MD7010 Therapeutic Advances in Gastroenterology Assessment #2 – Mini Systematic Review
Write a systematic review comparing two therapeutic interventions in gastroenterology or gastroenterology related complications, or assessing the efficacy and safety of a therapeutic intervention in gastroenterology or gastroenterology related complications.
Submission deadline: Monday 26th July 2021 at 14:00 Word Count: Main body of text References, tables and figures, reference list are not included in the word count. Reference style: Vancouver Title: needs to be narrow and formulated based on PICO. Abstract (200-300) should be structured as follows: Background: One or two sentences about the intervention. Aim: Main aim using PICO. Methodology: Databases used for search, study design and outcomes you are interested in. Results: Total number of studies with total number of patients, as well as the results of the outcomes reviewed. Conclusion: Main conclusion from the Systematic Review. Key words: around 5-6 key words
Introduction (~200-300 words) Should provide a brief background about the therapeutic intervention and how it works and it should clearly present a rationale for selection of this therapeutic intervention. The introduction should end with the aim of the systematic review (i.e. clear PICO question with clear outcomes).
Methodology (~500-600 words) should include: Search strategy: An appropriate search strategy with at least two databases is to be used. Use relevant keywords and their synonyms. You need to copy each search strategy from each database. Inclusion and exclusion criteria. What study design you are looking for is very important.
N:B. Any language or date restriction needs to be mentioned, i.e., include the date of conducting the search. Also, any language restrictions added, for example studies in English only. Outcomes: What are the outcomes that you will look at, how are they defined and how will they be measured?
Reviewing process: What is the screening, eligibility and inclusion process that took place? Have you included open access sources only, or have you tried to contact authors to get access to non-free articles? Data extraction: What data is relevant to extract from each study? e.g., study names, dates, patient characteristics, participant numbers, dose, interventions, outcomes, limitations, country where the study was conducted, etc. Assessment of
Risk of Bias: You should describe the tool that will be used to assess the risk of bias. For example, if you are looking for RCTs, you will use JADAD score or Consort check list to assess the risk of bias.
Results (~400-500 words) You must provide a Prisma flow chart as a figure. Describe the stages of the Prisma flow chart with reference to the chart. Produce a table of results which compares the findings of each outcome in columns not rows (see examples provided). Remember the number of the included studies should be the same as by those determined at the end of the Prisma flow chart. Subheadings are needed for each outcome and you should describe the key results for each outcome under these headings.
Do not evaluate the results at this stage and try to avoid describing each study one by one. For example, an outcome might be ‘mortality’. In this case, you would write about the mortality findings from all of the studies, but without writing these 1 by 1 as a table highlights this more clearly. For example, 4 studies examining 2000 patients found an increase in the mortality rate after this intervention while 2 studies on 450 patients found no effect on mortality.
Include the results of the risk of bias of each study. If this is JADAD score this is best presented by inclusion in the table. If it is another tool, then this could be written under a subheading.
(~700 words) You need to evaluate the evidence and critically analyse the effect of the selected treatment on each outcome. Look closely at each study method and results to evaluate the evidence.
Compare your systematic review with other published systematic reviews and other relevant literature. Consider the limitations of your systematic review. Conclusion (~100 words)
Write a concise conclusion which proposes a future research idea to enable a better therapeutic intervention.
Reference list Must be in Vancouver format.
