What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

Systematic review aims to systematically identify, critically appraise, and summarize all relevant studies that match predefined criteria and answer predefined questions. The most common type of systematic review is that assessing the effectiveness of an intervention or therapy. In this article, we discuss some of the common methodological issues that arise when conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of effectiveness data, including issues related to study designs, meta-analysis, and the use and interpretation of effect sizes.

Background To assess concordance between Medicare claims and Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) reports of incident BM among prostate cancer (PCa) patients. The prevalence and consequences of bone metastases (BM) have been examined across tumor sites using healthcare claims data however the reliability of these claims-based BM measures has not been investigated. Methods This retrospective cohort study utilized linked registry and claims (SEER-Medicare) data on men diagnosed with incident stage IV M1 PCa between 2005 and 2007. The SEER-based measure of incident BM was cross-tabulated with three separate Medicare claims approaches to assess concordance. Sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive value (PPV) were calculated to assess the concordance between registry- and claims-based measures. Results Based on 2,708 PCa patients in SEER-Medicare, there is low to moderate concordance between the SEER- and claims-based measures of incident BM. Across the three approaches, sensitivity ranged from 0.48 (0.456 – 0.504) to 0.598 (0.574 - 0.621), specificity ranged from 0.538 (0.507 - 0.569) to 0.620 (0.590 - 0.650) and PPV ranged from 0.679 (0.651 - 0.705) to 0.690 (0.665 - 0.715). A comparison of utilization patterns between SEER-based and claims-based measures suggested avenues for improving sensitivity. Conclusion Claims-based measures using BM ICD 9 coding may be insufficient to identify patients with incident BM diagnosis and should be validated against chart data to maximize their potential for population-based analyses.