Universitat Internacional de Catalunya
Clinical Systematic Reviews
Other languages of instruction: English, Spanish
Teaching staff
Dr. Cristina Monforte: cmonforte@uic.es
Dr. Pere Castellví: pcastellvi@uic.es
Introduction
The systematic review of the scientific literature is the best way to answer to the need to know and summarize the growing amount of scientific results. This subject is an Introduction to the use of techniques for reviewing and synthesizing quantitative and qualitative research results and methods for adding results through meta-analytical techniques. In this subject the concepts will be presented through case studies in public health, health research and applied clinical research.
Pre-course requirements
No pre-course requirements
Objectives
General objectives:
- To understand the importance of the review and synthesis methods and the differences between them.
- To assess the potentiality and limitations of the different methods.
- To know the methods of qualitative and quantitative synthesis.
- To understand the methodology of the systematic review.
- To understand the logic of the meta-analysis and how to interpret it correctly.
- To learn how to design a systematic review.
Specific objectives:
- To learn how to define research questions and search strategies in the literature.
- To apply eligibility criteria, data extraction and quality evaluation of the primary studies.
- To develop an analysis plan.
- To understand the statistics of the synthesis of results, recognize the heterogeneity of results and strategies to quantify it.
- To understand and assess the publication bias.
- To know the writing of the reports of studies of qualitative systematic review and meta-analysis.
- To know the different methods of synthesis of qualitative studies.
Competences/Learning outcomes of the degree programme
- CB10 - To have the learning competences that allow them to continue to study in a way that will have to be mainly independent.
- CE1 - To know how to apply scientific methods, experimental design and biostatistics to answer a question or corroborate a hypothesis in a clinical setting.
- CE2 - To know how to design a research project within a specific context in a clinical setting
- CE3 - To know how to describe both the quantitative and qualitative methodological designs used in health research in the healthcare environment.
- CE4 - To know how to use critical assessment tools for qualitative and quantitative research articles
- CE5 - To know how to apply the language of scientific writing when communicating health outcomes
- CE6 - To know how to describe and apply the most common techniques for exploring and analysing data, the relationship between variables or categories and/or corroborating hypotheses in both quantitative and qualitative research.
- CE7 - To know how to identify health problems on which research may be undertaken and to apply specific techniques to analyse and assess such problems,
- CE8 - To know how to assess research projects and protocols
- CE9 - To know how to apply specific theoretical and practical knowledge to health science research.
- CG1 - The ability to incorporate new knowledge acquired through research and study and cope with complexity.
- CG2 - The ability to critically analyse and discuss research results and transmit the relevant outcomes.
- CG3 - The ability to draw up research questions and put them into operation as research projects and formulate evidence-based research hypotheses.
- CG4 - The ability to articulate and defend one's own scientific ideas in an ethical way with regard to the research process
- CT1 - The ability to integrate within an established, multidisciplinary and multicultural work team.
Learning outcomes of the subject
At the end of this subject, the student will have to be able to:
- To prepare a research question in a structured way.
- To select the most useful information search resources.
- To develop effective research strategies for each type of study.
- Identify the design of the student identifier.
- To recognize the strengths and limitations of reviews in biomedical journals.
- Critically analyze systematic reviews and make decisions based on the information they collect.
- To know the differences between author or expert review and Systematic Reviews.
- To understand the methodology of meta-analysis and meta-synthesis.
Syllabus
In this subject, the following contents, among others, will be working on:
- Documentary analysis.
- Practical application of the quantitative and qualitative methodology.
- Theoretical-practical application of the research methodology.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Methods of synthesis of scientific information.
- Qualitative systematic review.
Teaching and learning activities
In blended
Classes will be developed around debates on case studies, which students will have previously prepared with the readings indicated for the session. Theoretical concepts will develop around these readings. There will be practical sessions on the use of programs for meta-analysis, so it will be convenient to attend the sessions with a computer.
Individually, students will carry out a protocol on a systematic review of their interest that will be carried out in written format.
In groups, students will present a systematic review work on an article already published orally.
Evaluation systems and criteria
In blended
The evaluation of the subject will be based on the competence acquired during the course, which will be shown in three activities.
1) Writing individual PROPERO protocol (individual; 6 points): Students must complete an individual PROSPERO registration protocol detailing the procedures of a systematic review proposed by the student himself. The protocol will be delivered by completing the attached template (PROSPERO protocol template, modified version), and will indicate the essential aspects for conducting the review. The individual protocol will be delivered as a Moodle activity on the agreed date.
The evaluation will be based on the correctness of the protocol sections, and the appropriateness of the proposals in the section.
2) Group presentation of an article on systematic review (group; 2 points): Students will make a group presentation of a maximum of 10 minutes on an already published systematic review that they will agree among themselves. The objective of this part is to understand a systematic review article, its clinical or epidemiological repercussions and to know its strengths and limitations.
The evaluation will be based on a) the ability to explain each section, and b) knowing how to argue each of the sections of the article.
3) Work done in class (individual and group, 2 points): Finally, a continuous evaluation will be carried out in the sessions in which each of the topics made in the classes will be worked on, individually or in groups.
The evaluation will be based on participation in class and the correct performance of each of the activities during this semester.
To pass the subject, the student must obtain an average grade higher than 5.
Students who do not pass the subject in the ordinary call will have an extraordinary call that will consist of repeating the exercises.
Bibliography and resources
Gordis L. Epidemiología, 3ª ed. Madrid: Harcourt, 2003.
Argimón JM, Jiménez J. Métodos de investigación clínica y epidemiológica. Madrid: Elsevier, 2004.
Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context, 2nd Edition, Mattias Egger, George Davey Smith, and Douglas Altman, eds., BMJ Books, 2001.
Synthesising qualitative and quantitative health evidence: a guide methods. First edition. Catherine Pope, Nicholas Mays and Jennie Popay. Berkshire, England: McGrawHill, Open University Press. 2007
Mahtani Chugani V, Axpe Caballero M, Serrano Aguilar P, González Castro I, Fernández Vega E (2006) Metodología para incorporar los estudios cualitativos en la evaluación de tecnologías sanitarias. Madrid: Plan Nacional para el SNS del MSC. Servicio de Evaluación del Servicio Canario de la Salud. 160 p.
Nesbit K (2002) Evidence-based Filters for Ovid Medline. University of Rochester.
McKibbon A, Walker-Dilks C (2002) Evidence-based Filters for Ovid-CINAHL.
PRISMA statement: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
EQUATOR network: https://www.equator-network.org
Systematic review Toolbox: http://systematicreviewtools.com/index.php
Cochrane library http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/
BMJ research methods https://bmjopen.bmj.com/collection/research-methods
Berkeley Systematic Reviews Group, http://www.medepi.net/meta/
UK NICE (National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence) http://www.nice.org.uk/
COREQ (COnsolidated criteria for REporting Qualitative research) Checklist https://academic.oup.com/intqhc/article/19/6/349/1791966
CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) Checklist: 10 questions to help you make sense of a Qualitative research https://casp-uk.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist.pdf