systematic


Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Financial, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.

sys·te·mat·ic

(sis'tĕ-mat'ik),
Relating to a system in any sense; arranged according to a system.

systematic

(sĭs′tə-măt′ĭk) also

systematical

(-ĭ-kəl)
adj.
Characterized by, based on, or constituting a system: systematic thought.

sys′tem·at′i·cal·ly adv.

systematic

Of each body system considered separately.
References in periodicals archive ?
In 2014, Dibaba, et al, conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of seven cross sectional studies involving over 32,000 subjects.
Systematic reviews are the 'cornerstone' of EBP, serving as a means to synthesize the evidence in a transparent and rigorous method to recommend best approaches and interventions (Dixon-Woods et al., 2006).
To avoid these issues in systematic review writing, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) group, which mainly consists of Cochrane authors, has developed the PRISMA guidelines in 2009 (6).
Participants at the workshop first took part in a pre-assessment survey to identify their current knowledge of systematic review, before Dr.
Of these, 120 articles were cited by at least 1 systematic review.
All protocols for systematic reviews must be written according to PRISMA-P (10) and registered in recognized database, for example in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) from the University of York and the National Institute for Health Research.
Conflict of interest (COI) is defined as "a financial or intellectual relationship that may impact an individual's ability to approach a scientific question with an open mind." (6,7) COIs can influence the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews resulting in misguided public policies and systems-level decisions.
Dissemination of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist, a guide for reporting systematic reviews, has been associated with improvements in reporting completeness and higher review quality.
Sian Taylor-Phillips, Ph.D., from the University of Warwick in the United Kingdom, and colleagues conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine the odds of recommending screening according to the use of systematic review methods across conditions.
Running a systematic review without full knowledge about the inclusion criteria can lead to problems with assessing the validity, applicability, and comprehensiveness of the systematic review [3].
Third, the authors did not follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) [7]; also, the inclusion criteria are ambiguous.
They receive training in the methods for producing systematic reviews of nutrition interventions.

Full browser ?