English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

The validity and applicability of a systematic review depends on the quality of the primary studies that are included and the quality of the methods used to conduct the review itself. Sometimes, observational studies represent the best available evidence. Subject to selection, information, and confounding biases, observational studies are thought to overestimate treatment or exposure effects. A systematic review of observational data must therefore attempt to minimize or prevent these sources of bias by developing explicit but also broad inclusion and exclusion criteria focused on extracting the best available evidence relevant to the review question. Systematic reviews must also make use of an expansive search strategy, with use of multiple resources, to demonstrate the reproducibility of selection and quality-assessment criteria, to perform a quantitative analysis and adjustment for confounding where appropriate, and to explore possible reasons for differences between the results of the primary studies. In this paper, we address the advantages and limitations of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and suggest solutions at the design phase of protocol development.

Methodological Issues in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Observational Studies in Orthopaedic Research