Conducting Systematic Reviews of Intervention Questions I: Writing the Review Protocol, Formulating the Question and Searching the Literature

This article is the fourth of six articles addressing systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. Previous articles in the series have introduced systematic reviews, discussed study designs and hierarchies of evidence, and provided details on conducting randomized controlled trials, a common design for use in systematic reviews. This article describes development of a review protocol and the first two steps in a systematic review: formulating a review question, and searching the literature for relevant research. The emphasis is on systematic reviews of questions related to interventions. The review protocol is developed prior to conducting the review and specifies the plan for the conduct of the review, identifies the roles and responsibilities of the review team and provides structured definitions related to the review question. For intervention questions, the review question should be defined by the PICO components: population, intervention, comparison and outcome(s). The literature search is designed to identify all potentially relevant original research that may address the question. Search terms related to some or all of the PICO components are entered into literature databases, and searches for unpublished literature also are conducted. All steps of the literature search are documented to provide transparent reporting of the process.

[1]  Gábor L. Lövei,et al.  Application of Systematic Review Methodology to Food and Feed Safety Assessments to Support Decision Making , 2010 .

[2]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias , 2008, PloS one.

[3]  Peter Jüni,et al.  Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. , 2002, International journal of epidemiology.

[4]  David Moher,et al.  An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  Sarah Anne Murphy,et al.  Applying methodological search filters to CAB abstracts to identify research for evidence-based veterinary medicine. , 2002, Journal of the Medical Library Association.

[6]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[7]  J M Sargeant,et al.  Pre‐harvest Interventions to Reduce the Shedding of E. coli O157 in the Faeces of Weaned Domestic Ruminants: A Systematic Review , 2007, Zoonoses and public health.

[8]  Susan R. Wilson,et al.  Review of the usefulness of contacting other experts when conducting a literature search for systematic reviews , 1998, BMJ.

[9]  Robert Brian Haynes,et al.  Retrieving randomized controlled trials from medline: a comparison of 38 published search filters. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[10]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Chapter 9: Analysing Data and Undertaking Meta-Analyses , 2008 .

[11]  C. Counsell,et al.  Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  J. Higgins.  Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2011 .

[13]  Sarah Anne Murphy,et al.  Research methodology search filters: are they effective for locating research for evidence-based veterinary medicine in PubMed? , 2003, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[14]  J. McGowan,et al.  Systematic reviews need systematic searchers. , 2005, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[15]  T. Greenhalgh,et al.  Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  K. Shojania,et al.  How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[17]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[18]  Shandra L. Protzko,et al.  The Systematic Review Team: Contributions of the Health Sciences Librarian , 2011, Medical reference services quarterly.

[19]  Martin Boeker,et al.  Google Scholar as replacement for systematic literature searches: good relative recall and precision are not enough , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[20]  Rachel S Dean,et al.  Searching the veterinary literature: a comparison of the coverage of veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases. , 2012, Journal of veterinary medical education.