverse events, including preventable deaths, using implicit case note reviews by clinicians, no systematic reviews have aimed to summarize the estimates or the variations in methodologies used to derive these estimates.

Method A systematic literature search of EMBASE, MEDLINE, international pharmaceutical abstracts and the Cochrane database of systematic reviews was conducted from the start of the databases to August 2018.

Methods and analysis This systematic review protocol is consistent with the methodology recommended by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols and the Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions.

, with unpublished trials), and systematic reviews often have yet to be conducted.

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis with high level evidence studies can help to elaborate recommendations for improvement implementation programs for clinical practice.

INTRODUCTION Systematic reviews and meta-analyses provide a comprehensive summary of research studies and are used to assess clinical evidence, form policy and construct guidelines.

METHODS We conducted a search of the medical literature following the protocol outlined in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis statement using MEDLINE, EMBASE and EMBASE Classic, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials for all drugs used for the treatment of CIC.

Background: Dietary guidelines should be informed by systematic reviews (SRs) of the available scientific evidence.

The review was in line with preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and involved the use of synonyms and medical subject headings.

CONCLUSIONS Our novel approach linking the data from our systematic reviews with informatics tools identified high-risk DLBCL subgroups, DLBCL-specific drug-gene interactions, and potential populations for precision medicine trials.

A systematic review through PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and PsycINFO was performed, following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA).

Although there is increasing evidence regarding the efficacy of such approaches, as illustrated by quantitative systematic reviews, the literature has also highlighted challenges with implementation factors, including high attrition rates and variable user engagement.

A systematic literature search was performed from 1982 to November 2018 using Pubmed, the MEDLINE and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

Inclusion criteria were clinical studies and systematic reviews reporting on radiation exposure, fluoroscopy time and references to specific safety guidelines.

The objectives are as follows: The primary objective of this overview is to summarize and appraise the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the effects of postnatal corticosteroids for both efficacy and harms in preterm infants at risk of developing bronchopulmonary dysplasia.