Objectives: To describe the problems encountered when undertaking systematic reviews of rehabilitation and to give advice to reviewers about ways of addressing these issues.
Background: Evidence-based practice has become established as a way of linking clinical practice with research evidence. The most robust evidence is usually considered to be that from randomized controlled trials, and from systematic reviews of these trials. However, most reviews have focused on drug and surgical interventions, and few reviews have been produced in the field of rehabilitation. This may be due to the unique difficulties that are posed by reviews in this area.
Experience of systematic reviews in aphasia: We describe the challenges that occurred when carrying out systematic reviews of speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke, and of ways to deliver rehabilitation services to people who have suffered a stroke. Issues arose at all stages of the reviews and included: using expertise; planning the review; defining the health care problem, patients, outcomes and interventions of interest; searching for, interpreting and synthesizing the results of the studies identified; and deriving implications from the review. Suggestions made to address these challenges include: developing a suitable team of reviewers; using inclusive and broad criteria for inclusion of trials to a review; developing appropriate search strategies; and using caution in arriving at conclusions. It is important to be explicit about decisions made during the review process concerning how to handle the challenges. Practical advice about carrying out reviews in the field of stroke rehabilitation is likely to be helpful to reviewers of other rehabilitative interventions. There are likely to be relatively few studies available for such reviews, and limitations in drawing specific practical conclusions. Such undertakings are, however, useful in setting the agenda for further research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ1996; 312: 71–72.
2.
Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Sinclair JC et al. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA1996; 24: 1800–1804.
3.
Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ1994; 309: 597–599.
4.
Aberdorin I, Venables G. Stroke management in Europe. Pan European Consensus Meeting on stroke management. J Intern Med1996; 240: 173–180.
5.
Warlow CP, Dennis MS, van Gijn J et al. Stroke: a practical guide to management. Oxford, London Edinburgh: Blackwell Scientific, 1996.
Greener J, Enderby P, Whurr R. Speech and language therapy for aphasia following stroke (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 2. Oxford: Update Software, 2000.
8.
Greener J. Speech and language therapy and the management of aphasia in Scotland. Aberdeen: Health Services Research Unit, 1995.
9.
Stroke Unit Trialists' Collaboration. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke (Cochrane Review). In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 1999.
10.
Mulrow CD, Oxman AD (eds). Cochrane collaboration handbook(updated September 1997). In the Cochrane Library, Issue 4. The Cochrane Collaboration. Oxford: Update Software, 1997.
11.
Bero L, Grilli R, Grimshaw J, Oxman A (eds). The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) Module. In: The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software, 1999.
12.
Shultz KF, Chalmers I, Grimes DA et al. Assessing the quality of randomisation from reports of controlled trials published in obstetrics and gynaecology reports. JAMA1994; 272: 125–128.
13.
Chalmers I, Altman D. Systematic reviews. London: BMJ, 1995.
14.
Gotzsche PC. Methodology and overt and hidden bias in reports of 196 double-blind trials of nonsteroidal anti-in‘ammatory drugs in rheumatoid arthritis. Cont Clin Trials1989; 10: 31-31.
