scholarly journals Declining Quality of Systematic Reviews in Orthopaedic Sports Medicine: An Updated Systematic Review

2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Donghoon Lee ◽  
Ryan Paul ◽  
Adam Lencer ◽  
Fotios P. Tjoumakaris ◽  
Kevin B. Freedman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Sports Medicine

scholarly journals Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Evaluating measures of quality of life in adult scoliosis: a protocol for a systematic review and narrative synthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Archer ◽  
Charles Baird ◽  
Adrian Gardner ◽  
Alison B. Rushton ◽  
Nicola R. Heneghan
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Adult Scoliosis ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Narrative Synthesis

Abstract Background Adult scoliosis represents a distinct subgroup of scoliosis patients for whom the diagnosis can have a large impact on their health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Therefore, HR-QOL patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential to assess disease progression and the impact of interventions. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the measurement properties of HR-QOL PROMs in adult scoliosis patients. Methods We will conduct a literature search, from their inception onwards, of multiple electronic databases including AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO and PubMed. The searches will be performed in two stages. For both stages of the search, participants will be aged 18 and over with a diagnosis of scoliosis. The primary outcome of interest in the stage one searches will be studies which use PROMs to investigate HR-QOL as defined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy, the secondary outcome will be to assess the frequency of use of the various PROMs. In stage two, the primary outcome of interest will be studies which assess the measurement properties of the HR-QOL PROMs identified in stage one. No specific measurement property will be given priority. No planned secondary outcomes have been identified but will be reported if discovered. In stage one, the only restriction on study design will be the exclusion of systematic reviews. In Stage two the only restriction on study design will be the exclusion of full-text articles not available in the English language. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study methodological quality (or risk of bias) will be appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The overall strength of the body of evidence will then be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A narrative synthesis will be provided with information presented in the main text and tables to summarise and explain the characteristics and findings of the included studies. The narrative synthesis will explore the evidence for currently used PROMs in adult scoliosis patients and any areas that require further study. Discussion The review will help clinicians and researchers identify a HR-QOL PROM for use in patients with adult scoliosis. Findings from the review will be published and disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. Systematic review registration This systematic review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), reference number: CRD42020219437

Can Exergaming Promote Physical Fitness and Physical Activity?

Gamification ◽  
2015 ◽  
pp. 2022-2039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuomas Kari
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Fitness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Significant Health

This systematic review of systematic reviews evaluates the effectiveness of exergaming on physical fitness and physical activity. A systematic literature search was conducted on 10 databases, and 1040 articles were identified. Sixty-eight articles were found potentially relevant and were selected for closer screening. Cross-referencing was conducted to find other potentially relevant articles. The quality of all relevant articles was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool. After all the duplicates were removed and inclusion, exclusion, and quality criteria were implemented, six articles remained for review. The results indicate that exergaming is generally enjoyed and can evoke some benefits for physical fitness and physical activity, but the current evidence does not support the ability of exergaming to increase physical fitness or physical activity levels sufficiently for significant health benefits. This systematic review also revealed several gaps in previous research. Additional high-quality research and systematic reviews concerning exergaming are needed.

Promoting Physical Activity and Fitness with Exergames

2016 ◽  
pp. 225-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuomas Kari
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Fitness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Significant Health

This updated systematic review of systematic reviews evaluates the effectiveness of exergaming on physical fitness and physical activity. A systematic literature search was conducted on 10 databases, first in 2014 and then repeated in 2016. In total, 1040 and 287 articles were identified. 68 and 31 articles were found potentially relevant and selected for closer screening. The quality of all relevant articles was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool. After the duplicates were removed and inclusion, exclusion, and quality criteria were implemented, six and three articles remained for review. The results indicate that exergaming is generally enjoyed and can evoke some benefits for physical fitness and physical activity, but the current evidence does not support the ability of exergaming to increase physical fitness or physical activity levels sufficiently for significant health benefits. This systematic review also revealed gaps in previous research. Additional high-quality research and systematic reviews concerning exergaming are needed.

scholarly journals A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HEPATITIS VIRUS REVIEW STUDIES: A CASE OF HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION ANALYSIS

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 114
Author(s):  
Phuong Hong Le ◽  
Quang Vinh Tran ◽  
Trung Quang Vo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Hepatitis Virus ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Publication Period

Objective: Systematic reviews of economic analysis are necessary for assessing reports and making a decision. A systematic review of systematic reviews is mean of summarizing the current evidence across specialties of the same or very similar intervention, to provide a synthesis treatment effect. The aim of this study was to explore and to assess the quality of systematic reviews conducted hepatitis economic evaluation.Methods: This study was designed as a systematic review following the AMSTAR guideline through Medline, Cochrane, and Science Direct databases. It was scoped in publication period of 2001 and 2016 in international journals. The quality assessment of the included studies was based on AMSTAR checklist. Two authors did the appreciation independently and all the different results were solved by discussion to give the conclusion.Results: 851 publications found, only 25 studies of those met the inclusion criteria. These studies consisted of 5 studies for vaccination and 20 for non-vaccination. There were only 16% (n=4) based on PRISMA guideline; and twenty-one studies (64%) were not showing about the method of the systematic review or not based on any guideline. Only three articles has published in 2016 with a high standard.Conclusion: According to the results of the appraisal AMSTAR checklist, this review shows clearly the current situation and an urgent need for an increase of quality of hepatitis virus review studies based on health economic evaluation.

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

2020 ◽  
pp. 80-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mercy Mlay Komba ◽  
Edda Tandi Lwoga
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Knowledge Gaps ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Current State

The aim of this chapter is to assess the current state of application of systematic reviews (SRs) in library and information science (LIS) field and determine how information scientists can advance the SRs as a methodology. The literature shows that there is an increasing number of SRs in LIS although there are still knowledge gaps about the use of SRs as a methodology. The quality of reporting in primary studies in LIS is still poor, and hence, it becomes difficult to appraise the value of the study undertaken. In order to advance the use of SRs in LIS domain, it is important to introduce SRs in LIS education curricular, integrate SRs as part of the continuing scientist development programmes (CPD), use automated SR software to minimize workload, introduce SRs a formal role and service in the libraries, collaborate with research teams as co-authors to conduct SRs not only in the topics defined by research teams, but also in LIS topics, and create SR databases and tools in LIS.

Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A.T. Ghogomu ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
Tamara Rader ◽  
Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Previous Method ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

PP109 Use Of Speech Recognition In Medical Reports: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 107-107
Author(s):  
Thomas Poder ◽  
Véronique Déry ◽  
Jean-Francois Fisette
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Medical Doctor ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
Medical Reports ◽  
End Use

Introduction:Speech recognition is increasingly used in medical reporting. The aim of this article is to identify in the literature the advantages and weaknesses of this technology, as well as barriers and facilitators to its implementation.Methods:A systematic review of systematic reviews has been conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Center for Reviews and Dissemination up to August 2017. The grey literature has also been consulted. The quality of systematic reviews has been assessed with the AMSTAR checklist. Inclusion criteria were to use speech recognition for medical reporting (front or back-end). A Survey has also been conducted in Quebec, Canada, to identify the dissemination of this technology in this province, as well as the factors of success or failure in its implementation.Results:Five systematic reviews were identified. These reviews indicated a high level of heterogeneity across studies. The quality of the studies reported was generally poor. Speech recognition is not as accurate as human transcription but can dramatically reduce the turnaround times for reporting. In front-end use, medical doctors need to spend more time for dictation and correction than with human transcription. With speech recognition, major errors can be up to three times more frequent. In back-end use, a potential increase in the productivity of transcriptionist is noted.Conclusions:Speech recognition offers some advantages for medical reporting, the main one being a reduction in turnaround times. However, these advantages are challenged by an increased burden for medical doctor and risks of additional errors in medical reports. It is also hard to identify for which medical specialties and which clinical activities the use of speech recognition will be the most beneficial.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document