Hotspots in Psychology – 2020 Edition

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Michael Bošnjak ◽  
Nadine Wedderhoff
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. This editorial gives a brief introduction to the six articles included in the fourth “Hotspots in Psychology” of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie. The format is devoted to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in research-active fields that have generated a considerable number of primary studies. The common denominator is the research synthesis nature of the included articles, and not a specific psychological topic or theme that all articles have to address. Moreover, methodological advances in research synthesis methods relevant for any subfield of psychology are being addressed. Comprehensive supplemental material to the articles can be found in PsychArchives ( https://www.psycharchives.org ).

scholarly journals Hotspots in Psychology – 2021 Edition

2021 ◽  
Vol 229 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Michael Bošnjak ◽  
Nadine Wedderhoff ◽  
Holger Steinmetz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
Science Philosophy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. This editorial briefly introduces the six articles included in the fifth “Hotspots in Psychology” of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie. The format is devoted to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in research-active fields that have generated a considerable number of primary studies. The common denominator of published papers is the application of research synthesis approaches and not a specific psychological topic or theme that all articles have to address. Moreover, methodological advances in research synthesis methods relevant to any subfield of psychology are being addressed. To foster the open science philosophy, all papers present comprehensive supplemental material via PsychArchives ( www.psycharchives.org ).

scholarly journals CogTale: An online platform for the evaluation, synthesis and dissemination of evidence from cognitive interventions studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julieta Sabates ◽  
Sylvie Belleville ◽  
Mary Castellani ◽  
Tzvi Dwolatsky ◽  
Benjamin M. Hampstead ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Cognitive Intervention ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Advanced Search ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are critical in health-related decision making, and are considered the gold standard in research synthesis methods. However, with new trials being regularly published and with the development of increasingly rigorous standards of data synthesis, systematic reviews often require much expertise and long periods of time to be completed. Automation of some of the steps of evidence synthesis productions is a promising improvement in the field, capable of reducing the time and costs associated with the process. This article describes the development and main characteristics of a novel online repository of cognitive intervention studies entitled Cognitive Treatments Article Library and Evaluation (CogTale). The platform is currently in a Beta Release phase, as it is still under development. However, it already contains over 70 studies, and the CogTale team is continuously coding and uploading new studies into the repository. Key features include advanced search options, the capability to generate meta-analyses, and an up-to-date display of relevant published studies.

scholarly journals CogTale: an online platform for the evaluation, synthesis, and dissemination of evidence from cognitive interventions studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Julieta Sabates ◽  
Sylvie Belleville ◽  
Mary Castellani ◽  
Tzvi Dwolatzky ◽  
Benjamin M. Hampstead ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Cognitive Intervention ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Advanced Search ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractSystematic reviews and meta-analyses are critical in health-related decision-making, and are considered the gold standard in research synthesis methods. However, with new trials being regularly published and with the development of increasingly rigorous standards of data synthesis, systematic reviews often require much expertise and long periods of time to be completed. Automation of some of the steps of evidence synthesis productions is a promising improvement in the field, capable of reducing the time and costs associated with the process.This article describes the development and main characteristics of a novel online repository of cognitive intervention studies entitled Cognitive Treatments Article Library and Evaluation (CogTale). The platform is currently in a Beta Release phase, as it is still under development. However, it already contains over 70 studies, and the CogTale team is continuously coding and uploading new studies into the repository. Key features include advanced search options, the capability to generate meta-analyses, and an up-to-date display of relevant published studies.

Developing, Implementing, and Applying Novel Techniques During Systematic Reviews of Primary Space Medicine Data

2021 ◽  
Vol 92 (8) ◽  
pp. 681-688
Author(s):  
Andrew Winnard ◽  
Nick Caplan ◽  
Claire Bruce-Martin ◽  
Patrick Swain ◽  
Rochelle Velho ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Space Medicine ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Primary Space

BACKGROUND: The Aerospace Medicine Systematic Review Group was set up in 2016 to facilitate high quality and transparent synthesis of primary data to enable evidence-based practice. The group identified many research methods specific to space medicine that need consideration for systematic review methods. The group has developed space medicine specific methods to address this and trialed usage of these methods across seven published systematic reviews. This paper outlines evolution of space medicine synthesis methods and discussion of their initial application.METHODS: Space medicine systematic review guidance has been developed for protocol planning, quantitative and qualitative synthesis, sourcing gray data, and assessing quality and transferability of space medicine human spaceflight simulation study environments.RESULTS: Decision algorithms for guidance and tool usage were created based on usage. Six reviews used quantitative methods in which no meta-analyses were possible due to lack of controlled trials or reporting issues. All reviews scored the quality and transferability of space simulation environments. One review was qualitative. Several research gaps were identified.CONCLUSION: Successful use of the developed methods demonstrates usability and initial validity. The current space medicine evidence base resulting in no meta-analyses being possible shows the need for standardized guidance on how to synthesize data in this field. It also provides evidence to call for increasing use of controlled trials, standardizing outcome measures, and improving minimum reporting standards. Space medicine is a unique field of medical research that requires specific systematic review methods.Winnard A, Caplan N, Bruce-Martin C, Swain P, Velho R, Meroni R, Wotring V, Damann V, Weber T, Evetts S, Laws J. Developing, implementing, and applying novel techniques during systematic reviews of primary space medicine data. Aerosp Med Hum Perform. 2021; 92(8):681688.

scholarly journals Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in psychiatric epidemiology: Systematic review

2012 ◽  
Vol 200 (6) ◽  
pp. 446-453 ◽  
Author(s):  
Traolach S. Brugha ◽  
Ruth Matthews ◽  
Zoe Morgan ◽  
Trevor Hill ◽  
Jordi Alonso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Epidemiological Studies ◽  
Vital Role ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Significant Heterogeneity ◽  
Many Sources ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundRelatively little is known of the use of systematic review and synthesis methods of non-randomised psychiatric epidemiological studies, which play a vital role in aetiological research, planning and policy-making.AimsTo evaluate reviews of psychiatric epidemiological studies of functional mental disorders that employed synthesis methods such as systematic review or meta-analysis, or other forms of quantitative review.MethodWe searched the literature to identify appropriate reviews published during the period 1996 to April 2009. Selected reviews were evaluated using published review guidelines.ResultsWe found 106 reviews in total, of which 38 (36%) did not mention method of data abstraction from primary studies at all. Many failed to mention study quality, publication bias, bias and confounding. In 73 studies that performed a meta-analysis, 58 (79%) tested for heterogeneity and of these, 47 found significant heterogeneity. Studies that detected heterogeneity made some allowance for this. A major obstacle facing reviewers is the wide variation between primary studies in the use of instruments to measure outcomes and in sampling methods used.ConclusionsMany deficiencies found in systematic reviews are potentially remediable, although synthesis of primary study findings in a field characterised by so many sources of heterogeneity will remain challenging.

scholarly journals PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: Common Questions on Tracking Records and the Flow Diagram

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Rethlefsen ◽  
Matthew James Page
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Original Version ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Sufficient Detail ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Systematic Review Process

PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S are newly released guidelines to help systematic review teams report their reviews clearly, transparently, and with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. PRISMA 2020, the updated version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, is complemented by PRISMA-S, an extension to PRISMA focusing on reporting the search components of systematic reviews. Several significant changes were implemented in PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S when compared with the original version of PRISMA in 2009, including the recommendation to report search strategies for all databases, registries, and websites that were searched. PRISMA-S also recommends reporting the number of records identified from each information source. One of the most challenging aspects of the new guidance from both documents has been changes to the flow diagram. In this article, we review some of the common questions about using the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and tracking records through the systematic review process.

scholarly journals CogTale: An Online Platform for the Evaluation, Synthesis and Dissemination of Evidence From Cognitive Interventions Studies

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julieta Sabates ◽  
Sylvie Belleville ◽  
Mary Castellani ◽  
Tzvi Dwolatsky ◽  
Benjamin M. Hampstead ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Intervention Studies ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Cognitive Intervention ◽  
Effect Sizes ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Quality Indices ◽  
Data Synthesis ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are critical in health-related decision making, and are considered the gold standard in research synthesis methods. However, with new trials being regularly published and with the development of increasingly rigorous standards of data synthesis, systematic reviews often require much expertise and long periods of time to be completed. Automation of some of the steps of evidence synthesis productions is a promising improvement in the field, capable of reducing the time and costs associated with the process.This article describes the development and main characteristics of a novel online repository of cognitive intervention studies entitled Cognitive Treatments Article Library and Evaluation (CogTale). The platform is currently in a Beta Release phase, as it is still under development. However, it already contains over 70 studies, and the CogTale team is continuously coding and uploading new studies into the repository. Key features include several automatically-calculated methodological quality indices and effect sizes, carrying out meta-analyses, and the generation of evidence reports including certainty ratings.

scholarly journals Tackling Research Inefficiency in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Illustrative Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danyal Zaman Khan ◽  
Muhammad Shuaib Khan ◽  
Mark RN Kotter ◽  
Benjamin Marshall Davies
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cervical Myelopathy ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

BACKGROUND Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is widely accepted as the most common cause of adult myelopathy worldwide. Despite this, there is no specific term or diagnostic criteria in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision and no Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) or an equivalent in common literature databases. This makes searching the literature and thus conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses imprecise and inefficient. Efficient research synthesis is integral to delivering evidence-based medicine and improving research efficiency. OBJECTIVE This study aimed to illustrate the difficulties encountered when attempting to carry out a comprehensive and accurate evidence search in the field of DCM by identifying the key sources of imprecision and quantifying their impact. METHODS To identify the key sources of imprecision and quantify their impact, an illustrative search strategy was developed using a validated DCM hedge combined with contemporary strategies used by authors in previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This strategy was applied to Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) databases looking for relevant DCM systematic reviews and meta-analyses published within the last 5 years. RESULTS The MEDLINE via PubMed search strategy returned 24,166 results, refined to 534 papers after the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 32.96% (176/534) results were about DCM, and 18.16% (97/534) of these were DCM systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Non-DCM results were organized into imprecision categories (spinal: 268/534, 50.2%; nonspinal: 84/534, 15.5%; and nonhuman: 8/534, 1.5%). The largest categories were spinal cord injury (75/534, 13.67%), spinal neoplasms (44/534, 8.24%), infectious diseases of the spine and central nervous system (18/534, 3.37%), and other spinal levels (ie, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral; 18/534, 3.37%). Counterintuitively, the use of human and adult PubMed filters was found to exclude a large number of relevant articles. Searching a second database (EMBASE) added an extra 12 DCM systematic reviews or meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS DCM search strategies face significant imprecision, principally because of overlapping and heterogenous search terms, and inaccurate article indexing. Notably, commonly employed MEDLINE filters, human and adult, reduced search sensitivity, whereas the related articles function and the use of a second database (EMBASE) improved it. Development of a MeSH labeling and a standardized DCM definition would allow comprehensive and specific indexing of DCM literature. This is required to support a more efficient research synthesis.

scholarly journals Meta-analysis: How to quantify and explain heterogeneity?

2020 ◽  
Vol 19 (7) ◽  
pp. 646-652
Author(s):  
Todd Ruppar
Keyword(s):  
Random Effects ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Allied Health ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Fixed Effect ◽  
Analysis Model ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses

The number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses submitted to nursing and allied health journals continues to grow. Well-conducted and reported syntheses of research are valuable to advancing science. One of the common critiques identified in these manuscripts involves how the authors addressed heterogeneity among the studies in their meta-analyses. Methodologically inappropriate approaches regarding heterogeneity introduce error and bias into analyses and may lead to incorrect findings and conclusions. This article will discuss some of the approaches to take as well as avoid when addressing heterogeneity in meta-analyses, including suggestions for how to choose a fixed-effect or random-effects meta-analysis model and steps to follow to address heterogeneity in meta-analysis results.

scholarly journals Tackling Research Inefficiency in Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy: Illustrative Review

10.2196/15922 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e15922 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danyal Zaman Khan ◽  
Muhammad Shuaib Khan ◽  
Mark RN Kotter ◽  
Benjamin Marshall Davies
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cervical Myelopathy ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
International Classification Of Diseases ◽  
Medical Subject Headings ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Degenerative Cervical Myelopathy

Background Degenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM) is widely accepted as the most common cause of adult myelopathy worldwide. Despite this, there is no specific term or diagnostic criteria in the International Classification of Diseases 11th Revision and no Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) or an equivalent in common literature databases. This makes searching the literature and thus conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses imprecise and inefficient. Efficient research synthesis is integral to delivering evidence-based medicine and improving research efficiency. Objective This study aimed to illustrate the difficulties encountered when attempting to carry out a comprehensive and accurate evidence search in the field of DCM by identifying the key sources of imprecision and quantifying their impact. Methods To identify the key sources of imprecision and quantify their impact, an illustrative search strategy was developed using a validated DCM hedge combined with contemporary strategies used by authors in previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This strategy was applied to Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE) and Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE) databases looking for relevant DCM systematic reviews and meta-analyses published within the last 5 years. Results The MEDLINE via PubMed search strategy returned 24,166 results, refined to 534 papers after the application of inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these, 32.96% (176/534) results were about DCM, and 18.16% (97/534) of these were DCM systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Non-DCM results were organized into imprecision categories (spinal: 268/534, 50.2%; nonspinal: 84/534, 15.5%; and nonhuman: 8/534, 1.5%). The largest categories were spinal cord injury (75/534, 13.67%), spinal neoplasms (44/534, 8.24%), infectious diseases of the spine and central nervous system (18/534, 3.37%), and other spinal levels (ie, thoracic, lumbar, and sacral; 18/534, 3.37%). Counterintuitively, the use of human and adult PubMed filters was found to exclude a large number of relevant articles. Searching a second database (EMBASE) added an extra 12 DCM systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Conclusions DCM search strategies face significant imprecision, principally because of overlapping and heterogenous search terms, and inaccurate article indexing. Notably, commonly employed MEDLINE filters, human and adult, reduced search sensitivity, whereas the related articles function and the use of a second database (EMBASE) improved it. Development of a MeSH labeling and a standardized DCM definition would allow comprehensive and specific indexing of DCM literature. This is required to support a more efficient research synthesis.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document