By:

Increasing numbers of masters’ students are choosing to undertake systematic reviews (secondary research) for their dissertations in preference to primary research.

The status of systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) exceeds that of all other clinical research. Systematic reviews entail rigorous searching, collating, appraising and combing of studies. They are often able to provide a ‘bottom line’ of good evidence of effectiveness, or harm, on which health care professionals can base their decisions reliably on the treatment of patients.

Systematic reviews are normally undertaken rigorously, over a lengthy timescale and at quite considerable cost. If they reach the required standard they are disseminated through the Cochrane Library, peer reviewed journals and via the grey literature.

Increasingly, however, systematic reviews are being produced in less rigorous ways. Students undertaking masters’ education often choose to undertake a systematic review for their dissertation. There are several reasons for this: the approach may genuinely address a suitable question, the students may face a lack of available time/resources to undertake primary research, and systematic reviews do not require ethical committee acceptance and are sometimes seen as a convenient alternative to pre-empt ethics committee delays.

The session will consider whether this professional activity, with its status at the top of the ‘hierarchy of evidence’, and the credibility which it attracts, is suitable for students to undertake. It might be useful to try and identify that boundary where systematic reviews go from unacceptable to good enough and to excellent; how big and how fuzzy is the boundary.

Stream: Adult, Vocational, Tertiary and Professional Learning

Paper: Undertaking Systematic Reviews for Masters’ Dissertations

Before working at the Postgraduate Medical School, I undertook several research projects specifically in the area of Evidence Based Healthcare. I undertook two systematic reviews, (on Hodgkins Disease in children and in pain control) and clinical guidelines looking at assessing and recognising pain in children. I had developed my methodological knowledge by having a training fellowship in systematic reviews at the Institute of Child Health in London. However, my PhD was in an entirely different area; organisational informatics. I am particularly interested in the learning that healthcare professionals undertake which help them achieve a critical distance from the many areas of practice that they take for granted.