Skip to main content

Featured blogs

Why You Should Spend More Time Thinking About Physician Writing

  In brief   Being a physician has always been a demanding occupation. This is especially true for primary care physicians, who strive to provide and coordinate complete treatment for their patients. Such a goal necessitates availability, a broad range of medical expertise, effective utilization of the local healthcare system, and attention to the "big picture" and the details of a patient's life and health.   Introduction   When physicians learn to write creatively, they perceive significant and even career-saving benefits. Their comments on their experiences and what is significant in their lives and jobs help them become better physicians.   Why physicians make good creative writers   If we consider our life experiences to be a well from which to draw while becoming writers, physicians have an unusually deep well. They're engrossed in stories. They see bravery, cures, and spectacular failures. They see incredible situations, hear tragic words, make life-...
Post a Comment
Read more
Labels

A research study Writing a Systematic Review in Clinical Research – Pubrica

 

Introduction

The most dependable source of evidence to guide clinical practice is a high-quality systematic review. A systematic review aims to provide a detailed overview of all available primary research in answer to a specific research issue. A systematic review, often known assecondary research, uses all available research (research on research). They are commonly used in guideline creation and are typically needed by research funders to establish the status of current knowledge. The results of systematic reviews are frequently employed in the healthcare field, but they can also be used elsewhere.

The process used in Conducting a Systematic Review is detailed and precise to reduce bias and increase the reliability of the results reached. A systematic review has the following characteristics:

·         explicit objectives with predetermined study eligibility and relevance criteria;

·         transparent, repeatable methodology; thorough search to find all suitable studies;

·         a systematic performance and synthesis of the included research,

·         as well as an assessment of the validity of the conclusions of the included studies



 

A systematic review involves a series of distinct steps:

Establish a research question: A well-defined review question is the backbone of the Clinical Trial Systematic Review Services systematic review, similar to a precise specific goal in a clinical study.

Clearly define the criteria for inclusion and exclusion: Eligibility requirements are derived mainly from the study question. PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcomes) is an abbreviation that helps identify which patient population, treatments or exposures in the treatment and control groups and outcome(s) research must report being eligible for inclusion.      

 

Conduct a thorough literature search: Bibliographic databases like PubMed, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, and EMBASE are commonly used to conduct literature searches.

Extract data: The kind and amount of data extracted depends on the review’s goal and scope, but typically these data include study design type(s), patient characteristics, and outcome data. A well-designed data extraction procedure and form facilitates consistent and thorough data extraction.

Assess the quality of the studies included: There is a range of quality evaluation techniques for different research types (e.g., Cochrane risk of bias tool; Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation [GRADE]; Newcastle-Ottawa scale). The quality evaluation findings are critical for readers to determine if the research provided trustworthy and generalizable information. To prevent a “garbage in, garbage out” impact, authors occasionally remove low-quality papers altogether.

 

Analyze the data, display it, and analyze it: A meta-analysis is frequently employed to combine quantitative data, although not always. However, a meta-analysis should not be undertaken if the included studies are not sufficiently comparable to allow for significant data synthesis. For example, here found a lot of clinical and methodological variability (e.g., different chronic pain conditions, treatment and follow-up durations, and magnesium formulations). Therefore they did a qualitative analysis and presented the findings descriptively.

 

Reference: https://bit.ly/3morikF

For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/

 

Why Pubrica:

When you order our services, We promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Biostatistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts.

  

Contact us:     

Web: https://pubrica.com/ ​

Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/ ​

Email: sales@pubrica.com 

WhatsApp : +91 9884350006 

United Kingdom: +44-1618186353

 

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment