This article focuses on applying systematic reviews to the Early Intervention (EI) literature. Systematic reviews are defined and differentiated from traditional, or narrative, reviews and from meta-analyses. In addition, the steps involved in critiquing systematic reviews and an illustration of a systematic review from the EI literature are detailed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Diggle, T., McConachie, H.R., & Randle, V.R.L. (2003). Parent-mediated early intervention for young children with autism spectrum disorder (Cochrane Review). The Cochran Library, 3, 1—26.
2.
Kunz, R., & Oxman, A.D. (1998). The unpredictability paradox: Review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials. British Medical Journal, 317, 1185—1190.
3.
Law, J., Boyle, J., Harris, F., Harkness, A., & Nye, C. (2000). Prevalence and natural history of primary speech and language delay: Findings from a recent systematic review of the literature [Special issue]. Health Technology Assessment, 2(9).
4.
Law, J., Garrett, Z., & Nye, C. (2004). The efficacy of treatment for children with developmental speech and language delay/disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 924—943.
5.
Law, M., & Philip, I. (2002). Systematically reviewing the evidence. In M. Law (Ed.), Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (pp. 97—107). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
6.
Mandich, A., Miller, L., & Law, M. (2002). Outcomes in evidence-based practice. In M. Law (Ed.), Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (pp. 49—69). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
7.
McCauley, R., & Hargrove, P. (2004). A clinician's introduction to systematic reviews in communication disorders: The course review paper with muscle. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders, 31, 173—181.
8.
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. ( 2001). Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for those carrying out or commissioning reviews (2nd ed.). Retrieved September 15, 2003, from http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/report4.htm
9.
Oxman, A., Guyatt, G., Cook, D., & Montori, V. (2002). Summarizing the evidence. In G. Guyatt & D. Rennie (Eds.), Users' guides to the medical literature: Essentials of evidence-based practice (pp. 241—269). Chicago: AMA Press.
10.
Reilly, S. (2004). The move to evidence-based practice within speech pathology. In S. Reilly, J. Douglas, & J. Oates (Eds.), Evidence-based practice in speech pathology (pp. 3—17). London: Whurr.
11.
Riegelman, R.K. (2000). Studying a study and testing a test: How to read the medical evidence (4th ed.). Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Williams.
12.
Robey, R. (2004, April 13). Levels of evidence. The ASHA Leader, p. 5.
13.
Sackett, D.L., Straus, S.E., Richardson, W.S., & Haynes, R.B. (2000). Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone .
14.
Seers, K. (1999). Systematic reviews. In M. Dawes, P. Davies, A. Gray, J. Mant , K. Seers, & R. Snowball (Eds.), Evidence-based practice: A primer for health care professionals (pp. 85—100). Edinburgh : Churchill Livingstone.
15.
Tickle-Degnen, L. (2002). Communicating evidence to clients, managers, and funders. In M. Law (Ed.), Evidence-based rehabilitation: A guide to practice (pp. 221—254). Thorofare, NJ: Slack.
