Our Systematic Reviews
A systematic review is a type of research study that uses a structured, transparent, and highly rigorous process to collect, evaluate, and summarize all available evidence on a specific research question. Instead of generating new data, researchers carefully search multiple databases, apply predefined criteria to include or exclude studies, assess the quality of the evidence, and synthesize findings—often using qualitative summaries or quantitative methods like meta-analysis. The goal of a systematic review is to provide the most reliable, comprehensive answer possible about what the existing research shows, minimizing bias and helping clinicians, policymakers, and researchers make informed decisions.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy Bias in Neuroprognostication SPIN
Self-fulfilling prophecy bias is a major contaminator of studies addressing outcome prediction performance of neuroprognostic tools. We are conducting a series of systematic reviews for individual acute neurologic disease processes to assess for the evaluation and report of factors that may impact the degree of this type of bias in outcome prediction studies (CRD42021271923, CRD42021276343, CRD42021276539, CRD42021276543).
Review of Novel Therapeutics in Cardiac Arrest ReNtica
This collaboration with Emergency Medicine department is a systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO CRD42021230216) of on prospective human studies investigating neurotherapeutics post-cardiac arrest with a primary focus on impact on functional neurologic outcome.
Unveiling the Reporting & Representation of Race and Ethnicity in Acute Interventional Neurology Clinical Trials
Individuals from racial and ethnic minorities are typically underrepresented in randomized trials, leading to reduced generalizability of results. We are conducting a systematic review to assess the composition of race and ethnicity in acute neurology trials, with the goal of understanding to which extent study populations in these reflect population demographics (CRD42024544072).