THE EFFECT OF ENGLISH-LANGUAGE RESTRICTION ON SYSTEMATIC REVIEW-BASED META-ANALYSES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF EMPIRICAL STUDIES

2012 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andra Morrison ◽  
Julie Polisena ◽  
Don Husereau ◽  
Kristen Moulton ◽  
Michelle Clark ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Conventional Medicine ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Systematic Bias ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Objectives:The English language is generally perceived to be the universal language of science. However, the exclusive reliance on English-language studies may not represent all of the evidence. Excluding languages other than English (LOE) may introduce a language bias and lead to erroneous conclusions.Study Design and Setting:We conducted a comprehensive literature search using bibliographic databases and grey literature sources. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they measured the effect of excluding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in LOE from systematic review-based meta-analyses (SR/MA) for one or more outcomes.Results:None of the included studies found major differences between summary treatment effects in English-language restricted meta-analyses and LOE-inclusive meta-analyses. Findings differed about the methodological and reporting quality of trials reported in LOE. The precision of pooled estimates improved with the inclusion of LOE trials.Conclusions:Overall, we found no evidence of a systematic bias from the use of language restrictions in systematic review-based meta-analyses in conventional medicine. Further research is needed to determine the impact of language restriction on systematic reviews in particular fields of medicine.

scholarly journals Double Burden of Malnutrition Among Migrants and Refugees in Developed Countries

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 1-13
Author(s):  
Blessing Akombi-Inyang ◽  
Md. Nazmul Huda ◽  
Judith Byaruhanga ◽  
Andre Renzaho
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Double Burden ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Double Burden Of Malnutrition ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The double burden of malnutrition (DBM) increases the risk of developing non-communicable diseases among migrant and refugee populations living in developed countries. This systematic review aims to examine the DBM among migrants and refugees in developed countries. It aims to appraise, synthesise, and summarise literature to create an evidence base that looks at multiple faces of DBM. Methods/Design: This protocol is informed by the standard Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) guidelines. A systematic review of peer-reviewed quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies on DBM among migrants and refugees in developed countries will be undertaken. The review will include only studies published in English. Eight bibliographic databases will be searched: Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, ProQuest, Scopus, PubMed, and web of science. Grey literature will also be searched. Studies that meet the inclusion criteria will be imported to Covidence. Screening for eligible studies will be conducted by two independent researchers. The quality of included studies will be appraised for risk of bias using validated tools. A narrative synthesis approach will be undertaken to report retrieved data. Discussion: The protocol provides insight into the scope and parameters of the systematic review to be conducted.

scholarly journals Prevalence of acute liver injury and hypertransaminemia in patients with COVID-19: a protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. e040517
Author(s):  
Gang Li ◽  
Yongxing Xu ◽  
Yi Tian Yang ◽  
Peng Fei Liu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Liver Injury ◽  
Acute Liver Injury ◽  
Epidemiological Data ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Language Restriction ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionCOVID-19 has spread rapidly in China and around the world. Published studies have revealed that some patients with COVID-19 had abnormal liver function in laboratory tests. However, the results were inconsistent and the analysis of epidemiological data stratified by the severity of COVID-19 was not available in previous meta-analyses. Furthermore, these meta-analyses were suspected of overestimating the incidence of liver injury in patients with COVID-19 because some studies considered transaminase elevation as liver injury, which might partially result from cardiac and muscle injury. This systematic review aims to enrol published literatures related to COVID-19 without language restriction, analyse the data based on the severity of the COVID-19 and explore the impact of varied definitions of liver injury on the incidence of liver injury.Methods and analysisWe have conducted a preliminary search on PubMed and Excerpta Medica Database on 13 April 2020, for the studies published after December 2019 on the prevalence of acute liver injury and hypertransaminemia in patients with COVID-19. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data and assess the risk of bias. We will estimate the pooled incidence of hypertransaminemia and acute liver injury in patients with COVID-19 by using the random-effects model. The I² test will be used to identify the extent of heterogeneity. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plot and performing the Begg’s and Egger’s test if adequate studies are available. We will perform a risk of bias assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute’s critical appraisal checklist.Ethics and disseminationSince this study will be based on the published data, it does not require ethical approval. The final results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020179462.

scholarly journals An investigation into the impact and implications of published papers from retracted research: systematic search of affected literature

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e031909 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alison Avenell ◽  
Fiona Stewart ◽  
Andrew Grey ◽  
Greg Gamble ◽  
Mark Bolland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Research Misconduct ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Potential Influence ◽  
Relevant Research ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

ObjectiveAnalyses of the impact of a body of clinical trial reports subject to research misconduct have been few. Our objective was to examine the impact on clinically relevant research of a group of researchers’ trial reports (‘affected trial reports’) affected by research misconduct, and whether identification of misconduct invoked a reappraisal.DesignIn 2016, we used five databases and search engines to identify ‘citing publications’, that is, guidelines, systematic and other reviews, and clinical trials citing any of 12 affected trial reports, published 1998–2011, eventually retracted for research misconduct. The affected trial reports were assessed more likely to have had impact because they had hip fracture outcomes and were in journals with impact factor >4. Two authors assessed whether findings of the citing publications would change if the affected trial reports were removed. In 2018, we searched for evidence that the citing publications had undertaken a reassessment as a result of the potential influence of the affected trial reports.ResultsBy 2016 the affected trial reports were cited in 1158 publications, including 68 systematic reviews, meta-analyses, narrative reviews, guidelines and clinical trials. We judged that 13 guidelines, systematic or other reviews would likely change their findings if the affected trial reports were removed, and in another eight it was unclear if findings would change. By 2018, only one of the 68 citing publications, a systematic review, appeared to have undertaken a reassessment, which led to a correction.ConclusionsWe found evidence that this group of affected trial reports distorted the evidence base. Correction of these distortions is slow, uncoordinated and inconsistent. Unless there is a rapid, systematic, coordinated approach by bibliographic databases, authors, journals and publishers to mitigate the impact of known cases of research misconduct, patients, other researchers and their funders may continue to be adversely affected.

scholarly journals Understanding loneliness: a systematic review of the impact of social prescribing initiatives on loneliness

2021 ◽  
pp. 175791392096704
Author(s):  
GY Reinhardt ◽  
D Vidovic ◽  
C Hammerton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Outpatient Services ◽  
Social Prescribing ◽  
Positive Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Aims: The aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the impact of social prescribing (SP) programmes on loneliness among participants and the population. Methods: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search EBSCOHost (CINAHL Complete, eBook Collection, E-Journals, MEDLINE with Full Text, Open Dissertations, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Web of Science Core Collection, and grey literature. We included studies measuring the effectiveness and impact of SP programmes in terms of loneliness. We excluded systematic reviews and studies without evaluations. Due to the absence of confidence intervals and the low number of studies, we conduct no meta-analysis. Results: From 4415 unique citations, nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies do not use uniform measures or randomised samples. All nine studies report positive individual impacts; three report reductions in general practitioner (GP), A&E, social worker, or inpatient/outpatient services; and one shows that belonging to a group reduces loneliness and healthcare usage. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review indicate that individuals and service providers view SP as a helpful tool to address loneliness. However, evidence variability and the small number of studies make it difficult to draw a conclusion on the extent of the impact and the pathways to achieving positive change. More research is needed into the impact of SP programmes on participants, populations, and communities in terms of loneliness, isolation, and connectedness, especially in light of the surge in SP activity as a key part of pandemic response.

scholarly journals The Effects of Gamification on Computerized Cognitive Training: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

10.2196/18644 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. e18644 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie F Vermeir ◽  
Melanie J White ◽  
Daniel Johnson ◽  
Geert Crombez ◽  
Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Training ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Computerized Cognitive Training ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Game Elements ◽  
The Impact

Background There has been a growing interest in the application of gamification (ie, the use of game elements) to computerized cognitive training. The introduction of targeted gamification features to such tasks may increase motivation and engagement as well as improve intervention effects. However, it is possible that game elements can also have adverse effects on cognitive training (eg, be a distraction), which can outweigh their potential motivational benefits. So far, little is known about the effectiveness of such applications. Objective This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of gamification on process outcomes (eg, motivation) and on changes in the training domain (eg, cognition), as well as to explore the role of potential moderators. Methods We searched PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Psychology, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Association for Computing Machinery, and a range of gray-area literature databases. The searches included papers published between 2008 and 2018. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. Results The systematic review identified 49 studies, of which 9 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the review indicated that research in this context is still developing and lacks well-controlled empirical studies. Gamification in cognitive training is applied to a large range of age groups and audiences and is mostly delivered at a research site through computers. Rewards and feedback continue to dominate the gamification landscape, whereas social-oriented features (eg, competition) are underused. The meta-analyses showed that gamified training tasks were more motivating/engaging (Hedges g=0.72) and more demanding/difficult (Hedges g=–0.52) than non- or less-gamified tasks, whereas no effects on the training domain were found. Furthermore, no variables moderated the impact of gamified training tasks. However, meta-analytic findings were limited due to a small number of studies. Conclusions Overall, this review provides an overview of the existing research in the domain and provides evidence for the effectiveness of gamification in improving motivation/engagement in the context of cognitive training. We discuss the shortcomings in the current literature and provide recommendations for future research.

scholarly journals What is a predatory journal? A scoping review

F1000Research ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
pp. 1001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly D. Cobey ◽  
Manoj M Lalu ◽  
Becky Skidmore ◽  
Nadera Ahmadzai ◽  
Agnes Grudniewicz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Article Processing Charges ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Predatory Journal ◽  
Epidemiological Characteristics

Background: There is no standardized definition of what a predatory journal is, nor have the characteristics of these journals been delineated or agreed upon. In order to study the phenomenon precisely a definition of predatory journals is needed. The objective of this scoping review is to summarize the literature on predatory journals, describe its epidemiological characteristics, and to extract empirical descriptions of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Methods: We searched five bibliographic databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase Classic + Embase, ERIC, and PsycINFO, and Web of Science on January 2nd, 2018. A related grey literature search was conducted March 27th, 2018. Eligible studies were those published in English after 2012 that discuss predatory journals. Titles and abstracts of records obtained were screened. We extracted epidemiological characteristics from all search records discussing predatory journals. Subsequently, we extracted statements from the empirical studies describing empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. These characteristics were then categorized and thematically grouped.   Results: 920 records were obtained from the search. 344 of these records met our inclusion criteria. The majority of these records took the form of commentaries, viewpoints, letters, or editorials (78.44%), and just 38 records were empirical studies that reported empirically derived characteristics of predatory journals. We extracted 109 unique characteristics from these 38 studies, which we subsequently thematically grouped into six categories: journal operations, article, editorial and peer review, communication, article processing charges, and dissemination, indexing and archiving, and five descriptors.    Conclusions: This work identified a corpus of potential characteristics of predatory journals. Limitations of the work include our restriction to English language articles, and the fact that the methodological quality of articles included in our extraction was not assessed. These results will be provided to attendees at a stakeholder meeting seeking to develop a standardized definition for what constitutes a predatory journal.

scholarly journals Situating the evidence for impact of outreach strategies: A systematic review for improving access to higher education

2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-54
Author(s):  
Vanessa Heaslip ◽  
Maggie Hutchings ◽  
Bethan Collins ◽  
Emma Crowley ◽  
Sue Eccles ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Higher Education ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Widening Participation ◽  
Structural Factors ◽  
Access To Higher Education ◽  
Structural Barriers ◽  
Published Evidence ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Efforts to widen participation into higher education (HE) are having an impact with increasing numbers of diverse students accessing HE. Outreach is a key strategy within widening participation (WP), yet there has been little peer reviewed, published evidence regarding how outreach is identified, situated and understood. This paper addresses this gap, presenting a systematic review of published research examining how the impact of WP outreach is identified and understood in UK research. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to frame the review and empirical studies focusing upon outreach (2005 – 15) were included. Papers excluded were focused on international, part-time students or those not focused upon WP outreach. Twenty-six papers were identified for inclusion and these were analysed thematically. The analysis identified themes of person-centred impact, raising aspirations, and social capital, addressing 'how and why' questions rather than the 'what works' question judged by the impact of outreach on student numbers. Doing so can enable improvements in the design of outreach activities addressing individual experiences alongside structural barriers. Ultimately, this analysis suggests there is insufficient systematic evidence regarding the impact of outreach on the underlying structural factors shaping access to higher education.

scholarly journals The Effects of Gamification on Computerized Cognitive Training: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie F Vermeir ◽  
Melanie J White ◽  
Daniel Johnson ◽  
Geert Crombez ◽  
Dimitri M L Van Ryckeghem
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Training ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Age Groups ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Computerized Cognitive Training ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Game Elements ◽  
The Impact

BACKGROUND There has been a growing interest in the application of gamification (ie, the use of game elements) to computerized cognitive training. The introduction of targeted gamification features to such tasks may increase motivation and engagement as well as improve intervention effects. However, it is possible that game elements can also have adverse effects on cognitive training (eg, be a distraction), which can outweigh their potential motivational benefits. So far, little is known about the effectiveness of such applications. OBJECTIVE This study aims to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to investigate the effect of gamification on process outcomes (eg, motivation) and on changes in the training domain (eg, cognition), as well as to explore the role of potential moderators. METHODS We searched PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Psychology, Web of Science, Scopus, PubMed, Science Direct, Excerpta Medica dataBASE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Xplore, Association for Computing Machinery, and a range of gray-area literature databases. The searches included papers published between 2008 and 2018. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. RESULTS The systematic review identified 49 studies, of which 9 randomized controlled trials were included in the meta-analysis. The results of the review indicated that research in this context is still developing and lacks well-controlled empirical studies. Gamification in cognitive training is applied to a large range of age groups and audiences and is mostly delivered at a research site through computers. Rewards and feedback continue to dominate the gamification landscape, whereas social-oriented features (eg, competition) are underused. The meta-analyses showed that gamified training tasks were more motivating/engaging (Hedges g=0.72) and more demanding/difficult (Hedges g=–0.52) than non- or less-gamified tasks, whereas no effects on the training domain were found. Furthermore, no variables moderated the impact of gamified training tasks. However, meta-analytic findings were limited due to a small number of studies. CONCLUSIONS Overall, this review provides an overview of the existing research in the domain and provides evidence for the effectiveness of gamification in improving motivation/engagement in the context of cognitive training. We discuss the shortcomings in the current literature and provide recommendations for future research.

scholarly journals The impact of disinvestment on alcohol and drug treatment delivery and outcomes: a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzie Roscoe ◽  
Jennifer Boyd ◽  
Penny Buykx ◽  
Lucy Gavens ◽  
Robert Pryce ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Service Delivery ◽  
Drug Treatment ◽  
Global Economy ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Public Health Services ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Alcohol And Drug Treatment

Abstract Background In the context of substantial financial disinvestment from alcohol and drug treatment services in England, our aim was to review the existing evidence of how such disinvestments have impacted service delivery, uptake, outcomes and broader health and social implications. Methods We conducted a systematic review of quantitative and qualitative evidence (PROSPERO CRD42020187295), searching bibliographic databases and grey literature. Given that an initial scoping search highlighted a scarcity of evidence specific to substance use treatment, evidence of disinvestment from publicly funded sexual health and smoking cessation services was also included. Data on disinvestment, political contexts and impacts were extracted, analysed, and synthesized thematically. Results We found 20 eligible papers varying in design and quality including 10 related to alcohol and drugs services, and 10 to broader public health services. The literature provides evidence of sustained disinvestment from alcohol and drug treatment in several countries and a concurrent decline in the quantity and quality of treatment provision, but there was a lack of methodologically rigorous studies investigating the impact of disinvestment. Conclusions This review identified a paucity of scientific evidence quantifying the impacts of disinvestment on alcohol and drug treatment service delivery and outcomes. As the global economy faces new challenges, a stronger evidence base would enable informed policy decisions that consider the likely public health impacts of continued disinvestment.

Does Nasal Surgery Affect Voice Outcomes? A Systematic Review with Meta-Analyses

2020 ◽  
Vol 129 (12) ◽  
pp. 1174-1185
Author(s):  
Christopher C Xiao ◽  
Friederike S. Luetzenberg ◽  
Nancy Jiang ◽  
Jonathan Liang
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Voice Quality ◽  
Original Data ◽  
Sinus Surgery ◽  
Nasal Surgery ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Objectives: Changes in airflow dynamics after nasal surgery may have implications on voice quality. Multiple studies have evaluated the impact of nasal surgery on voice using heterogeneous outcome measures. We aim to systematically review the impact of nasal surgery on voice quality. Methods: Our study design was a systematic review with meta-analyses. A literature search of PubMed, Ovid, Cochrane from 1997 to 2017 was performed. Inclusion criteria included English language studies containing original data on nasal surgery and voice. Two investigators independently reviewed all manuscripts and performed a comprehensive quality assessment. Meta-analysis was completed on quantitative voice measurements. Results: Of 463 identified, 19 studies with 692 patients fulfilled eligibility. Nasal surgeries performed included endoscopic sinus surgery (11/20), septoplasty (11/20), rhinoplasty (2/20), and turbinate reduction (2/20). Voice outcomes measured included nasalance (8/20), fundamental frequency (11/20), jitter (10/20), shimmer (10/20), harmonic to noise ratio (HRN) (8/20), formants (5/20), and voice handicap index (VHI) (4/20). Voice examinations were assessed preoperatively and 1 to 30 months postoperatively. Meta-analysis revealed statistically significant changes in nasalance, ( P < .01) 1 month postoperatively; there was no significant difference in nasalance at 6 months postoperatively. All other variables analyzed revealed no statistically significant differences. Five of nine studies showed majority of patients did not notice subjective change in voice after surgery, but with high heterogeneity of measurements. Conclusions: There may be a short-term increase in nasalance that resolves at longer follow-up, but there seem to be no other objective changes in voice. There may be subjective changes after surgery, but require further study to evaluate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document