「Systematic review and Meta-analysis」の版間の差分
ナビゲーションに移動
検索に移動
Vaccipedia.admin (トーク | 投稿記録) |
Vaccipedia.admin (トーク | 投稿記録) |
||
| (同じ利用者による、間の1版が非表示) | |||
| 25行目: | 25行目: | ||
*Web of Science | *Web of Science | ||
*Embase and/or Scopus | *Embase and/or Scopus | ||
| + | **overlapping ratio between Embase and Scopus is very high | ||
*Google Scholar | *Google Scholar | ||
**grey literature | **grey literature | ||
| + | as many as possible | ||
| + | |||
| + | *grey literatures | ||
| + | **Google Scholar | ||
| + | **New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report | ||
| + | **[[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_for_Information_on_Grey_Literature_in_Europe SIGLE]] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ===data extraction=== | ||
| + | *most important and easily mistaken step | ||
2021年4月26日 (月) 11:17時点における最新版
目次
Systematic review
- systematic review vs non-systematic review
- every SR does not have a meta-analysis
- such as Delphi method
strength of SR
weakness of SR
Meta-analysis
- MA does not require SR
network meta-analysis
- to compare efficacy of multiple treatment arms
strength of MA
- overcome publication bias
weakness of MA
conduct SR/MA
- no guidelines on the number of included studies in SR/MA
- Cochrane has published SR/MA with only 1 study included
optimal databases
Bramer WM, et al. Syst Rev. 2017 PMID:29208034
- Medline/PubMed
- Web of Science
- Embase and/or Scopus
- overlapping ratio between Embase and Scopus is very high
- Google Scholar
- grey literature
as many as possible
- grey literatures
- Google Scholar
- New York Academy of Medicine Grey Literature Report
- [SIGLE]
data extraction
- most important and easily mistaken step
