Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 31, 2025
08:36
Author Spotlight: Evaluating the Adjuvant Efficacy and Safety of Angong Niuhuang Pill in Viral Encephalitis Treatment
Published on: April 19, 2024
833
Author guidelines for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Robert Prill1, Jon Karlsson2, Olufemi R Ayeni3
1Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Hochstrasse 29, 14770, Brandenburg, Germany. Robert.Prill@mhb-fontane.de.
Summary
This guidance details writing transparent systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) in orthopaedics. Focus on clear methods, results, and clinical implications for better evidence synthesis.
Area of Science:
- Orthopaedic research methodology
- Evidence-based medicine
Background:
- Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) synthesize best available evidence.
- High-quality SRs and MAs require transparency, systematicity, and readability.
Purpose of the Study:
- To provide guidance on writing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthopaedics.
- To highlight key aspects for transparency, systematicity, and readability in SRs and MAs.
Main Methods:
- Define a clear clinical question before literature search.
- Detail databases searched, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and appraisal methods.
- Pre-register SRs to ensure transparency and reduce bias risk.
Main Results:
- Concise titles and structured abstracts are crucial.
- Report findings clearly, including study flowcharts and forest plots for MAs.
- Precisely report literature appraisal and statistical analysis results.
Conclusions:
- Interpret findings, discuss clinical significance, and suggest future research.
- Draw conclusions solely based on study results.
- Emphasize careful consideration of keywords for database discoverability.
Related Concept Videos
01:32The Scientific Method
253.0K
The scientific method is a detailed, empirical problem-solving process used by biologists and other scientists. This iterative approach involves formulating a question based on observation, developing a testable potential explanation for the observation (called a hypothesis), making and testing predictions based on the hypothesis, and using the findings to create new hypotheses and predictions.
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...
253.0K
03:50The Scientific Method
62.3K
Chemistry is an empirical science. Scientists often pose questions to understand the chemistry in everyday life and seek answers to these questions. To achieve this, scientists follow a definitive series of steps that together make up the Scientific Method. This approach involves making observations, asking questions, building a hypothesis, conducting experiments, analyzing results, and forming a conclusion.
62.3K
02:40The Scientific Method
63.9K
Research is what makes the difference between facts and opinions. Facts are observable realities, and opinions are personal judgments, conclusions, or attitudes that may or may not be accurate. In the scientific community, facts can be established only using evidence collected through empirical research.
63.9K
01:15Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
5.8K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
5.8K
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
3.4K
When developing expected outcomes for a patient care plan, the nurse should adhere to the following recommendations:
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...
3.4K
01:43Proofreading
57.5K
Overview
57.5K