Knowledge Synthesis in Evidence-Based Medicine

Seminars in Nuclear Medicine

Volumn 49, Issue 2, 2019, Pages 136-144

  Garritty, C ^a   Stevens, A ^a   Hamel, C ^a   Golfam, M ^b   Hutton, B ^a,c   Wolfe, D ^a  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b Edmundston Regional Hospital   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; KNOWLEDGE; NUCLEAR MEDICINE; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); PROCEDURES;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85060921095     PISSN: 00012998     EISSN: 15584623     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1053/j.semnuclmed.2018.11.006     Document Type: Review

References (76)

1. Sackett, D.L., Rosenberg, W.M., Gray, J.A., et al. Evidence based medicine: What it is and what it isn't. BMJ 312 (1996), 71–72.
2. Greenhalgh, T., Howick, J., Maskrey, N., et al. Evidence based medicine: A movement in crisis?. BMJ, 348, 2014, 10.1136/bmj.g3725 g3725-g3725.
3. Mulrow, C.D., Systematic reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 309 (1994), 597–599, 10.1136/bmj.309.6954.597.
4. Cook, D.J., Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med, 126, 1997, 376, 10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006.
5. Petticrew, M., Systematic reviews from astronomy to zoology: Myths and misconceptions. BMJ 322 (2001), 98–101, 10.1136/bmj.322.7278.98.
6. Moher, D., Stewart, L., Shekelle, P., All in the family: Systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev, 4, 2015, 183, 10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7.
7. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2 2011.
8. Sargeant, J.M., O'Connor, A.M., Introduction to systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. Zoonoses Public Health 61 (2014), 3–9, 10.1111/zph.12128.
9. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Trikalinos, T.A., Early extreme contradictory estimates may appear in published research: The Proteus phenomenon in molecular genetics research and randomized trials. J Clin Epidemiol 58 (2005), 543–549, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.10.019.
10. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research. JAMA 294 (2005), 218–228, 10.1001/jama.294.2.218.
11. Ioannidis, J.P.A., Evolution and translation of research findings: From bench to where?. PLoS Clin Trials, 1, 2006, e36, 10.1371/journal.pctr.0010036.
12. Grimshaw, J., A Guide to Knowledge Synthesis: A Knowledge Synthesis Chapter n.d. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41382.html, 2018 accessed October 8, 2018.
13. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. www.handbook.cochrane.org, 2011 accessed September 28, 2018.
14. von Eyben, F.E., Roviello, G., Kiljunen, T., et al. Third-line treatment and 177Lu-PSMA radioligand therapy of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45 (2018), 496–508, 10.1007/s00259-017-3895-x.
15. Sadeghi, R., Treglia, G., Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic studies: A practical guideline. Clin Transl Imaging 5 (2017), 83–87, 10.1007/s40336-016-0219-2.
16. Owen, R.K., Cooper, N.J., Quinn, T.J., et al. Network meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies identifies and ranks the optimal diagnostic tests and thresholds for health care policy and decision-making. J Clin Epidemiol 99 (2018), 64–74, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.005.
17. Juneau, D., Golfam, M., Hazra, S., et al. Positron emission tomography and single-photon emission computed tomography imaging in the diagnosis of cardiac implantable electronic device infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Circ: Cardiovasc Imaging, 10, 2017, e005772, 10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.116.005772.
18. Juneau, D., Golfam, M., Hazra, S., et al. Molecular Imaging for the diagnosis of infective endocarditis: A systematic literature review and meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 253 (2018), 183–188, 10.1016/j.ijcard.2017.10.116.
19. Cantoni, V., Sollini, M., Green, R., et al. Comprehensive meta-analysis on [18F] FDG PET/CT and radiolabelled leukocyte SPECT–SPECT/CT imaging in infectious endocarditis and cardiovascular implantable electronic device infections. Clin Transl Imaging 6 (2018), 3–18, 10.1007/s40336-018-0265-z.
20. Erba, P.A., Lancellotti, P., Vilacosta, I., et al. Recommendations on nuclear and multimodality imaging in IE and CIED infections. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 45 (2018), 1795–1815, 10.1007/s00259-018-4025-0.
21. Lindner, O., Bauersachs, J., Bengel, F.M., et al. [Policy paper nuclear cardiology - update 2018 - Current status of clinical practice]. Nuklearmedizin 57 (2018), 146–152, 10.3413/2018-06-0001.
22. Calopedos, R.J.S., Chalasani, V., Asher, R., et al. Lutetium-177-labelled anti-prostate-specific membrane antigen antibody and ligands for the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20 (2017), 352–360, 10.1038/pcan.2017.23.
23. Golfam, M., Little, J., Zuckier, L., Improving the Evidence for I-131 Ablation Therapy: Considerations Regarding Randomized Controlled Trials and the Road Ahead, 2015, 2015, Canadian Association of Nuclear Medicine Book of Abstracts, Montreal, Canada.
24. Higgins, J., Altman, D., Gotzsche, P., et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2011, 343.
25. Sterne, J.A., Hernán, M.A., Reeves, B.C., et al. ROBINS-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomized studies of interventions. BMJ, 355, 2016, i4919, 10.1136/bmj.i4919.
26. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses n.d.
27. SIGN. SIGN- Critical Appraisal Notes and Checklists- Methodology Checklist 3: Cohort studies n.d. http://www.sign.ac.uk/checklists-and-notes.html.
28. Whiting, P.F., QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med, 155, 2011, 529, 10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.
29. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLOS Med, 6, 2009, e1000097, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
30. Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med, 2018, 10.7326/M18-0850.
31. Bougioukas, K., Liakos, A., Tsapas, A., et al. Preferred reporting items for overviews of systematic rev'iews including harms checklist: A pilot tool to be used for balanced reporting of benefits and harms. J Clin Epidemiol 93 (2018), 9–24.
32. Pollock, M., Hartling, L. Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) 2016.
33. AHRQ. Agnecy for Healthcare Research and Quality: Effective Health Care Program, Methods Guide - Chapter n.d. https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/search?f%5B0%5D=field_tags%3A2699&f%5B1%5D=field_product_type%3Amethods_guide_chapter.
34. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2015 edition / Supplement. The systematic review of studies of diagnostic test accuracy 2015. http://joannabriggs.org/assets/docs/sumari/Reviewers-Manual_The-systematic-review-of-studies-of-diagnostic-test-accuracy.pdf (Accessed 27 September 2018).
35. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care 2009.
36. Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus S, (eds). World Health Organization. Alliance for Helath Policy and Systems Research. Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide. World Health Organization 2017.
37. Dobbins, M., Rapid Review Guidebook: Steps for Conducting a Rapid Review. http://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/ce4c0813b3639ccd87bb6e5ad716df144209109e.pdf, 2017 (Accessed 8 October 2018).
38. Garritty, C.M., Norris, S.L., Moher, D., Developing WHO rapid advice guidelines in the setting of a public health emergency. J Clin Epidemiol 82 (2017), 47–60, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.010.
39. Arksey, H., O'Malley, L., Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8 (2005), 19–32, 10.1080/1364557032000119616.
40. Levac, D., Colquhoun, H., O'Brien, K.K., Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci, 5, 2010, 69, 10.1186/1748-5908-5-69.
41. Colquhoun, H.L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K.K., et al. Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. J Clin Epidemiol 67 (2014), 1291–1294, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013.
42. Peters, M.D.J., Godfrey, C.M., Khalil, H., et al. Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews. Int J Evid Based Healthc 13 (2015), 141–146, 10.1097/XEB.0000000000000050.
43. Becker, L., Oxman, A., Chapter 22: Overviews of reviews. Higgins, J., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0, 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration updated March 2011.
44. Ballard, M., Montgomery, P., Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: A scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Res Synth Methods 8 (2017), 92–108.
45. Pieper D., Antoine S.-L., Mathes T., et al. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology n.d.;67:368-75.
46. Pollock, M., Fernandes, R.M., Becker, L.A., et al. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Syst Rev, 5, 2016, 190.
47. Cochrane Comparing Multiple Interventions Group. Undertaking, publishing and maintaining Cochrane Reviews that compare multiple interventions. n.d. https://methods.cochrane.org/cmi/methods-innovation-fund-stream-1 (Accessed 1 October 2018).
48. Cochrane. The Cochrane Library. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/, 2018 (Accessed 8 October 2018).
49. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. The Centre for Reviews and Dissemination Database. 2018, University of York https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/CRDWeb/ (Accessed 8 October 2018).
50. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. https://www.ahrq.gov/research/findings/evidence-based-reports/search.html, 2018 (accessed October 8, 2018).
51. Shojania, K.G., Sampson, M., Ansari, M.T., et al. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 147 (2007), 224–233.
52. Shea, B.J., Reeves, B.C., Wells, G., et al. AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358, 2017, j4008.
53. Grimshaw, J.M., Thomas, R.E., MacLennan, G., et al. Effectiveness and efficiency of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies. Health Technol Assess 8 (2004), 1–72 iii–iv.
54. Graham, I.D., Tetroe, J., Gagnon, M., Lost in translation: Just lost or beginning to find our way?. Ann Emerg Med 54 (2009), 313–314, 10.1016/j.annemergmed.2009.02.021.
55. Deeks, J.J., Wisniewski, S., Davenport, C., Chapter 4: guide to the contents of a Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Protocol. Deeks, J.J., Bossuyt, P.M., Gatsonis, C., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Version 1.0.0, 2013, The Cochrane Collaboration.
56. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, 2015, g7647.
57. Archer, H.A., Smailagic, N., John, C., et al. Regional cerebral blood flow single photon emission computed tomography for detection of Frontotemporal dementia in people with suspected dementia. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2015, CD010896, 10.1002/14651858.CD010896.pub2.
58. Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., et al. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 944–952.
59. Caldwell, D., Ades, A., Higgins, J., Simultaneous comparison of multiple treatments: combining direct and indirect evidence. BMJ 331 (2005), 897–900.
60. Dias, S., Welton, N., Sutton, A., et al. NICE DSU Technical Support Document 2:A Generalised Linear Modelling Framework for Pairwise and Network Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials. http://www.nicedsu.org.uk/TSD2%20General%20meta%20analysis%20corrected%202Sep2016v2.pdf, 2011.
61. Timur, U.T., van Herwaarden, J.A., Mihajlovic, D., et al. (18)F-FDG PET scanning of abdominal aortic aneurysms and correlation with molecular characteristics: A systematic review. EJNMMI Res, 5, 2015, 76, 10.1186/s13550-015-0153-8.
62. Norman, G., Fayter, D., Lewis-Light, K., et al. An emerging evidence base for PET-CT in the management of childhood rhabdomyosarcoma: Systematic review. BMJ Open, 5, 2015, e006030, 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006030.
63. Guyatt, G.H., Sackett, D.L., Sinclair, J.C., et al. Users’ guides to the medical literature. IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 274 (1995), 1800–1804.
64. Guyatt, G.H., Oxman, A.D., Schünemann, H.J., et al. GRADE guidelines: A new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 380–382, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.09.011.
65. Guyatt, G., Oxman, A.D., Akl, E.A., et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64 (2011), 383–394, 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.
66. Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 16, 2016, 15, 10.1186/s12874-016-0116-4.
67. Evaluation of NIHR investment in Cochrane infrastructure and systematic reviews n.d. https://www.journalslibrary.nihr.ac.uk/nihr-research/evaluation-of-nihr-investment-in-cochrane/ (Accessed 8 September 2018).
68. Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., et al. Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev, 1, 2012, 10, 10.1186/2046-4053-1-10.
69. Madsen, P.H., Holdgaard, P.C., Christensen, J.B., et al. Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET-CT in the initial evaluation of lung cancer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging 43 (2016), 2084–2097, 10.1007/s00259-016-3407-4.
70. Peters, M.D.J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., et al. Chapter 11: Scoping Reviews. Aromataris, E., Munn, Z., (eds.), 2017, Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/ (Accessed October 5 2018).
71. Pham, M.T., Rajić A., Greig, J.D., et al. A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency. Res Synth Methods 5 (2014), 371–385, 10.1002/jrsm.1123.
72. Thomas, A., Lubarsky, S., Durning, S.J., et al. Knowledge syntheses in medical education: Demystifying scoping reviews. Acad Med 92 (2017), 161–166, 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001452.
73. Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., Chalmers, I., Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up?. PLOS Med, 7, 2010, e1000326, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326.
74. Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: A cross-sectional study. PLOS Med, 13, 2016, e1002028, 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028.
75. Hartling, L., Vandermeer, B., Fernandes, R.M., Systematic reviews, overviews of reviews and comparative effectiveness reviews: A discussion of approaches to knowledge synthesis. Evid-Based Child Health: Cochrane Rev J 9 (2014), 486–494.
76. Stevens A., Garritty C., Hersi M., et al. Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies (Protocol) 2018.