Advanced Search

Completed Systematic Reviews




Dry Eye SRs


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 40 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Nov 13, 2019 03:48PM
Description: Although a number of systematic reviews on dry eye have been published, the quality of these reviews remains unclear. We will characterize and appraise the methodological quality of systematic reviews on interventions for dry eye. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the current available evidence on interventions for dry eye, state the strengths and limitations and formulate recommendations for improving future review conduct.
Contributor(s): None Provided
Funding Source: National Eye Institute
Methodology Description: None Provided

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Outcome data reported in Cochrane Eyes and Vision reviews


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 343 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Nov 13, 2019 03:48PM
Description: None Provided
Contributor(s): None Provided
Funding Source: None Provided
Methodology Description: None Provided

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

COSMAHA Phase 2


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 525 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Nov 13, 2019 03:48PM
Description: None Provided
Contributor(s): None Provided
Funding Source: None Provided
Methodology Description: None Provided

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

CEV SNA


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 357 Studies, 1 Key Question, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Nov 13, 2019 03:48PM
Description: None Provided
Contributor(s): None Provided
Funding Source: None Provided
Methodology Description: None Provided

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content

Pharmacologic and Non-pharmacologic Therapies in Adult Patients with Acute Exacerbation of COPD: A Systematic Review


Public Project Complete

Statistics: 98 Studies, 4 Key Questions, 1 Extraction Form,
Date Published: Oct 18, 2019 08:18PM
Description: None Provided
Contributor(s): None Provided
Funding Source: AHRQ
Methodology Description: We developed an analytic framework to guide the process of the systematic review. We followed the established methodologies of systematic reviews as outlined in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.42 The reporting complies with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statements.43 The study protocol is registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO #: 42018111609) and published on the AHRQ Web site (https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/topics/copd/protocol). The full report details our literature search strategy, inclusion and exclusion criteria, data synthesis, assessments of risk of bias, and strength of evidence (SOE). We graded SOE for health outcomes deemed to be most important or critical, including mortality, dyspnea, quality of life (QoL), need for intubation, repeat exacerbation and/or hospital readmissions and AECOPD resolution (clinical cure, failure). SOE was rated as high when we were very confident that the estimate of effect lies close to the true effect (the body of evidence has few or no deficiencies and judged to be stable). SOE was rated as moderate when we were moderately confident that the estimate of effect lies close to the true effect (the body of evidence has some deficiencies and is judged to be likely stable). SOE was rated as low when we had limited confidence that the estimate of effect lies close to the true effect (the body of evidence has major or numerous deficiencies and is likely unstable). SOE was rated as insufficient when we had no evidence, were unable to estimate an effect, or had no confidence in the estimate of effect).

Zoom Preview | Show Downloadable Content