Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vvkck Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T23:01:49.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An introduction to systematic reviews in animal health, animal welfare, and food safety

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2014

A. M. O'Connor  and
J. M. Sargeant
A. M. O'Connor*
Affiliation:
Department of Veterinary Diagnostic and Production Animal Medicine, Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine, Ames, IA, USA
J. M. Sargeant
Affiliation:
Centre for Public Health and Zoonoses, University of Guelph, Guelph, CA, USA Department of Population Medicine, Ontario Veterinary College, University of Guelph, Guelph, CA, USA
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: oconnor@iastate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, we provide an introduction to systematic reviews and discuss the process for conducting systematic reviews in animal health, animal welfare, and food safety. The research synthesis need that can be addressed by a systematic review is discussed. The use of systematic reviews to address questions about intervention effects, etiology, diagnostic tests evaluation and disease burden are discussed. The steps included in a systematic review are described.

Keywords

systematic reviewevidence synthesismeta-analysisnarrative review
Type
Methodology
Information
Animal Health Research Reviews , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , June 2014 , pp. 3 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balshem, H, Helfand, M, Schunemann, HJ, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, Brozek, J, Vist, GE, Falck-Ytter, Y, Meerpohl, J, Norris, S and Guyatt, GH (2011). GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 401–406.Google Scholar
Begg, CB (1987). Biases in the assessment of diagnostic tests. Statistics in Medicine 6: 411–423.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Begg, CB and Mazumdar, M (1994). Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 50: 1088–1101.Google Scholar
Borenstein, M, Hedges, LV, Higgins, JPT and Rothstein, HR (2009). Introduction to Meta-Analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossuyt, PM, Reitsma, JB, Bruns, DE, Gatsonis, CA, Glasziou, PP, Irwig, LM, Lijmer, JG, Moher, D, Rennie, D and De Vet, HC (2003). Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. Clinical Chemistry 49: 1–6.Google Scholar
Brace, S, Taylor, D and O'connor, AM (2010). The quality of reporting and publication status of vaccines trials presented at veterinary conferences from 1988 to 2003. Vaccine 28: 5306–5314.Google Scholar
Christopher, MM (2007). Improving the quality of reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: let's STARD now. Veterinary Clinical Pathology 36: 6.Google Scholar
Cooper, HM, Hedges, LV and Valentine, JC (2009). The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Deeks, JJ (2001). Systematic reviews in health care: systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. British Medical Journal 323: 157–162.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Deeks, JJ, Macaskill, P and Irwig, L (2005). The performance of tests of publication bias and other sample size effects in systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy was assessed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 58: 882–893.Google Scholar
Deeks, JJ, Higgins, JPT and Altman, DG ( 2011). Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins, JPT and Green, S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.Google Scholar
Denagamage, TN, O'connor, AM, Sargeant, JM, Rajic, A and Mckean, JD (2007). Efficacy of vaccination to reduce Salmonella prevalence in live and slaughtered swine: a systematic review of literature from 1979 to 2007. Foodborne Pathogens and Disease 4: 539–549.Google Scholar
European Food Safety Authority (E.F.S.A.) (2010). Application of systematic review methodology to food and feed safety assessments to support decision making. EFSA Journal 8: 1–90.Google Scholar
Ferrer, M, Bildstein, K, Penteriani, V, Casado, E and De Lucas, M (2011). Why birds with deferred sexual maturity are sedentary on islands: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 6: e22056.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Giannakopoulos, NN, Rammelsberg, P, Eberhard, L and Schmitter, M (2012). A new instrument for assessing the quality of studies on prevalence. Clinical Oral Investigations 16: 781–788.Google Scholar
Glasziou, P, Irwig, L and Deeks, JJ (2008). When should a new test become the current reference standard? Annals of Internal Medicine 149: 816–822.Google Scholar
Grant, MJ and Booth, A (2009). A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal 26: 91–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Grindlay, DJ, Brennan, ML and Dean, RS (2012). Searching the veterinary literature: a comparison of the coverage of veterinary journals by nine bibliographic databases. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 39: 404–412.Google Scholar
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, GE, Kunz, R, Falck-Ytter, Y, Alonso-Coello, P and Schunemann, HJ (2008). GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. British Medical Journal 336: 924–926.Google Scholar
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Akl, EA, Kunz, R, Vist, G, Brozek, J, Norris, S, Falck-Ytter, Y, Glasziou, P, Debeer, H, Jaeschke, R, Rind, D, Meerpohl, J, Dahm, P and Schunemann, HJ (2011a). GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 383–394.Google Scholar
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, Brozek, J, Alonso-Coello, P, Rind, D, Devereaux, P, Montori, VM, Freyschuss, B, Vist, G, Jaeschke, R, Williams, JW Jr, Murad, MH, Sinclair, D, Falck-Ytter, Y, Meerpohl, J, Whittington, C, Thorlund, K, Andrews, J and Schunemann, HJ (2011b). GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence-imprecision. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 1283–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, Atkins, D, Brozek, J, Vist, G, Alderson, P, Glasziou, P, Falck-Ytter, Y and Schunemann, HJ (2011c). GRADE guidelines: 2. Framing the question and deciding on important outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 395–400.Google Scholar
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, Woodcock, J, Brozek, J, Helfand, M, Alonso-Coello, P, Falck-Ytter, Y, Jaeschke, R, Vist, G, Akl, EA, Post, PN, Norris, S, Meerpohl, J, Shukla, VK, Nasser, M and Schunemann, HJ (2011d). GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence-indirectness. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 1303–10.Google Scholar
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Kunz, R, Woodcock, J, Brozek, J, Helfand, M, Alonso-Coello, P, Glasziou, P, Jaeschke, R, Akl, EA, Norris, S, Vist, G, Dahm, P, Shukla, VK, Higgins, J, Falck-Ytter, Y and Schunemann, HJ (2011e). GRADE guidelines: 7. Rating the quality of evidence-inconsistency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 1294–302.Google Scholar
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Montori, V, Vist, G, Kunz, R, Brozek, J, Alonso-Coello, P, Djulbegovic, B, Atkins, D, Falck-Ytter, Y, Williams, JW Jr, Meerpohl, J, Norris, SL, Akl, EA and Schunemann, HJ (2011f). GRADE guidelines: 5. Rating the quality of evidence-publication bias. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 1277–82.Google Scholar
Guyatt, GH, Oxman, AD, Vist, G, Kunz, R, Brozek, J, Alonso-Coello, P, Montori, V, Akl, EA, Djulbegovic, B, Falck-Ytter, Y, Norris, SL, Williams, JW Jr, Atkins, D, Meerpohl, J and Schunemann, HJ (2011g). GRADE guidelines: 4. Rating the quality of evidence–study limitations (risk of bias). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 407–415.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Habacher, G, Pittler, MH and Ernst, E (2006). Effectiveness of acupuncture in veterinary medicine: systematic review. Journal of Veterinary Internal Medicine 20: 480–488.Google Scholar
Higgins, JPT, Altman, DG and Sterne, JAC (2011). Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins, JPT and Green, S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.Google Scholar
Higgins, JPT and Green, S (eds) ( 2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.Google Scholar
Higgins, JPT, Ramsay, C, Reeves, BC, Deeks, JJ, Shea, B, Valentine, JC, Tugwell, P and Wells, G (2013). Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Research Synthesis Methods 4: 12–25.Google Scholar
Khan, KS, Ball, E, Fox, CE and Meads, C (2012). Systematic reviews to evaluate causation: an overview of methods and application. Evidence-based Medicine 17: 137–41.Google Scholar
Krzyzanowska, MK, Pintilie, M, Brezden-Masley, C, Dent, R and Tannock, IF (2004). Quality of abstracts describing randomized trials in the proceedings of American Society of Clinical Oncology meetings: guidelines for improved reporting. Journal of Clinical Oncology 22: 1993–1999.Google Scholar
Lewis, S and Clarke, M (2001). Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. British Medical Journal 322: 1479–1480.Google Scholar
Liberati, A, Altman, DG, Tetzlaff, J, Mulrow, C, Gotzsche, PC, Ioannidis, JP, Clarke, M, Devereaux, PJ, Kleijnen, J and Moher, D (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: e1–e34.Google Scholar
Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J and Altman, DG (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62: 1006–1012.Google Scholar
Moher, D, Hopewell, S, Schulz, KF, Montori, V, Gotzsche, PC, Devereaux, PJ, Elbourne, D, Egger, M and Altman, DG (2010). CONSORT 2010 Explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. British Medical Journal 340: c869.Google Scholar
Newman, J, Westgarth, C, Pinchbeck, G, Dawson, S, Morgan, K and Christley, R (2010). Systematic review of human-directed dog aggression. Veterinary Record 166: 407.Google Scholar
O'Connor, AM, Sargeant, JM, Gardner, IA, Dickson, JS, Torrence, ME, Dewey, CE, Dohoo, IR, Evans, RB, Gray, JT, Greiner, M, Keefe, G, Lefebvre, SL, Morley, PS, Ramirez, A, Sischo, W, Smith, DR, Snedeker, K, Sofos, J, Ward, MP, Wills, Rand Consensus Meeting Participants. (2010). The REFLECT Statement: methods and processes of creating reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials for livestock and food safety. Journal of Food Protection 73: 132–139.Google Scholar
O'Connor, AM and Sargeant, JM (2014). Meta-analyses including data from observational studies. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 113: 313–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olivry, T and Mueller, RS (2003). Evidence-based veterinary dermatology: a systematic review of the pharmacotherapy of canine atopic dermatitis. Veterinary Dermatology 14: 121–146.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petticrew, M and Davey Smith, G (2012). The monkey puzzle: a systematic review of studies of stress, social hierarchies, and heart disease in monkeys. PLoS ONE 7: e27939.Google Scholar
Sargeant, JM, O'Connor, AM, Gardner, IA, Dickson, JS, Torrence, ME, Dohoo, IR, Lefebvre, SL, Morley, PS, Ramirez, A and Snedeker, K (2010). The REFLECT Statement: reporting guidelines for randomized controlled trials in livestock and food safety: explanation and elaboration. Journal of Food Protection 73: 579–603.Google Scholar
Scherer, RW, Dickersin, K and Langenberg, P (1994). Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 272: 158–162.Google Scholar
Schulz, KF, Altman, DG and Moher, D (2010). CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Obstetrics Gynecology 115: 1063–1070.Google Scholar
Shamliyan, TA, Kane, RL, Ansari, MT, Raman, G, Berkman, ND, Grant, M, Janes, G, Maglione, M, Moher, D, Nasser, M, Robinson, KA, Segal, JB and Tsouros, S (2011). Development quality criteria to evaluate nontherapeutic studies of incidence, prevalence, or risk factors of chronic diseases: pilot study of new checklists. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 64: 637–657.Google Scholar
Snedeker, KG, Campbell, M, Totton, SC, Guthrie, A and Sargeant, JM (2010a). Comparison of outcomes and other variables between conference abstracts and subsequent peer-reviewed papers involving pre-harvest or abattoir-level interventions against foodborne pathogens. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 97: 67–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snedeker, KG, Totton, SC and Sargeant, JM (2010b). Analysis of trends in the full publication of papers from conference abstracts involving pre-harvest or abattoir-level interventions against foodborne pathogens. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 95: 1–9.Google Scholar
Valentine, JC and Thompson, SG (2013). Issues relating to confounding and meta-analysis when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Research Synthesis Methods 4: 26–35.Google Scholar
Waddell, LA, Rajic, A, Sargeant, J, Harris, J, Amezcua, R, Downey, L, Read, S and Mcewen, SA (2008). The zoonotic potential of Mycobacterium avium spp. paratuberculosis: a systematic review. Canadian Journal of Public Health 99: 145–155.Google Scholar
Whiting, P, Harbord, R and Kleijnen, J (2005). No role for quality scores in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology 5: 19.Google Scholar