What is the difference between a traditional review and a systematic evaluation of the district

Often encountered some students feel confused about the literature review, systematic review, what is the relationship between them. The following is the difference between traditional review and systematic evaluation that I have organized for you, I hope you like it.

The similarities and differences between the literature review and systematic review

1, literature review

Literature review (referred to as the review) is a field, a specialty or a direction of the subject, the problem or research topic to collect a large amount of information, through the analysis, reading, organizing, distilling the latest progress in the field of the academic insights or recommendations, to make a comprehensive introduction and exposition of the The first is a kind of academic thesis.

Traditional review writing has no fixed format and writing process, there is no rigorous statistical analysis of data, and there is no unified standard for evaluating the quality of the included studies, and its quality is greatly affected by the author's professionalism, the breadth of data collection, and the quality of the included literature, and it is not possible to quantitatively analyze the total effect of the interventions. In most cases, the authors first objectively present the results of the literature, and then summarize and interpret the literature according to their own subjective understanding.

2. Systematic evaluation

A systematic review (also known as systematic evaluation) is the process of applying a clear methodology to query, select, and rigorously evaluate relevant studies, extracting the data from them and combining them with appropriate statistical methods to draw comprehensive conclusions. The aim is to provide evidence to address a specific clinical question.

Others define a systematic review as a rigorous aggregation and analysis of all studies on a specific issue using some bias-reducing strategy or analytic method, with or without the use of meta-analysis. Meta-analysis is not mandatory for systematic reviews; a systematic review in which meta-analysis is performed on multiple studies is called a quantitative systematic review, and a systematic review in which no meta-analysis is performed but only descriptive analysis is called a qualitative systematic review.

Differences and links between traditional reviews and systematic evaluations

Both are summaries of a clinical problem, and both collect and organize the literature.

The difference is:

1, the purpose is different, the traditional review is for the next step in the scientific research of the literature collection and summarization, the systematic evaluation is to comprehensively summarize a problem, to evaluate the effectiveness of a current intervention.

2, different methods, the traditional review mainly lies in the search, and then read, summarize, put forward their own views, systematic evaluation, especially cochrane systematic evaluation has a strict method.

And the quality assessment of each trial is an important point of systematic evaluation different from the general review. If the results of trials of different quality are combined and analyzed, erroneous conclusions may be drawn." Quality" can be determined by the extent to which the trial was designed and conducted in a way that might prevent systematic error (bias). There is no gold standard or harmonized scale that can be used to assess the quality of the methodology of individual trials. However, the following four basic aspects can be considered: a) the prevention of selective bias: non-randomized studies should check for inter-group comparability; b) whether treatments are consistent between the two groups except for the intervening factor to be studied; c) the presence of exclusionary bias, i.e., whether there are systematic differences between the two groups in the case of withdrawal from the trial; and d) the presence of measurement bias, e.g., whether the measurements of outcomes are double-blind. In summary, the quality of trials is best assessed independently by two or more investigators, differences of opinion are resolved through discussion, insufficient information can be supplemented by personal contact with the investigator, and the level of quality can be used to weight the weight of individual trial results in the overall outcome.

3, the results are different Traditional reviews summarize previous studies, not necessarily what the conclusion, and systematic evaluation to conclude that an intervention for a disease is effective or not. The important thing about systematic evaluation is the evaluation.

Definition of Meta-analysis

Meta-analysis is defined as a statistical method of combining the results of several studies into a single estimate in a literature evaluation. Simply put, Meta-analysis is a class of statistical methods, ranging from completely randomized designs, to analytic factorial designs, and so on.

However, there is a different view that meta-analysis should be defined more broadly, equating it with systematic reviews. This idea is particularly widely used in literature titles, where we often see articles titled ? A meta-analysis of such-and-such a problem? However, it is important to note that meta-analysis is not the same as a systematic review. A systematic review that employs meta-merging can only be called a meta-analysis, otherwise it can only be called a systematic review.

After understanding the concept of the three, I think the relationship between them is not very clear. A common explanation is as follows: in a long time ago, only the review, write a good, write a bad are due to the level of the author, like going to eat hot pot on a plate of mutton, taste good or bad it is called mutton. Then one day to eat hot pot again, the waiter asked you want ordinary lamb, or to fine lamb? Then came the systematic reviews, which labeled themselves ? The purpose of the study is clearer, the research program is guaranteed, there is a search strategy, there are criteria for inclusion in the row, the quality of the literature has been evaluated, the use of summary statistics, in short, boutique lamb. Almost simultaneously with the emergence of boutique lamb, restaurants also introduced boutique lamb hindquarters, so when we went to restaurants we had more ? joy? way to consume it. They claimed that the boutique lamb hind leg meat comes from a special region in the northwest of China, with better consistency and comparability between groups, and used advanced and fine cutting and measuring methods to summarize the conclusions of this plate of highly representative and truthful boutique.

From review to systematic review to Meta-analysis, just like eating hot pot from mutton to bouillabaisse to bouillabaisse hind leg of mutton, upgrading is of course good, there is no excuse and no doubt about it! But the upgraders should have ? Quality of conscience? The quality of the meat is the same as the quality of the lamb. Fine lamb? To strictly implement the requirements of the production process; is? Boutique lamb hind leg meat? It is even more important to objectively explain every detail of its production process, such as reasonable literature entry standards, heterogeneity evaluation, various bias identification and control, etc.

Guess you like

1. what is the dissertation literature review

2. public **** management undergraduate thesis review

3. psychology review paper example

4. graduate students of traditional Chinese medicine dissertation review

5. how to write the beginning of the literature review

6. graduate students of the dissertation review format