Systematic reviews, data source

Cochrane Library. The Cochrane Library [44] includes The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, a collection of regularly updated, systematic reviews of the effects of health care. It is maintained by contributors to the Cochrane Collaboration. Cochrane reviews are reviews mainly of randomized controlled trials. To minimize bias, evidence is included or excluded on the basis of explicit quality criteria. Data are often combined statistically, with meta-analysis, to increase the power of the findings of numerous studies, each too small to produce reliable results individually. Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness is also included. It consists of critical assessments and structured abstracts of good systematic reviews published elsewhere. The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register with bibliographic information on controlled trials and other sources of information on the science of reviewing research and evidence-based health care are part of the Cochrane Library. It is commercially available on CD-ROM or the Internet. 

Systematic errors affect the accuracy but not the precision of the result. They are usually errors in calibration or observation where the same incorrect protocol is applied to all measurements. They displace all measurements from the true value by the same amount so they cannot be detected by a statistical analysis of only one data set. However, systematic error can be detected and reduced by comparing data sets from several different sources using meta-analysis and systematic review (Rimstidt et ah, 2012). 

However, while there are many examples that have addressed clinically important adverse reactions, systematic reviews have a fundamental weakness in their absolute reliance on the availability and quality of primary data. The lack of research activity in several areas of drug safety (as illustrated in Table 1) limits the scope of systematic reviews and hinders the development of comprehensive assessments of specific adverse reactions in a technique described as teleoanalysis [6], which is an exploration that sues data from all available sources, including randomized trials, observational studies, and even case series and case reports. 

Systematic reviews A search of 2187 articles and 9 grey literature sources identified 72 studies of amfetamine-related mortality, seven of which provided data from cohort studies of users. The estimated crude mortality rates ranged from 0 in Australia to 2.95... 

The ontology has been developed using various data sources. Globally, more than 100 references, of scientific, technical and regulatory nature, have been identified and systematically reviewed. After analysis, a portion of the sources turned out not to be useful for the ontology description. At the end 62 documents have been used to develop the final 22 sub-ontologies (reference list available inside the project deliverable). 

Corrective and preventive action (CAPA) is the term commonly used to describe the subsystem of a comprehensive quality system that deals with the systematic investigation, understanding, and response to quality issues including nonconformities. A corrective or preventive action may be initiated based on review and analysis of quality data from a variety of sources including adverse experiences, product complaints, quality audits, FDA inspections, third-party inspections, nonconforming materials reports, process control information, trend analyses, and other sources. 

The presence of systematic errors is, potentially, the most important source of uncertainty. There is no possibility to handle systematic errors using statistics statistical methods may indicate their presence, no more. Systematic errors in the chemical model have been mentioned. In addition there may be systematic errors in the methods used. By comparing experimental data obtained with different experimental methods one can obtain an indication of the presence and magnitude of such errors. The systematic errors of this type are accounted for both in the review of the literature and when taking the... 

Is the He/ Ne ratio uniform in the mantle A review of available data (Honda and McDougall 1998) found He/ Ne = 6.0 1.4 for Hawaii and 10.2 1.6 for MORE, with a mantle average of 7.7. This suggests that there may be a systematic difference between the MORE and OIB sources. In contrast, it has been argued that Loihi and gas-rich MORE samples have similar He/ Ne ratios (Moreira and Allegre 1998), and so the issue remains open. 

H. Mayer and O. Isler. That comprehensive and authoritative review described systematically the construction of many synthons and the synthesis of many natural and unnatural carotenoids and related compounds. Twenty five years on, that chapter remains an essential reference work and source of information, with its extensive collection of tabulated data and lists of references to the original literature. Surveys of progress since 1971 have been presented at the lUPAC International Symposia on Carotenoids and are included in the published proceedings of these symposia. 

---