Systematic Reviews for Nutrition and Public Health

Evidence maps aim to identify all relevant literature within a research field in order to provide a comprehensive assessment of both what is known and where gaps in evidence exist.  The exisiting evidence can be organized in ways that relate not only to treatment and mangement decisions but also to the organization of clinical services. [Hetick SE et al. Evidence Mapping: illustrating an emergeing methodolgy to improve evidence-based practice in youth mental health. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 16 (2010) 1025--1030]

They often focus on broader research questions that are policy driven and do not include a risk-of-bias assessment step. [Young -I et al. the Application of Knowledge Syntehsis Methods i Agri-Food Public Health: Recent Advancements, Challenges and Opportunities. Preventive Veterinary  Medicine 113 (2014) 339 - 355]

Many different study designs might be included. It might not address the quality of the included studies.A scoping study might show the range, extent and nature of the research. It could serve to determine the value of a full systematic review.  It could also be a study  to show research findings for a field of study. [Arksey-H & O'Malley-L. Scoping Studies, Towards a Mthodological Framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology  2005 8:1, 19-32]

Rapid Reviews research techniques to streamline the systematic review process.  They seek to form conclusions for policy makers and address questions of some urgency. To speed up the process limits are introduced into the searching and retrieval stages. Types of restrictions can include: publications that are readily available, short time spans, geographical area or service points. Documentation of the research methods and exclusion criteria is necessary to reveal the potential limitations of the research as they could impact bias and strength of the evidence.  [Ganann-R. et al. Expediting Systematic Reviews: Methods and Impliciitons of Rapid Reviews Implementation Science 2010 5: 56 .

For some reviews the standard P (patient) I (intervention) C (comparison) O (outcome) tool is not optimal.

Here are some other ideas that might help to frame a search:

SPIDER

[ Beyond PICO: The SPIDER tool for Qualitative Evidence Synthesis, Cooke-A, Qualitative Health Research 2012 V. 22 (10) 1435 - 1443]

S = Sample

PI = Phenomenon of Interest

D = Design

E = Evaluation

R = Research Type

SPICE

[Clear and Present Questions: Formulating Questions for Evidence Based Practice, Booth-A, Library Hi Tech 2006 V. 24 (3) 355-368]

S = Setting

P = Perspective

I = Intervention

C = Comparison

E = Evaluation

ECLIPSE

[How CLIP Became ECLIPSE: A Mnemonic to Assist in Searching for Health Policy/Management Information, Wildridge-V,  Health Information and Libraries Journal 2002 V. 19 113 - 115]

E = Expectation

C = Client Group

L = Location

I = Impact

P = Professionals

S = Service