Wednesday, January 04, 2006
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis
Tomorrow I start the "Systematic reviews and meta-analysis" seminar series with David Moher and Dean Fergusson.
The course outline is very interesting as were the first set of readings.
The evaluation is along 3 lines:
Protocol 30% - Must be handed in by 27th February
Final report 50% - Must be handed in by 21st April
Class participation 20%
Compulsory Text
· “Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine: how to review and apply findings of healthcare research” by Khan, Kunz, Kleijnen and Antes.
Optional Text
· “The Cochrane Handbook”, freely downloadable http://cochrane.mcmaster.ca/manuals.asp
· “Undertaking systematic reviews of researh on effectiveness. CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews”. CRD Report.
After reading the texts I went poking around the Cochrane Library again. There is not enough work in producing systematic reviews and meta-analyses for mental health issues, especially for children and youth. The work that Howard Schacter is doing with the COE is helping to close the gap but there is still so much that need to be done.
Here is the outline and first week's readings:
For the first session please review the following readings:
· Bhandari M, Devereaix PJ, Montori V, Cinà C, Tandan V, Guyatt GH, for the Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group. Users’ guide to the surgical literature: how to use a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2004; 47:60-67.
· Pai M, McCulloch, Gorman JD, Pai N, Enanoria W, Kennedy G, Tharyan P, Colford JM. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an illustrated, step-by-step guide. National Medical Journal of India. 2004; 17:86-95.
Atkins D, Fink K, Slutsky J. Better information for better health care: the evidence-based practice center program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2005;142:1035-1041.
· Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995; 274: 1935-8.
· Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S. Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D, for the QUOROM group. Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. The Lancet 1999;354:1896-1900
Session 1(5th January):
Overview of systematic reviews
What is a systematic review; types of systematic reviews; systematic review programs; where do systematic reviews fit in the EBM framework; decision maker and policy maker needs; and how good are we conducting systematic reviews.
Session 2 (12th January):
Question and Protocol development
Any research project, including a systematic review, requires a road map to answer a specific question. In this session we will work on developing and refining the research question; developing a template for a protocol and beginning to populate it. We will also discuss time management for completing a systematic review. We will also consider issues surrounding development data collection forms, extraction and discuss qualitative data synthesis.
Session 3 (19th January):
Refining the research question and Searching the literature I
An early and essential part of conducting a systematic review involves identifying and retrieving the individual studies. This combines both electronic and manual methods: the students will have the opportunity to develop various search strategies tailored to their protocols during this session.
Session 4 (26th January)
Searching the literature II
Computer Lab, using Reference Manager and RevMan
This lab will be devoted to helping students become familiar with the various bibliographical and statistical programs available to complete quantitative data synthesis. This software includes ‘Revman’ produced by the Cochrane Collaboration. Revman can be downloaded from “http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/cochrane/default.htm”. The lab will take place in the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Session 5 (2nd February):
Refining the protocol and conducting systematic reviews – process issues I
Computer lab, using RevMan
Specification of the question(s) to be addressed by a systematic review often arise(s) through debate and exploration of issues surrounding a general health problem. Precise and detailed formulation of the question is important to ensure that the review will produce answers that are meaningful to health care professionals and others. The lab will take place in the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Session 6 (9th February):
Conducting systematic reviews – process issues II
Computer Lab, Mastering RevMan
To be systematic criteria outlining the characteristics of studies eligible for inclusion in the review should be developed and stated a priori. This session will consider the form and scope of these criteria, how they relate to the research question, and how they are best operationalized. The session will also discuss issues in the development of data abstraction forms. The lab will take place in the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Session 7 (16th February):
Methodological issues in systematic reviews I
This session will concentrate on quality assessment, including approaches that have been developed to assess quality. Students will participate in a informal debate.
Session 8 (2nd March):
Methodological issues in systematic reviews II
The validity of a systematic review depends, in part, on several characteristics beyond simply ‘quality’. This session will concentrate on other characteristics, such as language publication, publication status, duplicate publications, and sponsorship.
Session 9 (9th March):
Statistical issues in systematic reviews I
This session will focus on the analytical issues required to synthesis data from a single primary study and will include examples for dichotomous and continuous outcomes.
Session 10 (16th March)
Statistical issues in systematic reviews II
This session will focus on the analytical issues required to synthesis data from multiple studies together and will include examples for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. The session will also discuss issues involved in detecting, describing and explaining both the clinical and statistical heterogeneity found in systematic reviews.
Session 11 (23rd March):
Statistical issues in systematic reviews III
This session will focus on publication bias: prevention, detention and adjustment.
Session 12(30th March):
Hot topics in systematic reviews
This session will include the following topics: what is evidence; use of non-randomized evidence in systematic review; updating systematic reviews; incorporating qualitative information into systematic reviews; patient safety/quality improvement and registering systematic reviews.
Session 13 (6th March):
Limitations of systematic reviews
The session will review themes concerning the limitations of systematic reviews, such as responding to policy makers needs; the labor-intensive methods of conducting a systematic review. This session will also review limitations in light of emerging methodology literature.
Session 14 (13th April):
Reporting systematic reviews
Reporting EMB, including systematic reviews, is currently undergoing ‘standardization’. These developments will be discussed and student reports will be discussed in light of these developments. We will also discuss how to prepare your manuscript of publication submission. ¶ 10:40 p.m.
The course outline is very interesting as were the first set of readings.
The evaluation is along 3 lines:
Protocol 30% - Must be handed in by 27th February
Final report 50% - Must be handed in by 21st April
Class participation 20%
Compulsory Text
· “Systematic reviews to support evidence-based medicine: how to review and apply findings of healthcare research” by Khan, Kunz, Kleijnen and Antes.
Optional Text
· “The Cochrane Handbook”, freely downloadable http://cochrane.mcmaster.ca/manuals.asp
· “Undertaking systematic reviews of researh on effectiveness. CRD’s guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews”. CRD Report.
After reading the texts I went poking around the Cochrane Library again. There is not enough work in producing systematic reviews and meta-analyses for mental health issues, especially for children and youth. The work that Howard Schacter is doing with the COE is helping to close the gap but there is still so much that need to be done.
Here is the outline and first week's readings:
For the first session please review the following readings:
· Bhandari M, Devereaix PJ, Montori V, Cinà C, Tandan V, Guyatt GH, for the Evidence-Based Surgery Working Group. Users’ guide to the surgical literature: how to use a systematic review and meta-analysis. Canadian Journal of Surgery. 2004; 47:60-67.
· Pai M, McCulloch, Gorman JD, Pai N, Enanoria W, Kennedy G, Tharyan P, Colford JM. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an illustrated, step-by-step guide. National Medical Journal of India. 2004; 17:86-95.
Atkins D, Fink K, Slutsky J. Better information for better health care: the evidence-based practice center program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. 2005;142:1035-1041.
· Bero L, Rennie D. The Cochrane Collaboration. Preparing, maintaining, and disseminating systematic reviews of the effects of health care. JAMA 1995; 274: 1935-8.
· Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S. Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup D, for the QUOROM group. Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. The Lancet 1999;354:1896-1900
Session 1(5th January):
Overview of systematic reviews
What is a systematic review; types of systematic reviews; systematic review programs; where do systematic reviews fit in the EBM framework; decision maker and policy maker needs; and how good are we conducting systematic reviews.
Session 2 (12th January):
Question and Protocol development
Any research project, including a systematic review, requires a road map to answer a specific question. In this session we will work on developing and refining the research question; developing a template for a protocol and beginning to populate it. We will also discuss time management for completing a systematic review. We will also consider issues surrounding development data collection forms, extraction and discuss qualitative data synthesis.
Session 3 (19th January):
Refining the research question and Searching the literature I
An early and essential part of conducting a systematic review involves identifying and retrieving the individual studies. This combines both electronic and manual methods: the students will have the opportunity to develop various search strategies tailored to their protocols during this session.
Session 4 (26th January)
Searching the literature II
Computer Lab, using Reference Manager and RevMan
This lab will be devoted to helping students become familiar with the various bibliographical and statistical programs available to complete quantitative data synthesis. This software includes ‘Revman’ produced by the Cochrane Collaboration. Revman can be downloaded from “http://hiru.mcmaster.ca/cochrane/default.htm”. The lab will take place in the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Session 5 (2nd February):
Refining the protocol and conducting systematic reviews – process issues I
Computer lab, using RevMan
Specification of the question(s) to be addressed by a systematic review often arise(s) through debate and exploration of issues surrounding a general health problem. Precise and detailed formulation of the question is important to ensure that the review will produce answers that are meaningful to health care professionals and others. The lab will take place in the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Session 6 (9th February):
Conducting systematic reviews – process issues II
Computer Lab, Mastering RevMan
To be systematic criteria outlining the characteristics of studies eligible for inclusion in the review should be developed and stated a priori. This session will consider the form and scope of these criteria, how they relate to the research question, and how they are best operationalized. The session will also discuss issues in the development of data abstraction forms. The lab will take place in the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Session 7 (16th February):
Methodological issues in systematic reviews I
This session will concentrate on quality assessment, including approaches that have been developed to assess quality. Students will participate in a informal debate.
Session 8 (2nd March):
Methodological issues in systematic reviews II
The validity of a systematic review depends, in part, on several characteristics beyond simply ‘quality’. This session will concentrate on other characteristics, such as language publication, publication status, duplicate publications, and sponsorship.
Session 9 (9th March):
Statistical issues in systematic reviews I
This session will focus on the analytical issues required to synthesis data from a single primary study and will include examples for dichotomous and continuous outcomes.
Session 10 (16th March)
Statistical issues in systematic reviews II
This session will focus on the analytical issues required to synthesis data from multiple studies together and will include examples for dichotomous and continuous outcomes. The session will also discuss issues involved in detecting, describing and explaining both the clinical and statistical heterogeneity found in systematic reviews.
Session 11 (23rd March):
Statistical issues in systematic reviews III
This session will focus on publication bias: prevention, detention and adjustment.
Session 12(30th March):
Hot topics in systematic reviews
This session will include the following topics: what is evidence; use of non-randomized evidence in systematic review; updating systematic reviews; incorporating qualitative information into systematic reviews; patient safety/quality improvement and registering systematic reviews.
Session 13 (6th March):
Limitations of systematic reviews
The session will review themes concerning the limitations of systematic reviews, such as responding to policy makers needs; the labor-intensive methods of conducting a systematic review. This session will also review limitations in light of emerging methodology literature.
Session 14 (13th April):
Reporting systematic reviews
Reporting EMB, including systematic reviews, is currently undergoing ‘standardization’. These developments will be discussed and student reports will be discussed in light of these developments. We will also discuss how to prepare your manuscript of publication submission. ¶ 10:40 p.m.
