Systematic Review: Process

The first step in study development is the formulation of the research question. The study research topic and research question are necessary for hypothesis testing and study design for a systematic review.

Precursors of research question development 

Selection of research topic:

• area of interest
• the question leading to answer
• relevancy to practice
• the outcome of the research
• the rationale for the research inquiry
• significance of the research outcome

Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

Factors that contribute to the question development

• Knowledge of theoretical framework in research field
• Systematic analysis of published literature
• Critical analysis and appraisal of research and clinical literature
• Research and clinical curiosity
• Idea advent
• Practical expertise
• Knowledge of problems relevant to clinical practice and health care 

Formulation of the research question

PICO method

• Clinical questions are based on PICO(S) or PICO(T) and evidence-based perspective (assess, ask, acquire, appraise, and apply) concepts.
• The type of questions (diagnosis, therapy, prognosis, ethology/harm) predicts the study types associated in published literature (prospective, RCT, cohort, case-control, case series). 

Information resources are useful for the formulation of a clinical question for the study.  

Foreground Questions - foreground information 

• The foreground questions are addressed using the primary literature, syntheses, meta-search engines, literature search databases, and other specific resources to explore the studied phenomena. 

Background Questions - background information 

• The background questions are addressed to increase the subject knowledge or acquire additional information about the unknown matter or things of interest. Information resources for background questions are subject and specialty resources (medical textbooks, encyclopedia, search engines, search databases), and other resources. 
   

To learn how to develop a research question, attend the lecture Research Question for Scientific Study. Consider attending the lecture on Conducting Research and Protocol Development for Systematic Review to develop advanced knowledge on conducting research, literature analysis, study design, and research question formulation. 

Lecture

Research Question for Scientific Study 

• Research Question for Scientific Study Research Question for Scientific Study 
  This lecture introduces the process of research question development and planning the literature analysis for scientific studies. 

To attend a lecture on the formulation of a research question for scientific study, please, register at the Library Course calendar.

Information Resources

Books

• Stone, J. (2010). Conducting clinical research: A practical guide for physicians, nurses, study coordinators, and investigators.
• Hulley, S. B. (Ed.). (2013). Designing clinical research. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.
• Blessing, J. D., & Forister, J. G. (Eds.). (2020). Introduction to research and medical literature for health professionals. Jones & Bartlett Publishers.
• Gallin, J. I., & Ognibene, F. P. (Eds.). (2012). Principles and practice of clinical research. Academic Press.

Articles

• Ravindra, V. M., & Kestle, J. R. (2019). Writing a clinical research question. Neurosurgery, 84(1), 12-16.

For more information, books, and journals, browse DML Book Catalog, DML A-Z Journal Catalog, and DML Database Catalog. Consider also to schedule Consultation on finding associated resources on conducting a systematic review. 

A systematic review protocol describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review. It should be prepared before a review is started and used as a guide to carry out the review. PRIZMA

The systematic review’s research protocol is written before the literature search in order to avoid a potential influence of literature findings on the conduction of the systematic review. Additionally, researchers’ a priori knowledge prevents an impeding bias towards the literature selection, inclusion criteria, interventions, and review outcomes. In addition to that, the research protocol allows researchers conduct and report review results explicitly, and assess the quality, validity, and outcomes of the study results.

Submission of the study’s research protocol to systematic review sources such as the Cochrane Library, PROSPERO or other review-publishing platforms lets researchers easily to share the research protocol, as well as maintain and publish their review.   
 

To learn how to develop research question attend the lecture Research Protocol Development . You might also consider to attend the lecture on Conducting Research to learn about conducting research, literature analysis, study design, and research question formulation. 

Lecture

Research Protocol Development

• This lecture introduces protocol development concepts for systematic reviews, protocol registration with Cochrane and PROSPERO, and standards and guidelines for conducting a systematic review.

To attend a lecture on research protocol development, please, register at the Library Course calendar. 

Information Resources

Guidelines

• Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane, 2020
• Morton, S., Berg, A., Levit, L., & Eden, J. (Eds.). (2011). Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. National Academies Press.

Information resources for writing the protocol for a systematic review

• PRISMA extension for Protocols
• Cochrane Handbook
• Institute of Medicine – Standards for systematic reviews (section 2.6)
• Instruction on protocol development (PRISMA)
• PRISMA protocol for systematic review 

Sample of systematic review protocols:

• Cochrane Systematic Review Protocols 
• PROSPERO 

Tools

• Systematic Review Toolbox
• EndNote

Article

• Butler, A., Hall, H., & Copnell, B. (2016). A guide to writing a qualitative systematic review protocol to enhance evidence‐based practice in nursing and health care. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing, 13(3), 241-249.

For more information, books, and journals, browse DML Book Catalog, DML A-Z Journal Catalog, and DML Database Catalog. Consider also to schedule Consultation on finding associated resources on conducting a systematic review. 

Systematic reviews require a thorough, objective, and reproducible search strategy of a study topic information resources to identify as many relevant studies as possible. The search methodology is a distinguishing element in constructing a literature search for systematic reviews compared to the narrative review search strategy.

The OVID MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Library are the minimum number of selected databases for conduction of systematic review. Subject and specialty-specific databases are selected for searching published articles (e.g. CINAHL, PsycINFO, and other). Gray literature resources (conference proceedings, dissertations, internal reports, non-peer-reviewed journals, and other resources) are also used in conducting a systematic review. 

Librarians “can play an important role in developing high-quality narrative and systematic reviews, constructing search strategies, managing references, reviewing references for inclusion, documenting the search methodology, and contributing to the drafting of the final manuscript.” Rethlefsen, M.L., Murad, M.H., and Livingston, E.H. (2014). Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA, 312(10), 999-1000
 

Consultation 

• Consultation - on planning a systematic reviews. The scope of Systematic Review consultation is:
  • exploration of systematic review resources
  •  selection of information resources 
  • search strategy and methodology
  • citation management 
  • on systematic review standards and guidelines

To request a systematic review consultation in writing a systematic review, please, submit a Systematic Review consultation.  

Collaboration 

• Systematic Review Collaboration - offers information expertise and information solution by collaboration with clinicians on writing a systematic review. Collaboration is a collaborative effort of the librarian-clinicians team to enhance the systematic review quality.

Please submit a systematic review protocol and collaboration request for collaboration on conducting and writing systematic reviews to request systematic review collaboration. 

Lecture 

• Literature Review
  ​This lecture is introduction to principles and methodology for conduction of literature review, analysis of literature, planning literature review, research development, literature analysis and synthesis, and writing literature review draft.
• Literature Informatics
  This lecture introduces the analysis of multidisciplinary literature from various literature search databases, information management, and information synthesis for the development of research studies.
• Literature Searching: Web of Science
  This lecture introduces the literature searching strategies for the exploration of published literature using Web of Science databases for the development of the scientific study.  

           To attend lectures on conducting literature search, analysis, and synthesis, please, register at the Library Course calendar. 

Information Resources;

Guidance 

• IOM Standards for Systematic Reviews: Standard 3.1: Conduct a comprehensive systematic search for evidence
• Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research; Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, et al., editors. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. 
• PRIZMA
• Cochrane Handbook 
  • Searching for and selecting study 
• MECIR

Search Filters

• The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group Search Filter Resource
• PubMed Clinical Queries Filters
• Hedge 
• CEBMa
• FPIN

Tools

• PubReMiner
• EndNote
• MyNCBI
• Zotero
• Systematic Review Toolbox
• Systematic Review Accelerator 
• Search Builder 1.0
• SRA-DM tool

Databases

• DML A-Z databases (core and specialty databases) 

Gray Literature

• What is grey literature? New York Academy of Medicine. Gray Literature Report 
• GrayNet International 
• OAIster (database)
• ProQuest (dissertation, conference proceedings)
• CADHTH Finding the Evidence: Literature Searching Tools in Support of Systematic Reviews
• NIHRePORTER
• MedNar
• HSRProj (Health Services Research Projects in Progress)
• ThinkTank
• AHRQ Effective Health Care Program
• OpenDOAR
• Virtual Library 
• WorldWideScience
• Military & Military Medicine Resources (DML library guide) 
• Clinical Trials 
  • Clinical Trials
  • International Clinical Trial Registry 
  • WHO International Clinical Trials platform search portal 
  • EU Clinical Trials Register
  • CenterWatch 

Handsearching Resources

• Cochrane resources for handsearching 
• ULRICH - journal search database (licensed database, not available in DML) 

For more information, books, and journals, browse DML Book Catalog, DML A-Z Journal Catalog, and DML Database Catalog. Consider also to schedule Consultation on finding associated resources on conducting a systematic review. 

Data extraction in systematic reviews adhere to the research protocol's defined plan and aims to collect study data. This process is blinded to avoid a potential risk of bias data extracted by two or more independent reviewers. The data collections forms (electronic or paper) are designed and pilot-tested before the major data extraction. The resolution guide, developed by the team, helps to solve data extraction disagreement between the reviewers. The extracted data is managed using various data management tools.
 

Consultation 

Systematic Review Data Management

• Consultation on best practices of data management for conducting systematic review 
• literature analysis management 
• design the data plan for systematic review data extraction
• plan extraction, cleaning, and data verification
• data organization planning (flow charts, quality, quality assessment, findings analysis, literature analysis, and ether)
• plan systematic review and meta-analysis data (including planning for article, forest plot, funnel plot, and other) 
  
  Please, contact Systematic Review Coordinator, Dr. Tmanova.

Systematic Review Data Management

• Consultation on best practices of data management for conducting systematic review 
• literature analysis management 
• design the data plan for systematic review data extraction
• plan extraction, cleaning, and data verification
• data organization planning (flow charts, quality, quality assessment, findings analysis, literature analysis, and ether)
• plan systematic review and meta-analysis data (including planning for article, forest plot, funnel plot, and other) 
  
  Please, contact Systematic Review Coordinator, Dr. Tmanova.

Information Resources 

Guidance, Standards, Checklists

• Cochrane Handbook
• PRIZMA ​​​​​​
• EQUATOR Network - reporting guidelines for study type
  • AGREE - Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines
  • CARE – Consensus-based Clinical Reporting Guideline Development is focused on reporting of case studies at the point of care.
  • CONSORT – Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials provides criteria for an evaluation of reported RCT studies.
  • GRISP – Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Risk Prediction Studies focused on genetic risk prediction studies.
  • PRISMA - Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • STARD – Standard for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy provides recommendations for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy.
  • STROBE – Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology is used for an assessment of observational, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies.
  • SRQR – Standards for Reporting Qualitative Researches guide researchers on reporting criteria for qualitative research
  • TREND - Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs used for reporting non-randomized studies in behavioral and public health. 
  • MOOSE - Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology used for assessment of epidemiological studies.

Systematic Review Management tools

• Cochrane Review Manage (RevMan)
• Covidence
• DistillerSR
• EPPI-Reviewer 4
• Systematic Review Data Repository
• SysRev
• SRDR
• MS Excel
• MS Access
• EndNote
• Systematic Review Toolbox (other software for data extraction) 

Articles

Elamin, M. B., Flynn, D. N., Bassler, D., Briel, M., Alonso-Coello, P., Karanicolas, P. J., Guyatt, G. H., Malaga, G., Furukawa, T. A., Kunz, R., Schünemann, H., Murad, M. H., Barbui, C., Cipriani, A., & Montori, V. M. (2009). Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62(5), 506–510. 

For more information, books, and journals, browse DML Book Catalog, DML A-Z Journal Catalog, and DML Database Catalog. Consider also to schedule Consultation on finding associated resources on conducting a systematic review. 

The evaluation and assessment of published literature is an essential step in the systematic review preparation process. The appraisal of scientific articles is based on studies’ reported research-specific methodological and discipline-relevant criteria using various standards, checklists, and assessment tools developed for the systematic review.

• Guidelines, Standards, and Checklists 

Bias is a systematic error that affects the validity of the undergoing review. Publication, reporting, selection, and attrition biases main biases analyzed when conducting review. The internal, external, and model validly is evaluated in analyzed studies. The randomization, allocation concealments, controls, blinding, outcome, and statistical parameters project the study's internal validity. The study participants, population, outcome, effect size, and clinical significance demonstrate external validity. The reproducibility and generalizability of the study model in a population and setting across studied populations and settings (e.g. treatment, outcomes, etc.) are referred by model validity by studying health providers qualification (training, skills, accreditations), treatment regimen or studied phenomena, and patient and provider knowledge and preferences.   

Selected Quality Assessment Sources

• PRISMA Checklist for Systematic Reviews.
  Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097
• The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for the assessment of bias risk. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (Table 8.5.a).
• A common classification scheme for bias (Table 8.4.a). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.
• Going from assessments of risk of bias to judgements about study limitations for main outcome (Table 12.2.d). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
• Levels of quality of a body of evidence in the GRADE approach (Table 12.2.a). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Consultation 

• Consultation on critical appraisal of published articles.
  Please, contact Systematic Review Coordinator, Dr. Tmanova.

Information Resources 

Guidelines, Standards, and Checklists 

• GRADE Guidelines 
• EQUATOR Network - reporting guidelines for study type
  • AGREE - Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines
  • CARE – Consensus-based Clinical Reporting Guideline Development is focused on reporting of case studies at the point of care.
  • CONSORT – Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials provides criteria for an evaluation of reported RCT studies.
  • GRISP – Strengthening the Reporting of Genetic Risk Prediction Studies focused on genetic risk prediction studies.
  • PRISMA - Assessment of the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
  • STARD – Standard for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy provides recommendations for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy.
  • STROBE – Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology is used for an assessment of observational, cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies.
  • SRQR – Standards for Reporting Qualitative Researches guide researchers on reporting criteria for qualitative research
  • TREND - Transparent Reporting of Evaluations with Non-randomized Designs used for reporting non-randomized studies in behavioral and public health. 
  • MOOSE - Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology used for assessment of epidemiological studies.
• Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., Porter, A. C., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., & Bouter, L. M. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC medical research methodology, 7, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-10
• Shea, B. J., Hamel, C., Wells, G. A., Bouter, L. M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., Henry, D. A., & Boers, M. (2009). AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 62(10), 1013–1020.
• Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996). Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Controlled clinical trials, 17(1), 1–12.
• Whiting, P. F., Rutjes, A. W., Westwood, M. E., Mallett, S., Deeks, J. J., Reitsma, J. B., Leeflang, M. M., Sterne, J. A., Bossuyt, P. M., & QUADAS-2 Group (2011). QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Annals of internal medicine, 155(8), 529–536.
• The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses 
• Critical Appraisal Worksheet: Systematic Review/Meta-analysis
• Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines. (2011). Assessing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews (AQASR). Austin, TX: SEDL, National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research
• Avoiding Bias in Selecting Studies. AHRQ

Quality Assessment Scoring System

Internal Validity 

• Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 
• Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses Standards (QUOROM) Guidelines
• Oxman and Guyatt Index of Scientific Quality
• Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 50 Checklist
• American Dietary Association Evidence Analysis Manual Quality Criteria Checklist for Primary Research 
• Cochrane Risk of Bias
• Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Statement
• Jadad Scale
• Bronfort Best Evidence Synthesis 
• Likelihood of Validity Evaluation (LOVE)
• Modified LOVE
• Quality of Life Assessment Scale
• Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) 50 Checklist 
• Agency for Health Care Research and Quality (AHRQ) 

External Validity

• Singh RCT Quality Score
• Mathie et al MV Scale
• Dekkers et al. EV Scale
• GAP
• External Validity Assessment Tool (EVAT) 
• LOVE Scale
• Downs and Black Scale

Systematic Review Management tools

• Cochrane Review Manage (RevMan)
• Covidence
• DistillerSR
• EPPI-Reviewer 4
• Systematic Review Data Repository
• SysRev
• SRDR
• MS Excel
• MS Access
• Systematic Review Toolbox (other software for data extraction) 

Tools

• JBI Critical Appraisal Tools 
• Systematic Review Toolbox
• EndNote

Articles 

• Sverdlov, O., & Rosenberger, W. (2013). Randomization in clinical trials: can we eliminate bias?. Clinical Investigation, 3(1), 37-47.
• Lewis, S. C., & Warlow, C. P. (2004). How to spot bias and other potential problems in randomised controlled trials. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry, 75(2), 181-187.
• Bias in randomized controlled trials. Blackwell publishing. 
• Wolffe, M. T. A., & Halsall, C. J. Scales, Scoring and Subjectivity: Assessing risk of bias when conducting systematic reviews of the environmental health literature. Evidence-Based Approaches to Chemical Risk Assessment and Risk Management Decision-Making, 1001, 17.
• Schünemann, H., Brożek, J., Guyatt, G., & Oxman, A. 2013. Introduction to GRADE Handbook.  

For more information, books, and journals, browse DML Book Catalog, DML A-Z Journal Catalog, and DML Database Catalog. Consider also to schedule Consultation on finding associated resources on conducting a systematic review. 

After the study is evaluated according to the research protocol, the narrative (qualitative) and/or quantitative analysis is carried out. The narrative analysis results in a structured summary of the research and study findings. The literature synthesis includes analyzing the study results (evidence-based approach using PICO (S) (T)) to assess the quality of published literature, science, and knowledge gaps of studied research. Additional analysis includes an assessment of the quality of individual studies. The selection of the quality assessment tools depends on the systematic review scope and research question, and collaborative team choice of selected methodology in conducting a systematic review. The study results are analyzed, synthesized, and interpreted using various quality assessment tools to understand the studied evidence, clinical applicability, clinical implementation, and future study plan.
 

Consultation 

• Data Analysis - on conducting statistical analysis using IBM SPSS software package and data analysis.
  • exploring data 
  • descriptive statistics
  • inferential statistics
  • linear model analysis 
  • ANOVA
    
    To request consultation on data analysis, please, contact Systematic Review Coordinator, Dr. Tmanova. 

Information Resources 

Books

• Glantz, S. A. (2002). Primer of biostatistics.
• Matthews, D. E., & Farewell, V. T. (2015). Using and understanding medical statistics. Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers.
• Ray, J. M. (Ed.). (2013). Research data management: Practical strategies for information professionals. Purdue University Press.
• Rosner, B. (2015). Fundamentals of biostatistics. Nelson Education.Kellar, S. P., & Kelvin, E. A. (2013). Munro's statistical methods for health care research. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
• Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., Haeffele, L. M., & Vogt, E. R. (2014). Selecting the right analyses for your data: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Guilford Publications.
• Wang, B., Li, R., & Perrizo, W. (Eds.). (2015). Big data analytics in bioinformatics and healthcare. Medical Information Science Reference.
• Dawson, B., & Trapp, R. G. (2004). Basic and clinical biostatistics. Singapore, 2001, 141-142.
• White, S. (2019). Basic & Clinical Biostatistics. McGraw Hill Professional.

Journals

• Statistic in medicine
• Statistics of Navy medicine 

Statistical Applications

• SPSS (not available in Darnall Medical Library)  

  The command has an SPSS contract allowing the software to be loaded as needed but with a limited number of concurrent users. Due to server configuration and licensing limitations, SPSS cannot be installed on privately owned PCs or laptops. Please, contact IT. For more information, contact the Statisticians in the Department of Research Programs.

• SAS (not available in Darnall Medical Library)  

• MINITAB (not available in Darnall Medical Library)  

Tools

• Practical meta-analysis effect size calculator 

For more information, books, and journals, browse DML Book Catalog, DML A-Z Journal Catalog, and DML Database Catalog. Consider also to schedule Consultation on finding associated resources on conducting a systematic review. 

The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group was implemented to assess the quality of analyzed studies. The GRADE method is useful for interpretation of studies’ results that contributes to the delivery of best recommendations in healthcare.  

Key points

• The GRADE approach, adopted by The Cochrane Collaboration, specifies four levels of quality (high, moderate, low, and very low) where the highest quality rating is based on randomized trials. Review authors can downgrade randomized trial evidence depending on the presence of five factors and upgrade the quality of observational studies' quality depending on three factors
• Quality ratings are made separately for each outcome
• Computing methods, presenting and interpreting relative and absolute effects for dichotomous outcome data, including the number needed to treat (NNT)
• For continuous outcome measures, review authors can present pooled results for studies using the same units, the standardized mean difference and effect sizes when studies use the same construct but different scales, and odds ratios after transformation of the standardized mean differences
• Review authors should not describe results as ‘not statistically significant’ or ‘non-significant’, but report the confidence interval together with the exact p value
• Review authors should not make recommendations, but they can – after describing the quality of evidence and the balance of benefits and harms – highlight different actions that might be consistent with particular patterns of values and preferences

Excerpt from Holger J Schünemann, Andrew D Oxman, Gunn E Vist, Julian PT Higgins, Jonathan J Deeks, Paul Glasziou and Gordon H Guyatt on behalf of the Cochrane Applicability and Recommendations Methods Group.

• GRADE approach is used for the risk assessment and judgment for quality of body of evidence. (Fig 10. Going from assessments of risk of bias to judgements about study limitations for main outcome (Table 12.2.d) Excerpt from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions).
   

Consultation 

Data Analysis - on conducting statistical analysis using IBM SPSS software package and data analysis.

• exploring data 
• descriptive statistics
• inferential statistics
• linear model analysis 
• ANOVA
  
  To request consultation on data analysis, please, contact Systematic Review Coordinator, Dr. Tmanova. 

Information Resources 

Books

• Matthews, D. E., & Farewell, V. T. (2015). Using and understanding medical statistics. Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers.
• Ray, J. M. (Ed.). (2013). Research data management: Practical strategies for information professionals. Purdue University Press.
• Rosner, B. (2015). Fundamentals of biostatistics. Nelson Education.Kellar, S. P., & Kelvin, E. A. (2013). Munro's statistical methods for health care research. Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins
• Vogt, W. P., Gardner, D. C., Haeffele, L. M., & Vogt, E. R. (2014). Selecting the right analyses for your data: Quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods. Guilford Publications.
• Wang, B., Li, R., & Perrizo, W. (Eds.). (2015). Big data analytics in bioinformatics and healthcare. Medical Information Science Reference.
• Dawson, B., & Trapp, R. G. (2004). Basic and clinical biostatistics. Singapore, 2001, 141-142.

Journals

• Statistic in medicine
• Statistics of Navy medicine 

Department of Research Programs

• To schedule consultation on statistical analysis interpretation, contact the Statisticians in the Department of Research Programs.

For more information, books, and journals, browse DML Book Catalog, DML A-Z Journal Catalog, and DML Database Catalog. Consider also to schedule Consultation on finding associated resources on conducting a systematic review. 

The research findings of a completed systematic review can be shared with the biomedical community using the following sources:  

• Biomedical journals
• Systematic Reviews journal
• Cochrane Database Systematic Review 
• PROSPERO
• EPPI
• AHRQ Systematic Review Data Depository
   

Consultation 

• Article Publication. The scope of the Article Publication consultation is:
  • authorship guidelines and standards
  • research integrity 
  • Open Access
  • publication repositories 
  • military publication guidelines 
  • Copyright and Intellectual Property
  • Research Impact
  • journal selection (journal background analysis (IF, scope, journal reviewing and and editing information, author guidelines, and other), and specialized selection based on scientists criteria
  • article writing 

To request a consultation on article publication, please, submit consultation request Scientific Writing. 

Information Resources 

•  Information resources on publication at Publication library guide. 

For more information, books, and journals, browse DML Book Catalog, DML A-Z Journal Catalog, and DML Database Catalog. Consider also to schedule Consultation on finding associated resources on conducting a systematic review.