2014
DOI: 10.3917/spub.145.0655
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Améliorer les pratiques et l'organisation des soins : méthodologie des revues systématiques

Abstract: The number of intervention studies designed to improve quality of care is increasing exponentially, making it difficult to access all available information on a given subject. Systematic reviews are tools that provide health professionals with comprehensive and objective information. This article describes the main phases of a systematic review: formulating the research question, search and selection of studies, data extraction and analysis, assessment of the methodological quality of studies, and synthesis of… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
7
0
4

Year Published

2015
2015
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 21 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 22 publications
0
7
0
4
Order By: Relevance
“…In their absence, quantitative pre- and post-intervention results were compared, and when post-intervention results improved, it was concluded that the intervention had a positive effect, regardless of the improvement level. For post-intervention results related to KAP outcomes, more than 50% of the targeted subjects had to fulfil criteria that were considered as relevant (by the authors) to conclude that the intervention had a positive effect [24]. If quantitative results were not available, the qualitative appraisal of the authors of the respective studies was taken into account.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In their absence, quantitative pre- and post-intervention results were compared, and when post-intervention results improved, it was concluded that the intervention had a positive effect, regardless of the improvement level. For post-intervention results related to KAP outcomes, more than 50% of the targeted subjects had to fulfil criteria that were considered as relevant (by the authors) to conclude that the intervention had a positive effect [24]. If quantitative results were not available, the qualitative appraisal of the authors of the respective studies was taken into account.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Several databases were used [16]: Sciencedirect and Pubmed, EMBASE, CINAHL, MEDNAR, CENTRALE PsycINFO and la Banque de données en santé publique (public health database).…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Publication bias must also be considered, which may distort the effects of olanzapine. It is in order to limit this risk of bias that the gray literature has also been considered [54].…”
Section: Bias Of the Study Intrinsic Biasmentioning
confidence: 99%