A practical guide to systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses in infection prevention: Planning, challenges, and execution

2017 ◽  
Vol 45 (11) ◽  
pp. 1292-1294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin L. Schweizer ◽  
Rajeshwari Nair
Keyword(s):  
Infection Prevention ◽  
Practical Guide ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Application of the Subspace-Based Methods in Health Monitoring of Civil Structures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 3607
Author(s):  
Hoofar Shokravi ◽  
Hooman Shokravi ◽  
Norhisham Bakhary ◽  
Mahshid Heidarrezaei ◽  
Seyed Saeid Rahimian Koloor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
System Identification ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Monitoring ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Civil Structures ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Subspace System Identification ◽  
Insight Into

A large number of research studies in structural health monitoring (SHM) have presented, extended, and used subspace system identification. However, there is a lack of research on systematic literature reviews and surveys of studies in this field. Therefore, the current study is undertaken to systematically review the literature published on the development and application of subspace system identification methods. In this regard, major databases in SHM, including Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, have been selected and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) has been applied to ensure complete and transparent reporting of systematic reviews. Along this line, the presented review addresses the available studies that employed subspace-based techniques in the vibration-based damage detection (VDD) of civil structures. The selected papers in this review were categorized into authors, publication year, name of journal, applied techniques, research objectives, research gap, proposed solutions and models, and findings. This study can assist practitioners and academicians for better condition assessment of structures and to gain insight into the literature.

scholarly journals Published patterns of spin in biomedical literature: a protocol for a meta-research study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e043784
Author(s):  
Naichuan Su ◽  
Michiel van der Linden ◽  
Geert JMG van der Heijden ◽  
Stefan Listl ◽  
Stefan Schandelmaier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Journal ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionSpin is defined as reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results and create misleading conclusions by suggesting more favourable results. Such unjustifiable and misleading misrepresentation may negatively influence the development of further studies, clinical practice and healthcare policies. Spin manifests in various patterns in different sections of publications (titles, abstracts and main texts). The primary aim of this study is to identify reported spin patterns and assess the prevalence of spin in general, and the prevalence of spin patterns reported in biomedical literature based on previously published systematic reviews and literature reviews on spin.Methods and analysisPubMed, EMBASE and SCOPUS will be searched to identify systematic or literature reviews on spin in biomedicine. To improve the comprehensiveness of the search, the snowballing method will be used to broaden the search. The data on spin-related outcomes and characteristics of the included studies will be extracted. The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed with selective items of the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 checklist. A new classification scheme for spin patterns will be developed if the classifications of spin patterns identified in the included studies vary. The prevalence of spin and spin patterns will be pooled based on meta-analyses if the classification schemes for spin are comparable across included studies. Otherwise, the prevalence will be described qualitatively. The seriousness of spin patterns will be assessed based on a Delphi consensus study.Ethics and disseminationThis study has been approved by the Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam Ethics Review Committee (2020250). The study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal.RegistrationOpen Science Framework: osf.io/hzv6e

scholarly journals What you need to know about scoping reviews

Medwave ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (02) ◽  
pp. e8144-e8144
Author(s):  
Catalina Verdejo ◽  
Luis Tapia-Benavente ◽  
Bastián Schuller-Martínez ◽  
Laura Vergara-Merino ◽  
Manuel Vargas-Peirano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Clinical Epidemiology ◽  
Recent Model ◽  
Reporting Guideline ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Reproducible Method ◽  
Meta Analyses

The increasing amount of evidence has caused an increasing amount of literature reviews. There are different types of reviews —systematic reviews are the best known—, and every type of review has different purposes. The scoping review is a recent model that aims to answer broad questions and identify and expose the available evidence for a broader question, using a rigorous and reproducible method. In the last two decades, researchers have discussed the most appropriate method to carry out scoping reviews, and recently the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR) reporting guideline was published. This is the fifth article of a methodological collaborative series of narrative reviews about general topics on biostatistics and clinical epidemiology. This review aims to describe what scoping reviews are, identify their objectives, differentiate them from other types of reviews, and provide considerations on how to carry them out.

Perspective on Systematic Medical Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
Vol 211 ◽  
pp. 15-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jay S. Pepose ◽  
Gary N. Foulks ◽  
J. Daniel Nelson ◽  
Susan Erickson ◽  
Michael A. Lemp
Keyword(s):  
Medical Literature ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

Finding What Works

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas L. Sexton ◽  
Julie R. LaFollette
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Intervention ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Simple Task ◽  
Couple And Family Therapy ◽  
What Works ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Client Factors ◽  
Change Mechanisms ◽  
Meta Analyses

One of the critical challenges in relationship science is translating the “science” of relationship research into the “practice” of clinical intervention. One of the major issues in this challenge is determining when something “works” or, more specifically, identifying the central criteria from which to evaluate the findings of research and determine that an intervention is ready for clinical use. This seemingly simple task is complex given that relationship science research is based on the interaction among client factors, therapeutic influence, and specific change mechanisms that lead to measurable outcomes in couple and family therapy (CFT). As a result of the complexity, determining what works can no longer be accomplished by literature reviews or meta-analyses alone. Determining what works in a clinically useful way is an important task because if clinicians are to use research it must be evaluated on components that are both methodologically sound and clinically useful. We suggest that treatment guidelines have the potential to reliably distinguish varying levels of evidence and effectively disseminate this information to practitioners, serving to close the gap between practice and research in relationship science. Thus, treatment guidelines offer a “vehicle” to move research into practice.

scholarly journals Systematic Literature Reviews and Meta-Analyses

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Meike Ressing ◽  
Maria Blettner ◽  
Stefanie J. Klug
Keyword(s):  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing for Children and Adolescents With Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Systematic Narrative Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 270-283 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian G. Barron ◽  
Caitlin Bourgaize ◽  
Daniela Lempertz ◽  
Colleen Swinden ◽  
Susan Darker-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder ◽  
Children And Adolescents ◽  
Posttraumatic Stress ◽  
Eye Movement ◽  
Stress Disorder ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Ptsd Symptoms ◽  
Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Meta Analyses

There is currently a limited number of studies into the efficacy of eye movement desensitization reprocessing (EMDR) therapy with children and adolescents with posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The current study utilizes a systematic narrative review of methodologies and findings of previous literature reviews and meta-analyses as well as analyzing randomized control trials (RCTs) conducted from 2002 to 2018. Following initial scoping of the extent of studies, two systematic literature searches were conducted, firstly for literature reviews and secondly for recent RCTs. Nine databases were utilized. Eight reviews and seven RCTs were identified and analyzed for quality of methodology and outcome as measured by impact on PTSD symptoms. EMDR was found to be efficacious in reducing children's PTSD symptoms compared to waitlist conditions, with similar outcomes to cognitive behavior therapy (CBT). EMDR was effective with both single-event trauma as well as cumulative trauma such as sexual abuse. EMDR was equally effective with girls and boys as well as children from different cultures. EMDR achieved medium to large effect sizes. Reductions in PTSD were maintained at 2-, 3-, 6-, and 12-month follow-up. In conclusion, EMDR was consistently found to be an efficacious treatment for children with PTSD. Recommendations are made for future practice and research.

scholarly journals Does Basic Sanitation Prevent Diarrhea? Contextualizing Recent Intervention Trials through a Historical Lens

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 230
Author(s):  
Jesse D. Contreras ◽  
Joseph N.S. Eisenberg
Keyword(s):  
Historical Context ◽  
Relative Reduction ◽  
The Social ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Basic Sanitation ◽  
History Of ◽  
Intervention Trials ◽  
The One ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Significant Protective Effect

Three of four recent major sanitation intervention trials found no effect on diarrhea. These results conflicted with longstanding beliefs from decades of literature. To understand this discordance, we placed recent trials into the historical context that preceded them in two ways. First, we evaluated the history of published literature reviews on sanitation and diarrhea. Second, we conducted meta-analyses on studies from the most recent systematic review to uncover features that predict effectiveness. We found that 13 literature reviews dating to 1983 consistently estimated a significant protective effect of sanitation against diarrhea. However, these were marred by flawed studies and inappropriately averaged effects across widely heterogeneous interventions and contexts. Our meta-analyses highlight that the overall effect of sanitation on diarrhea was largely driven by sewerage and interventions that improved more than sanitation alone. There is no true overall effect of sanitation because variability between intervention types and implementation contexts is too complex to average. Ultimately, the null effects of recent latrine interventions are not surprising. Instead, the one trial that found a strong relative reduction in diarrhea is the historical outlier. The development of transformative sanitation interventions requires a better understanding of the social and environmental contexts that determine intervention effectiveness.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document