Systematic reviews: A guide for radiographers and other health care professionals

Radiography

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 158-164

  Marshall, Gill ^a   Sykes, Anne E ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CUMBRIA   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SALFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Impact factors; Meta Analysis; Scopus scores.; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING AGENT;

CASE CONTROL STUDY; CASE STUDY; CHECKLIST; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COCHRANE LIBRARY; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTRAST ENHANCEMENT; DATA BASE; DATA EXTRACTION; EMBASE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HUMAN; MEDICAL LITERATURE; MEDICAL SOCIETY; MEDLINE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PEER REVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RADIOGRAPHER; RADIOGRAPHY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STRUCTURED QUESTIONNAIRE; STUDY DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); VALIDITY;

EID: 79952902647     PISSN: 10788174     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.radi.2010.08.007     Document Type: Review

References (44)

1. Parahoo K. Nursing research, principles, process and issues 2006, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke. 2nd ed.
2. Marshall G. Guest editorial writing review articles. Radiography 2007, 13(1):2-3.
3. Evans D., Pearson A. Systematic reviews of qualitative research. Clinical Effectiveness in Nursing 2002, 5:111-119.
4. University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin. Literature review Paper,; 2001 [accessed 12.06.09]. http://www.uwlax.edu/biology/communication/ReviewPapers.html.
5. Manning D., Hogg P. Writing for publication. Radiography 2006, 12(2):77-78.
6. Bolam v Friern hospital management committee, 1957 (no date) [accessed 5.11.09]. http://www.a-level-law.com/caselibrary/BOLAM%20v%20FRIERN%20HMC%20%5b1957%5d%202%20All%20ER%20118%20-%20QBD.doc.
7. Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority, 1998 (no date) [accessed 5.11.09]. http://oxcheps.new.ox.ac.uk/casebook/Resources/BOLAMV_1%20DOC.pdf.
8. The "so what" factor, 2005 [accessed 25.03.10]. http://www.teesresearch.tamu.edu/documents//so_what_2005.pdf.
9. Marshall G. Critiquing a research article. Radiography 2005, 11(1):55-59.
10. Science Direct top downloaded articles, 2010 [accessed 5.6.10]. http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/623068/description%23description.
11. Hemingway P., Brereton N. What is a systematic review? 2009, available on the Internet at, Hayward Medical Communications, a division of Hayward Group Ltd, London. http://www.whatisseries.co.uk, 2nd ed.
12. The Cochrane Collaboration, [accessed 19.3.10]. http://www.cochrane.org.
13. Khan K. Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests: a guide to methods and application best practice and research. Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 2005, 19(1):37-46.
14. Schardt C., Adams M.B., Owens T., Keitz S., Fontelo P. Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 2007, 7:16. This article is available from:. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/7/16, 10.1186/147.
15. Williams P., Wilford B., Cutler S. Medical imaging and radiotherapy research - skills and strategies 2010, Elsevier. A. Ramlual (Ed.).
16. SIGN SIGN 50 A guideline developer's handbook 2008, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, Edinburgh.
17. RCR Royal college of radiologists gadolinium based contrast media and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis 2007, Royal College of Radiologists, London.
18. ESUR guidelines on contrast media v 7, 2008 [accessed 25.03.10]. http://www.esur.org/ESURguidelines%2023.0html.
19. Sayers A. Tips and tricks in performing a systematic review Chapter 4: building a PICO search strategy. British Journal of General Practice February 2008, 136.
20. Polit K., Beck C. Essentials of Nursing research: appraising evidence for Nursing practice 2008, Wolters Kluwer/Lippincott Wiliams and Wilkins, London, UK. 7th ed.
21. [accessed 02.04.10]. http://biomedicallibrary.southalabama.edu/library/sites/default/files/picohandout.pdf.
22. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, AHRQ Fact sheet: rating the strength of scientific research findings 2002, US Department of Health and Human services Public Health service, USA.
23. Evans D. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. Journal of Clinical Nursing 2003, 12:77-84.
24. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2009, The Cochrane Collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/.
25. Liberati A., Altman D.G., Tetzlaff J., Mulrow C., Gotzsche P.C., Iodannidis J., et al. The PRiSMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. British Medical Journal 2009, 339:b2700. 10.1136/bmj.b27.
26. Cheek J., Garnham B., Quan J. What's in a number? Issues in providing evidence of impact and quality of Research(ers). Qualitative Health Research 2006, (16):423.
27. Journal Citation Reports [accessed 12.05.10]. http://admin-apps.isiknowledge.com/JCR/JCR.
28. Amin M., Mabe M. Impact factors: use and abuse 2000, Elsevier Science, Oxford, UK.
29. Walter G., Bloch S., Hunt G., Fisher K. Counting on citations: a flawed way to measure quality. Medical Journal of Australia 2003, 178(6):280-281.
30. Marshall G, 2010. Establishing the practice, profession and education of Radiography internationally Ph.D. thesis.
31. Seglen P.O. Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997, 314:497.
32. Thomson Reuters [accessed 19.03.10]. http://thomsonreuters.com/products_services/science/academic/impact_factor/2010.
33. Beer R. Radiography publisher's report 2010, Elsevier, Oxford.
34. Scopus Journal Analyzer [accessed 17.06.10]. http://www.scopus.com.
35. Bakkalbasi N., Bauer K., Glover J., Wang L. Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and web of Science, biomedical Digital Libraries research. Biomedical Digital Libraries 2006, 3(7). 10.1186/1742-5581-3-7.
36. Beer R - Publishing Editor, 2009. email to Gill Marshall 13/11/2009.
37. Garfield E, 2005. The Agony and the Ecstasy-The History and Meaning of the Journal Impact Factor. In: Proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, Chicago.
38. Bender R., Bunce C., Clarke M., Gates S., Lange S., Pace L., et al. Attention should be given to multiplicity issues in systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2008, 6(1):857-865.
39. Elamin M.B., Flynn D.N., Bassler D., Briel M., Alonso-Coello P., Karanicolas P.J., et al. Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2009, 62:506-510.
40. Cochrane RevMan review Manager [accessed 21.06.10]. http://www.cc-ims.net/revman.
41. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), [accessed 21.06.10]. http://www.phru.nhs.uk/pages/phd/resources.htm.
42. Coon J.T., Ernst E. Complementary and alternative therapies in the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: a systematic review. Journal of Hepatology 2003, 40(3):491-500.
43. Sandelowski M. Reading, writing and systematic review. Journal of Advanced Nursing 2008, 64(1):104-110. 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04813.x.
44. Weinstein S., Obuchowski N., Lieber M.L. Fundamentals of clinical research for radiologists: clinical evaluation of diagnostic tests. American Journal of Roentgenology 2005, 184:14-19.