Getting started in research: systematic reviews and meta-analyses

Kisely, Stephen, Chang, Alice, Crowe, Jim, Galletly, Cherrie, Jenkins, Peter, Loi, Samantha, Looi, Jeffrey C., Macfarlane, Matthew D., McVie, Ness, Parker, Stephen, Power, Brian, Siskind, Dan, Smith, Geoff, Merry, Sally and Macfarlane, Stephen (2015) Getting started in research: systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Australasian Psychiatry, 23 1: 16-21. doi:10.1177/1039856214562077


Author Kisely, Stephen
Chang, Alice
Crowe, Jim
Galletly, Cherrie
Jenkins, Peter
Loi, Samantha
Looi, Jeffrey C.
Macfarlane, Matthew D.
McVie, Ness
Parker, Stephen
Power, Brian
Siskind, Dan
Smith, Geoff
Merry, Sally
Macfarlane, Stephen
Title Getting started in research: systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Journal name Australasian Psychiatry   Check publisher's open access policy
ISSN 1039-8562
1440-1665
Publication date 2015-02-01
Year available 2015
Sub-type Article (original research)
DOI 10.1177/1039856214562077
Open Access Status Not yet assessed
Volume 23
Issue 1
Start page 16
End page 21
Total pages 6
Place of publication London, United Kingdom
Publisher SAGE Publications
Language eng
Subject 2738 Psychiatry and Mental health
Abstract Objectives: Systematic reviews are one of the major building blocks of evidence-based medicine. This overview is an introduction to conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Conclusions: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the most robust form of design in the hierarchy of research evidence. In addition, primary data do not have to be collected by the researcher him/herself, and there is no need for approval from an ethics committee. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are not as daunting as they may appear to be, provided the scope is sufficiently narrow and an appropriate supervisor available.
Formatted abstract
Objectives: Systematic reviews are one of the major building blocks of evidence-based medicine. This overview is an introduction to conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Conclusions: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) represent the most robust form of design in the hierarchy of research evidence. In addition, primary data do not have to be collected by the researcher him/herself, and there is no need for approval from an ethics committee. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are not as daunting as they may appear to be, provided the scope is sufficiently narrow and an appropriate supervisor available.
Keyword Evidence based medicine
Meta analysis
Research
Systematic review
Statistics
Training
Q-Index Code C1
Q-Index Status Confirmed Code
Institutional Status UQ

Document type: Journal Article
Sub-type: Article (original research)
Collections: Official 2016 Collection
School of Medicine Publications
 
Versions
Version Filter Type
Citation counts: TR Web of Science Citation Count  Cited 1 times in Thomson Reuters Web of Science Article | Citations
Scopus Citation Count Cited 2 times in Scopus Article | Citations
Google Scholar Search Google Scholar
Created: Sun, 08 Mar 2015, 10:23:46 EST by System User on behalf of School of Medicine