Methodology of Systematic Review Development I: the Effectiveness of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy on Mortality in Adults with Craniotrauma

Czech version

Authors: J. Klugarová ^1,2; M. Klugar ^1,3; J. Marečková ^1,2; M. Hájek ^3–5
Authors‘ workplace: České centrum Evidence-Based Health Care, Ústav sociálního lékařství a veřejného zdravotnictví, LF UP v Olomouci ¹; Centrum vědy a výzkumu, Fakulta zdravotnických věd, UP v Olomouci ²; Česká společnost hyperbarické a letecké medicíny ČLS JEP, Ostrava ³; Katedra biomedicínských oborů, LF OU v Ostravě ⁴; Centrum hyperbarické medicíny, Městská nemocnice Ostrava, p. o. ⁵
Published in: Cesk Slov Neurol N 2015; 78/111(5): 555-561
Category: Short Communication

Overview

Background:
In the context of Evidence-Based Medicine, systematic review (SR) is perceived as the most important and valuable type of publication with respect to the level of evidence. Traumatic brain injury is a major health problem worldwide and across all ages. According to WHO, traumatic brain injury is to be the third most frequent cause of global mortality and disability by 2020. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) could theoretically lead to a decrease in brain cell damage and thus mortality.

Aim:
The main aim of this methodologically focused paper was to highlight the importance of SR and explain rigorous and systematic methods of its development on an example of a SR of the efficacy of HBOT in adults with traumatic brain injury.

Methods:
Firstly, we formulated the review question and specified inclusion criteria. The SR protocol was prepared using a software developed for this purpose by The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). A three-step systematic search of published and unpublished studies was undertaken in 17 databases. We searched experimental and observational studies of any date and in any language.

Results:
We retrieved 8 144 papers and removed 2 210 duplicates. Primary and secondary reviewer undertook independently two-phase paper retrieval and critical appraisal of methodological quality using standardized assessment instrument, developed by JBI. 42 relevant and high-quality papers were included in the SR. Currently, we are extracting data using a standardized instrument, and preparing them for meta-analysis.

Conclusions:
SR is a very important link between scientific evidence and its implementation into clinical practice. The Evidence-Based approach can be used in all areas with high-quality primary scientific evidence.

Key words:
craniotrauma – hyperbaric oxygen therapy – systematic review – methodology

The authors declare they have no potential conflicts of interest concerning drugs, products, or services used in the study.

The Editorial Board declares that the manuscript met the ICMJE “uniform requirements” for biomedical papers.

Sources

1. JBI. Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual: 2014 edition. The University of Adelaide, South Australia: The Joanna Briggs Institute 2014.

2. Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Oxford: Wiley‑ Blackwell 2008.

3. Gillam S, Siriwardena AN. Evidence‑based healthcare and quality improvement. Qual Prim Care 2014; 22(3): 125– 132.

4. Klugar M. Evidence‑ Based Healthcare, jeho role v českém právním systému a mezinárodní srovnání. In: Jakešová P, Langer P, Loyka S, Mazánková M, Klugar M, Dleštíková H et al (eds). Právní gramotnost v medicíně. 1. vyd. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci 2014: 448.

5. Knox LM, Aspy CB. Quality improvement as a tool for translating evidence‑based interventions into practice: what the youth violence prevention community can learn from healthcare. Am J Community Psychol 2011; 48(1– 2): 56– 64. doi: 10.1007/ s10464‑ 010‑ 9406‑ x.

6. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta‑analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009; 6(7): e1000100. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000100.

7. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta‑analysis protocols (PRISMA‑ P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015; 349: g7647. doi: 10.1136/ bmj.g7647.

8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‑analyses: the PRISMA statement. Plos Med 2009; 6(7): e1000097. doi: 10.1371/ journal.pmed.1000097.

9. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 2002; 287(21): 2831– 2834.

10. Klugar M, Nytra I, Bocková S, Klugarová J, Kelnarová Z,Marečková J. The effectiveness of hyperbaric oxygen therapy on mortality in adults with craniotrauma: a systematic review protocol. The JBI database of systematic reviews and implementation reports 2015; 12: 13.

11. CRD. Systematic reviews : CRD‘s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. 3rd ed. Aufl. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2009.

12. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence‑based medicine: what it is and what it isn‘t. BMJ 1996; 312(7023): 71– 72.

13. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR.Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337(8746): 867– 872.

14. Líčeník R, Kliková K, Osinová D, Doubravská S, Ivanová K.Hodnocení kvality klinických doporučených postupů České neurologické společnosti ČLS JEP. Cesk Slov Neurol N 2014; 77/ 110(1): 64– 69.

15. Fitzgerald A, Coop C. Validation and modification of the graphical appraisal tool for epidemiology (GATE) for appraising systematic reviews in evidence‑based guideline development. Health Outcomes Res Med 2011; 2(1): e51– e59.

16. Klugarová J, Klugar M, Marečková J. Propedeutika tvorby systematických review; dílčí výsledky systematického review efekt operační korekce hallux valgus. [online]. Dostupné z URL: http:/ / cebhc.upol.cz/ upload/ soubory/ metodol_clanky/ pol_cz_klugarova.pdf.

17. Klugar M. Systematická review ve zdravotnictví. Olomouc: Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci 2015.