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 answer to the need to know and summarize the growing amount of scientific results. This course is an Introduction to the use of quantitative and qualitative research results review techniques and methods for aggregating results using meta-analytical techniques. In this subject, the concepts will be presented through case studies in public health and research in health and clinical research. Bibliographic reviews may be the best answer to the need to digest growing scientific information using the best scientific evidence.
Pre-course requirements
This subject does not require any prerequisites for the student.
Knowledge about English, Spanish and Catalan reading will be mandatory. Bibliography will be done in these languagaes.
Objectives
General objectives:
• Understand the importance of systematic review methods and the differences between them.
• Assess the potential and limitations of the different methods.
• Know the methods of qualitative and quantitative synthesis.
• Understand the methodology of systematic review.
• Understand the logic of meta-analysis and how to interpret it correctly.
• Learn to design a correct systematic review and to consider the possibilities of combining results.
Specific objectives:
• Learn to define research questions and literature search strategies.
• Apply the criteria of eligibility, data extraction and quality assessment.
• Develop an analysis plan.
• Understand the statistics of synthesis of results, recognize the heterogeneity of results and strategies to quantify it.
• Understand and value the publication bias.
• Know the writing of the reports of studies of systematic qualitative review and meta-analysis.
• 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 must be able to:
- Develop a research question in a structured way.
- Select the most useful resource for locating relevant information.
- Develop efficient research strategies.
- Identify the design of the identified studies.
- Recognize the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews in biomedical journals related to a particular topic.
- Critically analyze systematic reviews and use the information analyzed for decision making.
- Know the differences between author or expert reviews and systematic reviews.
- Understand the concept of meta-analysis and metasynthesis and learn to interpret it correctly.
Syllabus
In this matter the following contents will be worked, among others:
• Documentary analysis.
• Practical application of 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
The classes will be developed around debates on case studies, which the students will have previously prepared with the readings indicated for the session. Theoretical concepts will be developed around these readings. There will be practical sessions on the use of programs for meta-analysis, so it will be convenient to attend some sessions with a computer. Individually, students will carry out a protocol on a systematic review of their interest which 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 a protocol (individually or in pairs; 50%): Students must complete an individual protocol detailing the procedures of a systematic review proposed by the student. The protocol will be delivered by completing a template developed for this purpose. The protocol will be delivered as a Moodle activity on the agreed date.
The evaluation will be based on the evaluation of each of the sections to be developed.
2) Group presentation of an article on systematic review (group; 20%): Students will make a group presentation of a maximum of 10 minutes on a systematic review already published that will be agreed between them. The aim 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) know how to argue each of the sections of the article.
3) Work done in class (individual or group, 30%): Finally, a continuous evaluation will be carried out in the sessions in which each of the topics done in the classes will be worked on, individually or in groups.
The evaluation will be based on the participation in class and on the correct realization of each one of the activities during this semester.
To pass the subject the student must obtain a grade point average higher than 5.
Students who do not pass the subject in the ordinary call will have an extraordinary call that will consist of the realization of a research protocol in systematic review.
Bibliography and resources
a) Recommended bibliography:
Mattias Egger, George Davey Smith, and Douglas Altman. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context, 2nd Edition, eds., BMJ Books, 2001.
Cochrane library http://www.thecochranelibrary.com/
b) Optional bibliography:
Specific bibliography of systematic reviews
McKibbon A, Walker-Dilks C (2002) Evidence-based Filters for Ovid-CINAHL.
PRISMA statement: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D, Moher D, Becker BJ, Sipe TA, Thacker SB. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000 Apr 19;283(15):2008-12. doi: 10.1001/jama.283.15.2008. PMID: 10789670.
EQUATOR network: https://www.equator-network.org
Systematic review Toolbox: http://systematicreviewtools.com/index.php
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
Berkeley Systematic Reviews Group http://www.medepi.net/meta/
Bibliografia genèrica sobre mètodes de recerca
Gordis L. Epidemiología, 3ª ed. Madrid: Harcourt, 2003.
Argimón JM, Jiménez J. Métodos de investigación clínica y epidemiológica. Madrid: Elsevier, 2004.
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.
BMJ research methods https://bmjopen.bmj.com/collection/research-methods
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