JOBIP guidelines for systematic review articles
Authors preparing review articles for JOBIP should strive to perform systematic reviews
or meta-analyses. These should follow the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) checklist. Authors are expected to address all
items in the checklist in the writing of the manuscript.
The Methods section should include the following subsections:
Study identification
An attempt should be made to identify all relevant studies, assess study eligibility for
inclusion, and evaluate study quality. The Patient Investigation/Intervention Comparator
Outcome (PICO) questions should be used to guide the review. The authors should
mention the online databases searched, the search terms, language and time frame for
their literature search.
Study Eligibility
Articles deemed potentially eligible should be divided and reviewed by different
authors. The authors should independently assess original research studies for eligibility
according to predefined criteria. Two investigators should thus independently review
each potentially eligible manuscript, and disagreements should be resolved after
discussion among authors.
Data Abstraction
Data should be abstracted depending on the type of study, patient demographic
characteristics, disease process characteristics, specific intervention, length of follow up,
and reported outcomes including benefits and harms. Data should be abstracted into the
evidence table template for intervention studies.
Study Quality
A quality assessment tool for randomized controlled trials, such as that developed
by the ACCP, can be used to assess the quality of randomized clinical trials (RCT). The
items include the appropriate design and implementation of the trial, appropriate
randomization, explicit descriptions of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the intervention,
outcomes, and statistical analyses, and potential biases and conflicts of interest. To
measure the quality of observational studies, another inventory developed by the ACCP
can be used. The items include the study design, whether the setting and time-frame are
similar for the comparator measure, whether the analysis is adjusted for potential
confounders, whether the outcome is blinded to the assessors, and whether the number of
patients lost to follow up differs by the comparator measure. A Quality Assessment of
Cohort Studies form can be used when appropriate. The questions comprising assessment
tool address the following items: subject selection, measurement of exposure,
measurement of outcome, follow-up, adjustment for potential confounders, statistical
analysis, funding and conflict of interest. Based on the number of questions that could be
answered affirmatively, on a scale form 1-10, the quality of the study was judged as good
(8-10), fair (5-7), or poor (<5).
Statistical Analysis
Hazard Ratios, confidence intervals, median values and ranges for summary
statistics should be reported based on information provided by each of the primary study
authors. Attempt should be made to pool data across studies but if there is substantial
heterogeneity in comparator and outcome measures, or if few studies provide raw data
that would be necessary for quantitative synthesis, this can be omitted.
For an example of a systematic review using the above-mentioned methodology and
tools, the readers are referred to a chapter of the 2013 ACCP Lung Cancer guidelines
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23649451
Colt HG, Murgu SD, Korst RJ, Slatore CG, Unger M, Quadrelli S. Follow-up and
surveillance of the patient with lung cancer after curative-intent therapy:
Diagnosis and management of lung cancer, 3rd ed: American College of Chest
Physicians evidence-based clinical practice guidelines. Chest. 2013 May;143(5
Suppl):e437S-54S. doi: 10.1378/chest.12-2365. PubMed PMID: 23649451