Systematic reviews in spinal cord injury: A step-by-step guide for rehabilitation science learners and clinicians

References

• Gomez E, Azadi J, Magid D. Innovation born in isolation: rapid transformation of an In-person medical student radiology elective to a remote learning experience during the COVID-19 pandemic. Acad Radiol 2020;27(9):1285–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McDonald JW, Sadowsky C. Spinal-cord injury. Lancet 2002;359(9304):417–25.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McIntyre A, Benton B, Janzen S, Iruthayarajah J, Wiener J, Eng JJ, et al. A mapping review of randomized controlled trials in the spinal cord injury research literature. Spinal Cord 2018;56(8):725–32.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Donovan J, Kirshblum S. Clinical trials in traumatic spinal cord injury. Neurotherapeutics 2018;15(3):654–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mulcahey MJ, Jones LAT, Rockhold F, Rupp R, Kramer JLK, Kirshblum S, et al. Adaptive trial designs for spinal cord injury clinical trials directed to the central nervous system. Spinal Cord 2020;58(12):1235–48.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Murad MH, Asi N, Alsawas M, Alahdab F. New evidence pyramid. Evid Based Med 2016;21(4):125–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hoffmann T, Bennett S, Del Mar C. Evidence-based practice across the health professions. Chatswood: Elsevier; 2013.
   Google Scholar
• Evans D. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. J Clin Nurs 2003;12(1):77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ahn E, Kang H. Introduction to systematic review and meta-analysis. Korean J Anesthesiol 2018;71(2):103–12.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis: understanding the best evidence in primary healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care 2013;2(1):9–14.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Vavken P, Dorotka R. A systematic review of conflicting meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2009;467(10):2723–35.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Catz A, Itzkovich M, Agranov E, Ring H, Tamir A. SCIM–spinal cord independence measure: a new disability scale for patients with spinal cord lesions. Spinal Cord 1997;35(12):850–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. (eds.). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2019.
   Google Scholar
• Scells H, Zuccon G, Koopman B, Deacon A, Azzopardi L, Geva S. Integrating the framing of clinical questions via PICO into the retrieval of medical literature for systematic reviews. Conference on Information and Knowledge Management; 2017.
   Google Scholar
• Stern C, Jordan Z, McArthur A. Developing the review question and inclusion criteria. Am J Nurs 2014;114(4):53–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Belur J, Tompson L, Thornton A, Simon M. Interrater reliability in systematic review methodology: exploring variation in coder decision-making. Sociol Methods Res 2018;50(2):837–65.
   Google Scholar
• Sideri S, Papageorgiou SN, Eliades T. Registration in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) of systematic review protocols was associated with increased review quality. J Clin Epid 2018;100:103–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Godin K, Stapleton J, Kirkpatrick SI, Hanning RM, Leatherdale ST. Applying systematic review search methods to the grey literature: a case study examining guidelines for school-based breakfast programs in Canada. Syst Rev 2015;4(1):138.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Waffenschmidt S, Knelangen M, Sieben W, Buhn S, Pieper D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19(1):132.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. Introduction to meta-analysis [Internet]. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Garg AX, Hackam D, Tonelli M. Systematic review and meta-analysis: when one study is just not enough. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2008;3(1):253–60.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schünemann HJ, Higgins JP, Vist GE, Glasziou P, Akl EA, Skoetz N, et al. Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2019:375–402.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8(5):336–41.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pellatt GC. Perceptions of interprofessional roles within the spinal cord injury rehabilitation team. Int J Therapy Rehabil 2005;12(4):143–50.
   Google Scholar
• Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev 2015;4(1):1–2.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hopia H, Latvala E, Liimatainen L. Reviewing the methodology of an integrative review. Scand J Caring Sci 2016;30(4):662–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Whittemore R, Knafl K. The integrative review: updated methodology. J Adv Nurs 2005;52(5):546–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simpson LA, Eng JJ, Hsieh JT, Wolfe DL. Spinal Cord Injury Rehabilitation evidence Scire Research Team. The health and life priorities of individuals with spinal cord injury: a systematic review. J Neurotrauma 2012;29(8):1548–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKinley WO, Jackson AB, Cardenas DD, DeVivo MJ. Long-term medical complications after traumatic spinal cord injury: a regional model systems analysis. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 1999;80(11):1402–10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fougeyrollas P, Noreau L. Long-term consequences of spinal cord injury on social participation: the occurrence of handicap situations. Disability Rehabil 2000;22(4):170–80.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson D, Dumont S, Azzaria L, Bourdais ML, Noreau L. Determinants of return to work among spinal cord injury patients: A literature review. J Vocat Rehabil 2007;27(1):57–68.
   Google Scholar
• Burns PB, Rohrich RJ, Chung KC. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plastic Reconstruct Surg 2011;128(1):305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tetreault L, Nater A, Garwood P, Badhiwala JH, Wilson JR, Fehlings MG. Development and implementation of clinical practice guidelines: an update and synthesis of the literature With a focus in application to Spinal conditions. Global Spine J 2019;9(1 Suppl):53S–64S.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Br Med J 2008;336(7650):924–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality if nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Ottawa. Available from http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp.
   Google Scholar
• Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJM, Gavaghan DJ, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 1996;17(1):1–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• van Tulder M, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L. Editorial board of the Cochrane Collaboration back review group. updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003;28(12):1290–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52(6):377–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. Rob 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. Br Med J 2019;366:l4898.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Evans D. Hierarchy of evidence: a framework for ranking evidence evaluating healthcare interventions. J Clin Nurs 2003;12(1):77–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar