Chevron Left
Back to Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Learner Reviews & Feedback for Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis by Johns Hopkins University

4.8
1,252 ratings
296 reviews

About the Course

We will introduce methods to perform systematic reviews and meta-analysis of clinical trials. We will cover how to formulate an answerable research question, define inclusion and exclusion criteria, search for the evidence, extract data, assess the risk of bias in clinical trials, and perform a meta-analysis. Upon successfully completing this course, participants will be able to: - Describe the steps in conducting a systematic review - Develop an answerable question using the “Participants Interventions Comparisons Outcomes” (PICO) framework - Describe the process used to collect and extract data from reports of clinical trials - Describe methods to critically assess the risk of bias of clinical trials - Describe and interpret the results of meta-analyses...

Top reviews

MJ

Jan 08, 2019

Although introductory, I do carry out reviews as a researcher. I Learned a lot to improve my systematic reviews through this course. High quality, though the music could be a little less intense.

KA

Feb 13, 2017

Incredible course! You learned a lot from these amazing professors. If you take this course you will know how to do a high quality systematic review and even a meta analysis and publish them.

Filter by:

276 - 287 of 287 Reviews for Introduction to Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

By BHAVYA B M

Jul 29, 2019

Good

By N.A. T

Feb 27, 2017

Great content, but not delivered in a very dynamic manner so hard to stay attentive.

By Charlotte R

Nov 27, 2016

A good course that lacked practical information on performing a meta-analysis.

By Dorice L V

May 30, 2017

I found this course extremely helpful, but I think it needs to be updated. It might be useful to discuss a few key tools that are essential to SRs, one in particular the Equator Network for Systematic Reviews. SRs should be registered with PROSPERO. If you show a PROSPERO record, it will help reinforce some of the concepts you are teaching. Some quiz questions are ambiguous. I do not have my notes at the time of this writing so cannot point out the problem. I think the problem was in Module 2. My most important concern is with the final assignment. Having worked with so many groups on writing as well as evaluating SRs, "those who analyzed the data" would not need to be blinded to the treatment phase but the outcome phase. It is my assumption that the sentence could have been written in a more meaningful way: " . . . were blinded to treatment and outcomes assessment." From a "critical thinking" standpoint, which is what I always try to get students to do because of the quality (or lack thereof) of writing, I thought this through carefully, and came up with a significantly different answer. The course is geared so heavily to what is taught at Johns Hopkins. This can be a bit wearying for some, though I appreciate the quality of your program. The literature searching component could also use an update, but I did find much of the lecture very helpful--there are several webinars that will help the librarian (just as a refresher). The examples that were used throughout the slides were exceptional and helped me to understand much of the material from a student's point of view. Overall, the course will help me with teaching and evaluating SRs and MAs. Thank you!

By ASHISH S

Jun 23, 2018

i would love to see how to extract data in software and use it for metaanalysis. which is more practical

By vdk

Jun 21, 2018

need more developement on network meta analysis, etc..

By Suisin P L L

Apr 27, 2018

Me gustó el curso, solo que al final, me perdí. Desde que empezó con el meta análisis.

By Ahmad A

May 28, 2017

there was no notes

By Pietro P

May 02, 2017

Five stars for the excellent teachers and content, but the course is not made for Coursera: very long videos, slides full of words, many references to the group work for the course at JHU, tiny quizzes and just two practical assignments. The format and the examinations can be definitely improved.

By María M V

Jun 04, 2017

Important in medical practice

By Stephen S

Apr 05, 2016

The audio quality of a lot of the lectures are quite bad.

A number of the slides seem to be un-organised at times, with repeating information, making them confusing.

While all the information seems to be presented, it feels like it could be done better with more time spent preparing and recording the videos.

By Omir A

Oct 06, 2018

Need more explination in real website, and explination of terms