Methodology used to develop the CareSearch Review Collection
Systematic reviews play an important role in informing health care delivery and practice. They are ranked , in health care, as one of the highest levels of evidence on which to base a decision. [1,2]. The rigorous search for all relevant studies helps to reduce possible bias as does the meta analytic techniques.[3]
However, systematic reviews also provide the opportunity to identify possible effects and variables within the topic. In effect they can offer knowledge support as well as well decision support on the effectiveness of an intervention. [4]
In a multidisciplinary field such as palliative care, non-medical disciplines may not use the same methodology in reviewing research studies on a specific topic. For example, the Joanna Briggs Institute has developed a Model of Evidence-Based Health Care that examines findings from qualitative and quantitative research, opinion and economic analyses. Further the capacity to integrate findings from diverse study designs is challenging. [5 However, identifying the knowledge from the broad range of professions and disciplines contributing to palliative care is critical to its practice and development.
Given these considerations a broad approach was used to identify and include relevant reviews in this collection. Four bibliographic databases were searched – CINAHL, Ovid Medline, Embase and PsycINFO. These provided access to the literature of non-medical disciplines such as psychology, nursing and allied health. The search strategies are detailed in the CareSearch page Review Search Strategies. Two broad inclusion criteria were applied:
Methodological criteria
A review is included if it:
- Reports on multiple studies
- Describes search strategy
- Describes data methods
In a case where the description of data methods is limited but where the apparent approach to data methods can be determined from the article, it may be included.
Relevance
Determining relevance to palliative care can be difficult. Palliative care is a referral based area of practice and provides care across many disease trajectories. It utilises different treatments in the management of these complex care needs that encompass spiritual, emotional and social needs as well as the management of physical symptoms. As a result the boundaries of its practice are ambiguous and intersect with other medical specialties and academic disciplines.
A pragmatic approach to inclusion on the basis of relevance was determined. If an article meets the methodological criteria, then two reviewers (a palliative care physician and a palliative care researcher) examine the articles and use a consensus process to determine its relevance.
References
- National Health and Medical Research Council A guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines 1999
- Pearson A Balancing the evidence: incorporating the synthesis of qualitative data into systematic reviews JBI REPORTS 2004; 2: 45–64
- Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF.Improving the Quality of Reports of Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: The QUOROM StatemenT. Onkologie. 2000 Dec;23(6):597-602.
- Mays N, Pope C, Popay J.Systematically reviewing qualitative and quantitative evidence to inform management and policy-making in the health fielD. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:6-20. Review.
- Popay J, Roen K SCIE Report No 3 Using evidence from diverse research designS. November 2003 Social Institute for Excellence
This page was created on 24 May 2008