Nominate Clinical Questions for Systematic Reviews

Abstract Introduction: An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. Overviews of systematic reviews aim to address these challenges by summarising results of SRs and making sense of potentially discrepant SR results and conclusions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same topic. Since this tool pre-dates the advent of overviews, it has been inconsistently applied in this context. Our study aims to (a) replicate assessments done in a sample of overviews using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (b) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency, and comprehensiveness, and (c) describe how overviews address discordance in results across multiple SRs. Methods and Analysis: We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for overviews assessing discordance. This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database for overviews. We will include any overviews using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 overviews screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate Jadad assessments in overviews. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the overviews’ assessment. Ethics and Dissemination: No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance in SRs.

Download Full-text

Integrating the Framing of Clinical Questions via PICO into the Retrieval of Medical Literature for Systematic Reviews

Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Conference on Information and Knowledge Management - CIKM '17 ◽

10.1145/3132847.3133080 ◽

2017 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Harrisen Scells ◽

Guido Zuccon ◽

Bevan Koopman ◽

Anthony Deacon ◽

Leif Azzopardi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Medical Literature ◽

Clinical Questions

Download Full-text

Sensitivity and Predictive Value of 15 PubMed Search Strategies to Answer Clinical Questions Rated Against Full Systematic Reviews

Journal of Medical Internet Research ◽

10.2196/jmir.2021 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 14 (3) ◽

pp. e85 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

Thomas Agoritsas ◽

Arnaud Merglen ◽

Delphine S Courvoisier ◽

Christophe Combescure ◽

Nicolas Garin ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Predictive Value ◽

Search Strategies ◽

Pubmed Search ◽

Clinical Questions

Download Full-text

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same question: Protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

10.21203/rs.3.rs-931213/v2 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Sai Surabi Thirugnanasampanthar ◽

Salman Kanji ◽

Nicola Ferri ◽

Dawid Pieper ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Human Subjects ◽

Open Access Journal ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Bibliometric Study ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Social Media Platforms ◽

Clinical Questions ◽

Evidence Summaries

Abstract Introduction: An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (a) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (b) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency, and comprehensiveness, and (c) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs. Methods and Analysis: We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called Discordant Reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors’ Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors’ assessment. Ethics and Dissemination: No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs.

Download Full-text

Locating the Best Available Research

Clinician's Guide to Evidence-Based Practices ◽

10.1093/med:psych/9780190621933.003.0003 ◽

2016 ◽

pp. 29-48

Author(s):

John C. Norcross ◽

Thomas P. Hogan ◽

Gerald P. Koocher ◽

Lauren A. Maggio

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Information Sources ◽

Clinical Evidence ◽

Information Resources ◽

Background Information ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Wild Cards ◽

Clinical Questions

This chapter discusses the steps EBP clinicians should take in finding evidence that addresses their clinical questions: searching background information resources, which provide overviews of topics, and then moving to filtered information resources, which provide access to timesaving, synthesized information. To help clinicians navigate these resources, the chapter summarizes basic search concepts that are applicable across the resources, such as Boolean operators, truncation, wild cards, and limits. The chapter describes key background information sources, such as eMedicine, textbooks, and Wikipedia. It then discusses key filtered information sources, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, BMJ Clinical Evidence, and several evidence-based journals. The chapter provides tailored tips for optimal searching within each resource introduced.

Download Full-text

Hotspots in Psychology – 2020 Edition

Zeitschrift für Psychologie ◽

10.1027/2151-2604/a000398 ◽

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 ).

Download Full-text