scholarly journals Systematic review methods for the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 698S-704S ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie E Obbagy ◽  
Joanne M Spahn ◽  
Yat Ping Wong ◽  
Tricia L Psota ◽  
Maureen K Spill ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Nutrition Policy ◽  
Important Food ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Systematic Review Methods ◽  
Food And Nutrition ◽  
Pregnancy And Birth

ABSTRACTThe USDA's Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review (NESR) team specializes in conducting systematic reviews (SRs) to inform federal nutrition policy and programs. The NESR's dedicated staff collaborate with leading scientists to answer important food- and nutrition-related public health questions by objectively reviewing, evaluating, and synthesizing research using state-of-the-art methodology. NESR uses a rigorous, protocol-driven methodology that is designed to minimize bias; to ensure availability of SRs that are relevant, timely, and high quality; and to ensure transparency and reproducibility of findings. This article describes the methods used by NESR to conduct a series of SRs on diet and health in infants, toddlers, and women who are pregnant as part of the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project.

scholarly journals The Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months Project: a series of systematic reviews on diet and health

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 685S-697S ◽  
Author(s):  
Eve E Stoody ◽  
Joanne M Spahn ◽  
Kellie O Casavale
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dietary Intake ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Feeding Practices ◽  
The Body ◽  
Feeding Strategies ◽  
Public Health Importance ◽  
Review Team ◽  
Pregnancy And Birth

ABSTRACTNutrition exposures during the earliest stages of life are integral to growth and development and may continue to affect health through adulthood. The purpose of the Pregnancy and Birth to 24 Months (P/B-24) Project was to conduct a series of systematic reviews on diet and health for women who are pregnant and for infants and toddlers from birth to 24 mo of age. The P/B-24 Project was a joint initiative led by the USDA and the US Department of Health and Human Services. The USDA's Nutrition Evidence Systematic Review team, previously known as the Nutrition Evidence Library, carried out the series of systematic reviews in collaboration with programmatic and scientific experts. Systematic review questions were prioritized based on federal policy, program, or guidance needs, potential to support the development of healthy dietary intake, and public health importance. Systematic reviews were conducted on specific topics related to dietary intake before and during pregnancy, infant milk feeding practices, complementary feeding, flavor exposures, and infant/toddler feeding practices. Across the reviews, relationships were observed between P/B-24 diet exposures and a variety of outcomes of public health importance. Evidence showed links between dietary intake before and during pregnancy, during the period of human milk or infant formula feeding, and through introduction of complementary foods and beverages and health outcomes. Additionally, the reviews on flavor exposure and infant/toddler feeding practices highlight the importance of maternal diet during pregnancy and lactation and caregiver feeding strategies and practices. Systematic reviews are an important tool to inform our understanding of the body of evidence related to diet and health, and scientists can use the P/B-24 Project reviews to continue to advance research in these areas.

scholarly journals Determining the influence of intervention characteristics on implementation success requires reliable and valid measures: Results from a systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 263348952199419
Author(s):  
Cara C Lewis ◽  
Kayne Mettert ◽  
Aaron R Lyon
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Psychometric Properties ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Measures ◽  
Measure Development ◽  
Relative Advantage ◽  
Design Quality ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Evidence Strength

Background: Despite their inclusion in Rogers’ seminal diffusion of innovations theory, few implementation studies empirically evaluate the role of intervention characteristics. Now, with growing evidence on the role of adaptation in implementation, high-quality measures of characteristics such as adaptability, trialability, and complexity are needed. Only two systematic reviews of implementation measures captured those related to the intervention or innovation and their assessment of psychometric properties was limited. This manuscript reports on the results of eight systematic reviews of measures of intervention characteristics with nuanced data regarding a broad range of psychometric properties. Methods: The systematic review proceeded in three phases. Phase I, data collection, involved search string generation, title and abstract screening, full text review, construct assignment, and citation searches. Phase II, data extraction, involved coding psychometric information. Phase III, data analysis, involved two trained specialists independently rating each measure using PAPERS (Psychometric And Pragmatic Evidence Rating Scales). Results: Searches identified 16 measures or scales: zero for intervention source, one for evidence strength and quality, nine for relative advantage, five for adaptability, six for trialability, nine for complexity, and two for design quality and packaging. Information about internal consistency and norms was available for most measures, whereas information about other psychometric properties was most often not available. Ratings for psychometric properties fell in the range of “poor” to “good.” Conclusion: The results of this review confirm that few implementation scholars are examining the role of intervention characteristics in behavioral health studies. Significant work is needed to both develop new measures (e.g., for intervention source) and build psychometric evidence for existing measures in this forgotten domain. Plain Language Summary Intervention characteristics have long been perceived as critical factors that directly influence the rate of adopting an innovation. It remains unclear the extent to which intervention characteristics including relative advantage, complexity, trialability, intervention source, design quality and packaging, evidence strength and quality, adaptability, and cost impact implementation of evidence-based practices in behavioral health settings. To unpack the differential influence of these factors, high quality measures are needed. Systematic reviews can identify measures and synthesize the data regarding their quality to identify gaps in the field and inform measure development and testing efforts. Two previous reviews identified measures of intervention characteristics, but they did not provide information about the extent of the existing evidence nor did they evaluate the host of evidence available for identified measures. This manuscript summarizes the results of nine systematic reviews (i.e., one for each of the factors listed above) for which 16 unique measures or scales were identified. The nuanced findings will help direct measure development work in this forgotten domain.

scholarly journals Transforming the systematic review service: a team-based model to support the educational needs of researchers

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephanie Clare Roth
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Educational Needs ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Educational Services ◽  
Educational Service ◽  
Service Model ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Health Care Settings

To meet the current needs of researchers who perform systematic reviews in health care settings, libraries need to provide high-quality educational services for researchers as part of their systematic review services. A team of librarians with diverse skills is also important for ensuring the growth and sustainability of systematic review services. This commentary describes a new team-based systematic review service model that can transform systematic review services by providing a pathway for librarians to offer a comprehensive educational service for systematic review research in a variety of health sciences library settings.

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 New global guidelines on sedentary behaviour and health for adults: broadening the behavioural targets

2020 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paddy C. Dempsey ◽  
Stuart J. H. Biddle ◽  
Matthew P. Buman ◽  
Sebastien Chastin ◽  
Ulf Ekelund ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sedentary Behaviour ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cancer Mortality ◽  
Sedentary Time ◽  
Vigorous Physical Activity ◽  
Public Health Practice ◽  
World Health

Abstract Background In 2018, the World Health Organisation (WHO) commenced a program of work to update the 2010 Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health, for the first-time providing population-based guidelines on sedentary behaviour. This paper briefly summarizes and highlights the scientific evidence behind the new sedentary behaviour guidelines for all adults and discusses its strengths and limitations, including evidence gaps/research needs and potential implications for public health practice. Methods An overview of the scope and methods used to update the evidence is provided, along with quality assessment and grading methods for the eligible new systematic reviews. The literature search update was conducted for WHO by an external team and reviewers used the AMSTAR 2 (Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) tool for critical appraisal of the systematic reviews under consideration for inclusion. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) method was used to rate the certainty (i.e. very low to high) of the evidence. Results The updated systematic review identified 22 new reviews published from 2017 up to August 2019, 14 of which were incorporated into the final evidence profiles. Overall, there was moderate certainty evidence that higher amounts of sedentary behaviour increase the risk for all-cause, cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer mortality, as well as incidence of CVD, cancer, and type 2 diabetes. However, evidence was deemed insufficient at present to set quantified (time-based) recommendations for sedentary time. Moderate certainty evidence also showed that associations between sedentary behaviour and all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality vary by level of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA), which underpinned additional guidance around MVPA in the context of high sedentary time. Finally, there was insufficient or low-certainty systematic review evidence on the type or domain of sedentary behaviour, or the frequency and/or duration of bouts or breaks in sedentary behaviour, to make specific recommendations for the health outcomes examined. Conclusions The WHO 2020 guidelines are based on the latest evidence on sedentary behaviour and health, along with interactions between sedentary behaviour and MVPA, and support implementing public health programmes and policies aimed at increasing MVPA and limiting sedentary behaviour. Important evidence gaps and research opportunities are identified.

scholarly journals Artificial Intelligence-Aid Colonoscopy Vs. Conventional Colonoscopy for Polyp and Adenoma Detection: A Systematic Review of 7 Discordant Meta-Analyses

2022 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hui Pan ◽  
Mingyan Cai ◽  
Qi Liao ◽  
Yong Jiang ◽  
Yige Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Detection Rate ◽  
Conventional Colonoscopy ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Decision Algorithm ◽  
Adenoma Detection ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objectives: Multiple meta-analyses which investigated the comparative efficacy and safety of artificial intelligence (AI)-aid colonoscopy (AIC) vs. conventional colonoscopy (CC) in the detection of polyp and adenoma have been published. However, a definitive conclusion has not yet been generated. This systematic review selected from discordant meta-analyses to draw a definitive conclusion about whether AIC is better than CC for the detection of polyp and adenoma.Methods: We comprehensively searched potentially eligible literature in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane library, and China National Knowledgement Infrastructure (CNKI) databases from their inceptions until to April 2021. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument was used to assess the methodological quality. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist was used to assess the reporting quality. Two investigators independently used the Jadad decision algorithm to select high-quality meta-analyses which summarized the best available evidence.Results: Seven meta-analyses met our selection criteria finally. AMSTAR score ranged from 8 to 10, and PRISMA score ranged from 23 to 26. According to the Jadad decision algorithm, two high-quality meta-analyses were selected. These two meta-analyses suggested that AIC was superior to CC for colonoscopy outcomes, especially for polyp detection rate (PDR) and adenoma detection rate (ADR).Conclusion: Based on the best available evidence, we conclude that AIC should be preferentially selected for the route screening of colorectal lesions because it has potential value of increasing the polyp and adenoma detection. However, the continued improvement of AIC in differentiating the shape and pathology of colorectal lesions is needed.

scholarly journals Primer on US Food and Nutrition Policy and Public Health: Food Assistance

2019 ◽  
Vol 109 (7) ◽  
pp. 988-989 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly D. Brownell ◽  
D. Lee Miller ◽  
Marlene B. Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Nutrition Policy ◽  
Food Assistance ◽  
Health Food ◽  
Food And Nutrition

P14.71 An assessment of the reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2021 ◽  
Vol 23 (Supplement_2) ◽  
pp. ii51-ii52
Author(s):  
A M George ◽  
S Gupta ◽  
S M Keshwara ◽  
M A Mustafa ◽  
C S Gillespie ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Neurofibromatosis Type ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract BACKGROUND Systematic reviews and meta-analyses constitute the highest level of research evidence and for a disease with limited clinical trial activity, are often relied upon to help inform clinical practice. This review of reviews evaluates both the reporting & methodological quality of meningioma evidence syntheses. MATERIAL AND METHODS Potentially eligible meningioma reviews published between 1st January 1990 and 31st December 2020 were identified from eight electronic databases. Inclusion required the study to meet the Cochrane guideline definition of a systematic review or meta-analysis. Reviews concerning neurofibromatosis type 2, spinal and pediatric meningiomas were excluded. The reporting and methodological quality of articles were assessed against the following modified guidelines: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA), A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR2) and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) guidelines. RESULTS 117 systematic reviews were identified, 57 of which included meta-analysis (48.7%). The number of meningioma systematic reviews published each year has increased with 63 studies (53.9%) published between 01/2018 and 12/2020. A median of 17 studies (IQR 9–29) were included per review. Impact factor of journals publishing a systematic review with or without a meta-analysis was similar (median 2.3 vs 1.8, P=0.397). The mean PRISMA scores for systematic reviews with a meta-analysis was 21.11 (SD 4.1, 78% adherence) and without was 13.89 (SD 3.4, 63% adherence). Twenty-nine systematic reviews with meta-analysis (51%) and 11 without meta-analysis (18%) achieved greater than 80% adherence to PRISMA recommendations. Methodological quality assessment using AMSTAR2 revealed one study (0.9%) as high quality whilst 111 (94.8%) studies were graded as critically low. One hundred and two articles (87.2%) did not utilize a comprehensive search strategy as defined by the AMSTAR2 tool. Ninety-nine studies (84.6%) obtained a high level of concern for potential bias as per the ROBIS assessment. One hundred and eight articles (92.3%) failed to present information that a protocol had been established prior to study commencement and 76 articles (65.0%) did not conduct a risk of bias assessment. Across the three tools, domains relating to the establishment of a protocol prior to review commencement and conducting appropriate risk of bias assessments were frequently low scoring. CONCLUSION Overall reporting and methodological quality of meningioma systematic reviews was sub-optimal. Established critical appraisal tools and reporting guidelines should be utilized a priori to assist in producing high-quality systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Formulating policy activities to promote healthy and sustainable diets

2015 ◽  
Vol 18 (13) ◽  
pp. 2333-2340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark A Lawrence ◽  
Sharon Friel ◽  
Kate Wingrove ◽  
Sarah W James ◽  
Seona Candy
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Conceptual Framework ◽  
Food Systems ◽  
Food System ◽  
Nutrition Policy ◽  
Policy Formulation ◽  
Public Health Nutrition ◽  
Sustainable Diets ◽  
Food And Nutrition ◽  
Political Realities

AbstractObjectiveTo develop a policy formulation tool for strategically informing food and nutrition policy activities to promote healthy and sustainable diets (HSD).DesignA policy formulation tool consisting of two complementary components was developed. First, a conceptual framework of the environment–public health nutrition relationship was constructed to characterise and conceptualise the food system problem. Second, an ‘Orders of Food Systems Change’ schema drawing on systems dynamics thinking was developed to identify, assess and propose policy options to redesign food systems.SettingFood and nutrition policy activities to promote HSD have been politicised, fragmented and lacking a coherent conceptual and strategic focus to tackle complex food system challenges.ResultsThe tool’s conceptual framework component comprises three integrated dimensions: (i) a structure built around the environment and public health nutrition relationship that is mediated via the food system; (ii) internal mechanisms that operate through system dynamics; and (iii) external interactions that frame its nature and a scope within ecological parameters. The accompanying schema is structured around three orders of change distinguished by contrasting ideological perspectives on the type and extent of change needed to ‘solve’ the HSD problem.ConclusionsThe conceptual framework’s systems analysis of the environment–public health nutrition relationship sets out the food system challenges for HSD. The schema helps account for political realities in policy making and is a key link to operationalise the framework’s concepts to actions aimed at redesigning food systems. In combination they provide a policy formulation tool to strategically inform policy activities to redesign food systems and promote HSD.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document