scholarly journals 2050

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 42-43
Author(s):  
Melissa L. Rethlefsen ◽  
Mellanye Lackey ◽  
Michelle Fiander ◽  
Mary McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
The Core ◽  
The University ◽  
Strategy Design

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To improve the quality of evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews and other comparative effectiveness reviews, at the University of Utah. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses are best when collaborative teams with expertise in multiple disciplines participate, including content experts, librarians and information specialists, systematic review methodologists, and statisticians. The Center for Clinical & Translational Science (CCTS), due to its interdisciplinary nature, connectivity to clinical experts, and existing Cores of methodologists, presented an opportune location for a Systematic Review Core. We designed the Systematic Review Core to focus on 2 primary aspects of evidence synthesis support: overall systematic review methodology guidance and in-depth information retrieval planning and execution. After establishing a conceptual partnership, a new position, Evidence Retrieval and Synthesis Librarian, was created to build capacity within the Core. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Close connections with the CCTS’s Population Health Research Foundation have led to better interdisciplinary coverage of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses produced by the University of Utah. We are able to partner with statisticians and clinical experts from formulating the question to completing the final manuscript. Hourly rates charged through a cost recovery model have enabled us to grow our staff able to work on the Core, as well as offset costs for major databases and resources these bibliographic data-heavy research methods require. After 1 year of existence, the Core is already at maximum capacity, with no sign of slowing. Projects have ranged from brief consultations to highly intense interactions for the duration of the research spectrum. We have also been added as key personnel to grants with systematic review components. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses are a labor-intense, interdisciplinary team effort that fit well within the scope of CTSA’s. They are a key component of the translation of science to practice, and can be used at all stages of the translational science spectrum. Quality of systematic reviews remains poor, particularly surrounding protocol development, sensitive search strategy design and reporting, and overall reporting. Librarians and information specialist involvement has been shown to positively correlate to the search strategy design and reporting aspects of systematic reviews, and librarians and information specialists increasingly act as systematic review methodologists. By including librarians and information specialists as part of the CTSA’s official Core structure, these systematic review methodologists are able to connect with statisticians, other methodologists, and clinical experts in a nexus of interdisciplinarity. At the University of Utah, the visibility and structure provided by the CCTS helps the Systematic Review Core with promotion, creating connections and opportunities for collaboration across the campus. This partnership has already led to increased uptake in services, and over time, we believe it will increase the quality of the science produced. CTSA’s have a natural partner with their health science library colleagues in translational science, as shown by this model.

Living systematic reviews: A novel mechanism for improving efficiency and quality of evidence synthesis in oncology.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (27_suppl) ◽  
pp. 241-241
Author(s):  
Irbaz Bin Riaz ◽  
Rabbia Siddiqi ◽  
Noureen Asghar ◽  
Elizabeth Jane Cathcart-Rake ◽  
Vitaly Herasevich ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Immune Checkpoint ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Evidence ◽  
Principle Investigator

241 Background: In a rapidly moving field, such as cancer immunotherapy, where immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) are used across 14 different tumor types, patients may receive suboptimal treatment or even be harmed if information on toxicity is not readily translated for use in clinical practice. Every single systematic review and meta-analysis which attempted to summarize toxicity of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) quickly became outdated. A living systematic review, which is defined as a systematic review that is continually updated to incorporate relevant new evidence as it becomes available, is necessary in this situation. Methods: The process of creating a living systematic review started with the creation of a comprehensive search designed by a librarian experienced in systematic reviews in collaboration with the study’s principle investigator. Search was constantly updated every 3 months and evidence is synthesized in a series of steps (microtasks) using a combination of human and augmented intelligence. A complete infrastructure is being developed and it includes automated cumulative meta-analysis and an online reporting platform which will constantly update information for clinicians and patients in a live manner. Results: We screened 6746 studies during Sep 2018-March 2019 and identified 6746 studies and we were able to successfully maintain up-to-date toxicity estimates for immune mediated adverse events over this period while maintaining the rigor of a conventional systematic review. Eventually, we will integrate the steps of LSR into one, user-friendly, semi-automated format which can independently provide accurate estimates and feed into and support a living guidelines platform through shared Application Programing Interface (APIs). Conclusions: LSRs are feasible, efficient, and when fully developed can reduce redundancy and waste in medical research, improve the quality of evidence, reduce human effort and support living and dynamic guidelines to facilitate truly informed shared decision making.

scholarly journals Systematic reviews and evidence synthesis: Resources beyond the health sciences

2018 ◽  
Vol 79 (5) ◽  
pp. 248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Megan Kocher ◽  
Amy Riegelman
Keyword(s):  
Social Sciences ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
University Of Minnesota ◽  
The Social ◽  
The University

Asystematic review is a type of review that “seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence,”1 including results published in grey literature. For decades, systematic reviews have been widely used to synthesize evidence in the health sciences. More recently, other disciplines, such as agriculture and the social sciences, have seen a rise in systematic reviews and related research methodologies. In response to this development, both Cornell University2 and the University of Minnesota Libraries3 have launched systematic review services that explicitly cater to non-health-sciences researchers at their institutions. Because it is recommended that librarians play a part on systematic review teams,4 there is a need for resources and skill development in this area.

scholarly journals Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111710
Author(s):  
Rebecca Abbott ◽  
Alison Bethel ◽  
Morwenna Rogers ◽  
Rebecca Whear ◽  
Noreen Orr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveThe academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.Design and settingA meta-research: systematic review of reviews.Information sourcesPubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.Study selection and data extractionAbstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.Risk of biasFor articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.Results2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.DiscussionThis meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.InterpretationFlaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as ‘systematic reviews’, many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in ‘real time’.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188822.

scholarly journals Librarians’ Participation in the Systematic Reviews Published by Iranian Researchers and Its Impact on the Quality of Reporting Search Strategy

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-84
Author(s):  
Rogheyeh Eskrootchi ◽  
Azita Shahraki Mohammadi ◽  
Sirous Panahi ◽  
Razieh Zahedi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Meaningful Relationship ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Objective – The validity of the results from systematic review studies depends largely on the implementation and the reporting of the search strategy. Using an experienced librarian can greatly enhance the quality of results. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between the librarian’s participation and the quality of reporting search strategy in systematic reviews published by Iranian researchers in medical fields. Methods – Three databases were searched to identify the systematic review studies conducted by Iranian researchers from 2008 to 2018. A total of 310 studies were selected using systematic random sampling, and the quality of their search strategy reports was reviewed by the Institute of Medicine checklist. A short questionnaire about the librarians’ participation in the search strategy of these studies was sent to the corresponding authors of the selected studies. A total of 229 questionnaires was returned. The data obtained from the questionnaire about the librarians’ participation in reporting search strategy in systematic review studies and also from the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. Results – The mean value of the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies was low. The librarians’ participation rate for these studies was 13.6%. No meaningful relationship was found between the librarians’ participation and the mean value of the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy of systematic review studies. However, an investigation of the relationship between each of the items in the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies and librarians’ participation as the corresponding author or a member of the research team showed a meaningful relationship in five items. Conclusion – The results showed that the quality of reporting the search strategies in systematic reviews was low and the librarians’ participation in designing and reporting the search strategy in systematic reviews was limited. The authors of the systematic review studies, as well as the journals’ editors and referees, need to pay more careful attention to reporting the search strategy exactly and comprehensively. Employing librarians in this area can have a major impact on this part of systematic review studies.

scholarly journals Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis with protocols in Diabetes Mellitus Type II: A systematic review

PLoS ONE ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (12) ◽  
pp. e0243091
Author(s):  
Daniel Christopher Rainkie ◽  
Zeinab Salman Abedini ◽  
Nada Nabil Abdelkader
Keyword(s):  
Diabetes Mellitus ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Pearson Correlation ◽  
Hypoglycemic Agents ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Completeness Of Reporting

Background Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses (SR/MAs) are strongly encouraged to work from a protocol to facilitate high quality, transparent methodology. The completeness of reporting of a protocol (PRISMA-P) and manuscript (PRISMA) is essential to the quality appraisal (AMSTAR-2) and appropriate use of SR/MAs in making treatment decisions. Objectives The objectives of this study were to describe the completeness of reporting and quality of SR/MAs, assess the correlations between PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2, and to identify reporting characteristics between similar items of PRISMA-P and PRISMA. Methods We performed a systematic review of Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus SR/MAs of hypoglycemic agents with publicly available protocols. Cochrane reviews, guidelines, and specific types of MA were excluded. Two reviewers independently, (i) searched PubMed and Embase between 1/1/2015 to 20/3/2019; (ii) identified protocols of included studies by searching the manuscript bibliography, supplementary material, PROSPERO, and Google; (iii) completed PRISMA-P, PRISMA, and AMSTAR-2 tools. Data analysis included descriptive statistics, Pearson correlation, and multivariable linear regression. Results Of 357 relevant SR/MAs, 51 had available protocols and were included. The average score for PRISMA-P was 15.8±3.3 (66%; maximum 24) and 25.2±1.1 (93%; maximum 27) for PRISMA. The quality of SR/MAs assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool identified an overall poor quality (63% critically low, 18% low, 8% moderate, 12% high). The correlation between the PRISMA-P and PRISMA was not significant (r = 0.264; p = 0.06). Correlation was significant between PRISMA-P and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.333; p = 0.02) and PRISMA and AMSTAR-2 (r = 0.555; p<0.01). Discrepancies in reporting were common between similar PRISMA-P and PRISMA items. Conclusion Adherence to protocol reporting guidance was poor while manuscript reporting was comprehensive. Protocol completeness is not associated with a completely reported manuscript. Independently, PRISMA-P and PRISMA scores were weakly associated with higher quality assessments but insufficient as a surrogate for quality. Critical areas for quality improvement include protocol description, investigating causes of heterogeneity, and the impact of risk of bias on the evidence synthesis.

scholarly journals Methodology for Evidence Synthesis and Development of Comprehensive Evidence-Based Guidelines for Interventional Techniques in Chronic Spinal Pain

2021 ◽  
Vol S1;24 (1;S1) ◽  
pp. S1-S26
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Interventional Techniques

BACKGROUND: The re-engineered definition of clinical guidelines in 2011 from the IOM (Institute of Medicine) states, “clinical practice guidelines are statements that include recommendations intended to optimize patient care that is informed by a systematic review of evidence and an assessment of the benefit and harms of alternative care options.” The revised definition distinguishes between the term “clinical practice guideline” and other forms of clinical guidance derived from widely disparate development processes, such as consensus statements, expert advice, and appropriate use criteria. OBJECTIVE: To assess the literature and develop methodology for evidence synthesis and development of comprehensive evidence-based guidelines for interventional techniques in chronic spinal pain. METHODS: A systematic review of the literature including methodology of guideline development encompassing GRADE approach for guidance on evidence synthesis with recommendations. RESULTS: Some of the many factors described in 2011 continue as of 2020 and impede the development of clinical practice guidelines. These impediments include biases due to a variety of conflicts and confluence of interest, inappropriate and poor methodological quality, poor writing and ambiguous presentation, projecting a view that these are not applicable to individual patients or too restrictive with the elimination of clinician autonomy, and overzealous and inappropriate recommendations, either positive, negative, or non-committal. Thus, ideally, a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts with true lack of bias and confluence of interest must develop guidelines based on a systematic review of the existing evidence. This manuscript describes evidence synthesis from observational studies, various types of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and, finally, methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews. The manuscript also describes various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of observational studies, diagnostic accuracy studies, RCTs, and systematic reviews. LIMITATIONS: Paucity of publications with appropriate evidence synthesis methodology in reference to interventional techniques. CONCLUSION: This review described comprehensive evidence synthesis derived from systematic reviews, including methodologic quality and bias measurement. The manuscript described various methods utilized in the assessment of the quality of the systematic reviews, RCTs, diagnostic accuracy studies, and observational studies. KEY WORDS: Evidence-based medicine (EBM), interventional pain management, evidence synthesis, methodological quality assessment, conflict of interest, confluence of interest, comparative effectiveness research (CER), clinical practice guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analysis

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 Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne M. Finucane ◽  
Hannah O’Donnell ◽  
Jean Lugton ◽  
Tilly Gibson-Watt ◽  
Connie Swenson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Palliative Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Psychological Symptoms ◽  
Digital Health ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Information Provision ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Meta Review

AbstractDigital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document