olzmatrix.blogg.se

The flow diagram describes the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion criteria of the reports that fall under the scope of a review.

The PRISMA guidelines consist of a four-phase flow diagram and a 27-item checklist. Using statistical methods for the interpretation of the results implies a systematic review containing meta-analysis ( 6). A systematic review will extensively scan all reports published on the subject to find the answers to a clearly defined research question, and to that end will use various inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify the reports to be included in the review, and then synthesize the findings.

To avoid these issues in systematic review writing, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) group, which mainly consists of Cochrane authors, has developed the PRISMA guidelines in 2009 ( 6). Reviews written with an analogous approach cannot go beyond an account of what has been already done: They cover a wide range of topics within a given subject may be useful in understanding new concepts, but are rarely comprehensive rarely give details about the methods are likely to be written in line with the opinions of the author quality differences between the studies are rarely considered and as a result, can be misinterpreted and lead to inadvertent bias.

This will also significantly increase the citability of the report.Īs the Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology is the scientific open access journal of our society, this scientific letter aims to reach our colleagues who plan on writing reviews in the field of otorhinolaryngology with the use of PRISMA guidelines for the purpose of standardizing systematic review writing.Īccording to the common opinion, a review type article is the interpretation, synthesis and assessment of the scientific reports and studies printed in scientific publications by authors experienced in the area ( 5). Including meta-analysis in a review will carry the publication to the highest level of evidence. A systematic approach to a review, however, will minimize bias and maximize its contribution to science. In Turkish Otorhinolaryngology publications reviews are often written in the form of an account, and systematic reviews and meta analyses are rarely performed ( 1– 4).