![]() 4 In this context, a recent systematic review (4 olanzapine, 7 risperidone and 1 ziprasidone trials) by Wang et al. 3 In fact various AAs have demonstrated positive antidepressant and ant-anxiety effects in a number of small-scale, open-label studies (OLSs) or randomised, controlled clinical trials (RCTs). For instance, due to lack of satisfactory pharmacotherapy for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and its frequent comorbid psychotic symptoms, a possible role of atypical antipsychotics (AAs) for PTSD has been consistently proposed. Hence, narrative reviews may be evidence-based, but they are not truly useful as scientific evidence.Įven in reported as systematic review, it is also frequent that those papers are not true systematic review or they have certain bias in data search method and conclusions. Cipriani and Geddess, 2 where 7 narrative and 2 systematic reviews were compared and found that narrative reviews including same studies reached different conclusions against each other, indicating the difficulties of appraising and using narrative reviews to have conclusion on specific topic. Such differences are quite clear when referring to the review paper of Drs. The absence of objective and systematic selection criteria in review method substantially results in a number of methodological shortcomings leading to clear bias of the author's interpretation and conclusions. Of course, there should be Pros and Cons between systematic and narrative reviews for instance, the major advantage of systematic reviews is that they are based on the findings of comprehensive and systematic literature searches in all available resources, with minimization of selection bias avoiding subjective selection bias, while narrative reviews, if they can be written experts in certain research area, can provide experts' intuitive, experiential and explicit perspectives in focused topics. Most journals have started to change their policy in acceptance of review papers, they have been giving a priority to systematic review only as a regular review article and excluding narrative reviews, to provide the best evidence for all basic and clinical questions and further hypotheses. This is unsatisfactory when reflecting the fact that systematic reviews have been rapidly and increasingly replacing traditional narrative (explicit) reviews as a standard platform of providing and updating currently available research findings as confident evidence. However, of the 54 papers, only one review paper partially met the contemporary criteria of systematic review, otherwise were written as a format of narrative review for diverse topics such as epidemiological findings, concept and hypothesis of certain psychiatric disease, current understandings on certain disease, psychopharmacology, and treatment guidelines. Since the launch of the "PI" at March 2004, there have been a number of review articles indeed 54 papers were published as format of regular review papers or special articles in the "PI" from 2004 to 2014. All rights reserved.Sir: Recently review articles including systematic and narrative reviews have been significantly increasing in most psychiatric journals in the world alongside "Psychiatry Investigation (PI)". Heterogeneidad Heterogeneity Meta-analysis Metaanálisis Publication bias Revisión sistemática Sesgo de publicación Systematic reviews.Ĭopyright © 2017 Elsevier España, S.L.U. Assessment of heterogeneity and publication bias is also illustrated with the same program. ![]() The most common procedures for combining studies with binary outcomes are described (inverse of variance, Mantel-Haenszel, and Peto), illustrating how they can be done using Stata commands. ![]() Such collection also should be carried out by two researchers on an independent basis. Data collection on quality of the selected reports is needed, applying validated scales and including specific questions on the main biases which could have a negative impact upon the research question. The selection of studies should be made by two investigators on an independent basis. ![]() A manual search in the references of articles, editorials, reviews, etc. The selection of studies involves searching in web repertories, and more than one should be consulted. The ideal hypothesis for a systematic review should be generated by information not used later in meta-analyses. In this review the usual methods applied in systematic reviews and meta-analyses are outlined. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |