Appraising systematic reviews: a comprehensive guide to ensuring validity and reliability

Abstract

Systematic reviews play a crucial role in evidence-based practices as they consolidate research findings to inform decision-making. However, it is essential to assess the quality of systematic reviews to prevent biased or inaccurate conclusions. This paper underscores the importance of adhering to recognized guidelines, such as the PRISMA statement and Cochrane Handbook. These recommendations advocate for systematic approaches and emphasize the documentation of critical components, including the search strategy and study selection. A thorough evaluation of methodologies, research quality, and overall evidence strength is essential during the appraisal process. Identifying potential sources of bias and review limitations, such as selective reporting or trial heterogeneity, is facilitated by tools like the Cochrane Risk of Bias and the AMSTAR 2 checklist. The assessment of included studies emphasizes formulating clear research questions and employing appropriate search strategies to construct robust reviews. Relevance and bias reduction are ensured through meticulous selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Accurate data synthesis, including appropriate data extraction and analysis, is necessary for drawing reliable conclusions. Meta-analysis, a statistical method for aggregating trial findings, improves the precision of treatment impact estimates. Systematic reviews should consider crucial factors such as addressing biases, disclosing conflicts of interest, and acknowledging review and methodological limitations. This paper aims to enhance the reliability of systematic reviews, ultimately improving decision-making in healthcare, public policy, and other domains. It provides academics, practitioners, and policymakers with a comprehensive understanding of the evaluation process, empowering them to make well-informed decisions based on robust data.

Transformative Pathways of Agrarian Reform: Comparative Bibliometric Insights of Southeast Asia and Indonesia Cases

“…This research constitutes a systematic review, following the explicit methodological approach defined by the Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Collaboration is characterized by its systematic review methodology, which involves rigorous identification, selection, critical evaluation, and analysis of data from relevant research inquiries with clearly articulated criteria (Shaheen et al, 2023). The research employs well-defined and structured procedures at each stage, meticulously addressing potential biases, encompassing the search, identification, assessment, synthesis, analysis, and study summarization (Mengist et al, 2020).…”

Efficacy and safety of intravenous mesenchymal stem cells for ischemic stroke patients, a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Throughout this systematic review and meta-analysis, we adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA statement) criteria (Page et al, 2021). The Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Interventions, version 5.1.0, was strictly followed in the execution of the techniques (Cumpston et al, 2019;Shaheen et al, 2023).…”

Prevalence and Clinical Characteristics of Sleeping Paralysis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to investigate the prevalence of sleep paralysis based on existing epidemiological studies. This systematic review was conducted based on the recent Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [9].…”

“…Since all the included studies were observational studies like cohorts, cross-sectional, and case controls, we used the modified version of the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) to review the quality of the included studies [9]. Four authors reviewed the quality of the included studies, and a fifth independent author re-reviewed the quality independently.…”