Systematic Review vs. Retrospective Case Study

[salmonellaisafish]

ff

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Lexicon0]

I think it would depend on what specialty/topic you're planning on doing your research in. Generally, systematic reviews require more time investment, but are considered higher impact than retrospective chart reviews. Systematic reviews do require two reviewers (with you presumably being one of them) that independently screen abstracts of papers included in the review. Since this is a summer project, I would imagine it would be easier to do the review as it wouldn't require access to EMR. Also, chart reviews can sometimes end up being a dead end (especially if your findings are non-significant, you find not as many patients fit your inclusion criteria as anticipated, etc). With systematic reviews, as long as you have a solid topic and are able to find enough papers that fit your inclusion criteria, your chances of successfully publishing are pretty high. I would check out the PRISMA website for more info on systematic reviews:

http://www.prisma-statement.org/Default.aspx

 

[ProfMD]

Systematic review is hands down more significant than a case report. Case reports are much easier to do though.

I reccommend the systematic review. Definitely check out and follow the PRISMA guidelines.