Issue link: https://www.massageandbodyworkdigital.com/i/78617
SOMATIC RESEARCH should be included. I only have access to publicly available databases, and can only afford to include articles that are open access—this was my first clue that I needed help to conduct an SR. Methodological bias is the biggest threat to the validity of an SR.5 When selecting articles for review, include all that meet the predetermined selection criteria. It is unacceptable to rule out articles because of poor outcomes, and positive results should never be overstated, whether to gain favor with a publisher or to enhance the outcomes. SRs often exclude studies if they do not conform to certain study designs, are not written in English, or do not occur within a certain timeframe.6 The best tool for mitigating bias is transparency. Define eligibility requirements and document the process and all decisions—all steps of the SR process should be explicitly stated, and an explanation for how all decisions were made should be included and documented throughout each step of the SR. A description of the process must be included in the final manuscript. SCREENING, REVIEWING, AND INTERPRETING Once the citations and abstracts of all the results of the keyword searches are compiled, create a list of questions to standardize the screening process. The goal is to create a standardized process for determining whether the titles and abstracts match the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Those that are clearly irrelevant are excluded, full-text papers are obtained for the remaining articles, and the criteria are applied again. Those that meet the criteria are included in the review and move on to the scoring phase.7 Next, the articles are scored independently by at least two reviewers. Multiple reviewers are essential for limiting bias, which makes it impossible for me, alone, to write an SR. Standardized, objective tools are available for scoring articles, or a customized checklist can be created. Every reviewer uses the same tool, and conflicts are tracked and discussed until consensus is reached.8 The review team stays in close communication throughout the rest of the process. Reviewers assess the internal validity (the outcome is a direct result of the intervention), external validity (the outcomes are generalizable to a larger population), and model validity (the study is representative of practice). This determines the strength of the research data. Quantity and quality is key: more high quality research draws stronger, more definitive conclusions. Once the studies are scored, the results are summarized into tables. All reviewers must gather at this point and interpret the data together. This is the time to critically appraise both positive and negative findings, discuss the results, and draw conclusions. Everyone participates in writing the report, dividing up the sections according to roles in the project, and the final document is edited and approved as a group. COLLABORATION IN QUALITY Through this valuable experience, I learned that it takes a village to write a quality SR, one that can advance the profession, help identify policy, and inform best practices. While I will continue to write articles on my own, which summarize research on topics of interest, I more fully understand the difference between translating a few articles versus conducting a comprehensive SR. I am encouraged and motivated by the newfound relationship with the Samueli Institute. At any time, a group within the profession can put forth a project by identifying a topic of interest, gathering the necessary funds, appointing a primary investigator to lead the project, and enlisting an organization like the Samueli Institute to provide the necessary tools and skilled personnel to conduct a defensible SR. I believe the time has come for more conclusive reviews on somatic therapies. Notes 1. Samueli Institute, "News and Information," accessed August 2012, www.siib.org/ news/news-home/120-SIIB.html. 2. Deborah J. Cook et al., "Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions," Annals of Internal Medicine 126, no. 6 (1997): 376–80. 3. C. Crawford, S. Jain, and W.B. Jonas, Introduction to Systematic Reviews Workbook (Samueli Institute, 2012). Author workbook for private seminar. 4. University of Southern California, "Asking a Good Question (PICO)," accessed August 2012, www.usc.edu/hsc/ebnet/ebframe/PICO.htm. 5. Crawford, Introduction to Systematic Reviews Workbook. 6. Ibid. 7. Ibid. 8. Ibid. A licensed massage practitioner since 1984, Diana L. Thompson has created a varied and interesting career out of massage: from specializing in pre- and postsurgical lymph drainage to teaching, writing, consulting, and volunteering. Her consulting includes assisting insurance carriers on integrating massage into insurance plans and educating researchers on massage therapy theory and practice to ensure research projects and protocols are designed to match how we practice. Contact her at soapsage@comcast.net. Visit the newly designed ABMP.com. Log in. Explore. Enjoy. 61