Evaluation of text mining to reduce screening workload for injury-focused systematic reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melita J Giummarra ◽  
Georgina Lau ◽  
Belinda J Gabbe
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Text Mining ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
High Specificity ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Low Sensitivity ◽  
Injury Research

IntroductionText mining to support screening in large-scale systematic reviews has been recommended; however, their suitability for reviews in injury research is not known. We examined the performance of text mining in supporting the second reviewer in a systematic review examining associations between fault attribution and health and work-related outcomes after transport injury.MethodsCitations were independently screened in Abstrackr in full (reviewer 1; 10 559 citations), and until no more citations were predicted to be relevant (reviewer 2; 1809 citations, 17.1%). All potentially relevant full-text articles were assessed by reviewer 1 (555 articles). Reviewer 2 used text mining (Wordstat, QDA Miner) to reduce assessment to full-text articles containing ≥1 fault-related exposure term (367 articles, 66.1%).ResultsAbstrackr offered excellent workload savings: 82.7% of citations did not require screening by reviewer 2, and total screening time was reduced by 36.6% compared with traditional dual screening of all citations. Abstrackr predictions had high specificity (83.7%), and low false negatives (0.3%), but overestimated citation relevance, probably due to the complexity of the review with multiple outcomes and high imbalance of relevant to irrelevant records, giving low sensitivity (29.7%) and precision (14.5%). Text mining of full-text articles reduced the number needing to be screened by 33.9%, and reduced total full-text screening time by 38.7% compared with traditional dual screening.ConclusionsOverall, text mining offered important benefits to systematic review workflow, but should not replace full screening by one reviewer, especially for complex reviews examining multiple health or injury outcomes.Trial registration numberCRD42018084123.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

scholarly journals Assisting With Systematic Reviews Can Be Associated With Job-Related Burnout in Information Professionals

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-183
Author(s):  
Kimberly MacKenzie
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Demographic Groups ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Information Professionals

Demetres, M. R., Wright, D. N., & DeRosa, A. P. (2020). Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: An exploratory study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.665 Abstract Objective – This study explored reports of burnout among librarians who assist with systematic review preparation. Design – Electronic survey (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory). Setting – The survey was advertised via three email discussion lists based in the United States of America. Subjects – The study surveyed 198 librarians and information specialists who support the systematic review process. Of these, 166 completed the personal burnout scale, 159 completed the work burnout scale, and 151 completed the client burnout scale. Methods – The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) is a validated survey that includes three separate scales: personal burnout, work-related burnout, and client-related burnout. The end of the survey addressed demographics, including questions on the respondents’ involvement with systematic reviews. Survey questions use a 0 to 100 rating scale, with 0 indicating Never/To a Low Degree and 100 indicating Always/To a High Degree. The researchers shared the survey to the email discussion lists MEDLIB-L and DOCLINE and advertised it on the Medical Library Association (MLA) News. Survey answers were collected using Qualtrics Survey Software. Once emailed, the survey remained open for one month. Data was coded in Excel and analysis included scoring following the CBI metrics, as well as TukeyHSD and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine differences in demographic groups. Main Results – Reported burnout levels were significantly lower for those who spend more than 80% of their time helping with systematic reviews compared to those who spend less than 10%. The consistent use of a systematic review support tool was also associated with significantly lower burnout levels. Other comparisons were not significant. The average overall response score for personal burnout was 48.6. The average score for work-related burnout was 46.4 and the average score for client-related burnout was 32.5. Reference librarians reported the highest average total burnout scores (47.1), while research librarians had the lowest (37.7). Conclusion – Consistency, either in time spent dedicated to systematic reviews or in the use of a support tool, was associated with lower levels of burnout among librarians and information specialists. The authors suggest that these results could inform ways of improving burnout among those assisting with systematic reviews.

scholarly journals PaperBLAST: Text-mining papers for information about homologs

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morgan N. Price ◽  
Adam P. Arkin
Keyword(s):  
Text Mining ◽  
Genome Sequencing ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Protein Sequences ◽  
Protein Coding ◽  
Link Protein ◽  
Protein Coding Genes ◽  
Link Type

AbstractLarge-scale genome sequencing has identified millions of protein-coding genes whose function is unknown. Many of these proteins are similar to characterized proteins from other organisms, but much of this information is missing from annotation databases and is hidden in the scientific literature. To make this information accessible, PaperBLAST uses EuropePMC to search the full text of scientific articles for references to genes. PaperBLAST also takes advantage of curated resources that link protein sequences to scientific articles (Swiss-Prot, GeneRIF, and EcoCyc). PaperBLAST’s database includes over 700,000 scientific articles that mention over 400,000 different proteins. Given a protein of interest, PaperBLAST quickly finds similar proteins that are discussed in the literature and presents snippets of text from relevant articles or from the curators. PaperBLAST is available at http://papers.genomics.lbl.gov/.

scholarly journals Necessity of dural tenting sutures in modern neurosurgery: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e027904 ◽  
Author(s):  
Łukasz Przepiórka ◽  
Przemysław Kunert ◽  
Jarosław Żyłkowski ◽  
Jan Fortuniak ◽  
Patrycja Larysz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Potential Space ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
The Past ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Ethical Committee Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol

IntroductionThe ongoing need for dural tenting sutures in a contemporary neurosurgical practice has been questioned in the literature for over two decades. In the past, these sutures were supposed to prevent blood collecting in the potential space between the skull and the dura by elevating the latter. Theoretically, with modern haemostasis and proper postoperative care, this technique should not be necessary and the surgery time can be shortened. Unfortunately, there is no evidence-based proof to either support or reject this hypothesis.Methods and analysisThe systematic review will be performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement and The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Eight electronic databases of peer-reviewed journals will be searched, as well as other sources. Eligible articles will be assessed against inclusion criteria. The intervention is not tenting the dura and this will be compared with the usual dural tenting sutures. Where possible, ‘summary of findings’ tables will be generated.Ethics and disseminationEthical committee approval is not required for a systematic review protocol. Findings will be presented at international neurosurgical conferences and published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018097089.

scholarly journals How defensive medicine is defined and understood in European medical literature: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e034300
Author(s):  
Nathalie Baungaard ◽  
Pia Skovvang ◽  
Elisabeth Assing Hvidt ◽  
Helle Gerbild ◽  
Merethe Kirstine Andersen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Medical Research ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Defensive Medicine ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
The Us ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionThe term defensive medicine, referring to actions motivated primarily by litigious concerns, originates from the USA and has been used in medical research literature since the late 1960s. Differences in medical legal systems between the US and most European countries with no tort legislation raise the question whether the US definition of defensive medicine holds true in Europe.AimTo present the protocol of a systematic review investigating variations in definitions and understandings of the term ‘defensive medicine’ in European research articles.Methods and analysisIn concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, a systematic review of all medical research literature that investigate defensive medicine will be performed by two independent reviewers. The databases PubMed, Embase and Cochrane will be systematically searched on the basis of predetermined criteria. Data from all included European studies will systematically be extracted including the studies’ definitions and understandings of defensive medicine, especially the motives for doing medical actions that the study regards as ‘defensive’.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics clearance is required as no primary data will be collected. The results of the systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed, international journal.PROSPERO registration numberThis review has been submitted to International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) and is awaiting registration.

scholarly journals Elaborating Models of eHealth Governance: Qualitative Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Granstrom Ekeland ◽  
Line Helen Linstad
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Policy ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Policy Goals ◽  
Qualitative Systematic Review ◽  
Pubmed Database

BACKGROUND Large-scale national eHealth policy programs have gained attention not only for benefits but also for several unintended consequences and failed expectations. Given the complex and mixed accounts of the results, questions have been raised on how large-scale digitalization programs are governed to reach health policy goals of quality improvement and equal access along with necessary digital transformations. In this qualitative systematic review, we investigate the following question: How is governance implemented and considered in the studies included in the qualitative review? OBJECTIVE The aim of this study is to arrive at informed and recognizable conceptualizations and considerations of models of governance connected to eHealth, as presented and discussed in the scientific literature. In turn, we hope our results will help inform the discussion of how to govern such processes to obtain collectively negotiated objectives. METHODS A qualitative systematic review is a method for integrating or comparing with the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for “themes” or “constructs” that lie in or across individual qualitative studies. This type of review produces a narrative synthesis with thematic analysis and includes interpretive conceptual models. The goal is an interpretation and broadens the understanding of a particular phenomenon. We searched the PubMed database using predefined search terms and selected papers published in 2010. We specified the criteria for selection and quality assessment. RESULTS The search returned 220 papers. We selected 44 abstracts for full-text reading, and 11 papers were included for full-text synthesis. On the basis of the 11 papers, we constructed four governance models to categorize and conceptualize the findings. The models are political governance, normally depicting top-down processes; medical governance, which normally depicts bottom-up processes; the internet and global model, emphasizing international business strategies coupled with the internet; self-governance, which builds upon the development of the internet and Internet of Things, which has paved the way for personal governance and communication of one’s own health data. CONCLUSIONS Collective negotiations between the nation-state and global policy actors, medical and self-governance actors, and global business and industry actors are essential. Technological affordances represent both positive and negative opportunities concerning the realization of health policy goals, and future studies should scrutinize this dynamic.

scholarly journals Educational roles as a continuum of mentoring’s role in medicine – A systematic review and thematic analysis of educational studies from 2000 to 2018

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lalit Krishna ◽  
Yaazhini Renganathan ◽  
Kuang Teck Tay ◽  
Benjamin Jia Xing Tan ◽  
Jia Yan Chong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Current Literature ◽  
Thematic Analysis ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Training Programs ◽  
Mentor Training ◽  
Role Modelling ◽  
Staged Approach ◽  
Educational Studies

Abstract Introduction: Mentoring studies have gone through great lengths to differentiate mentoring from teaching, tutoring, role modelling, coaching and supervision in efforts to better understand mentoring processes. This review seeks to evaluate the notion that teaching, tutoring, role modelling, coaching and supervision may in fact be part of the mentoring process. To evaluate this theory, this review scrutinizes current literature on teaching, tutoring, role modelling, coaching and supervision to evaluate their commonalities with prevailing concepts of novice mentoring. Methods: A three staged approach is adopted to evaluate this premise. Stage one involves four systematic reviews into teaching, tutoring, role modelling, coaching and supervision published between 1st January 2000 and 31st December 2018. Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach to thematic analysis was used to identify key elements within these approaches and facilitate comparisons between them. Stage two will provide an updated view of novice mentoring to contextualize the discussion. Stage three infuses mentoring into the findings delineated in stage one. Results: 17499 citations were reviewed, 235 full-text articles were reviewed, and 104 articles were thematically analysed. Four themes were identified – characteristics, processes, nature of relationship, and problems faced in each of the four educational roles. Discussion: Role modelling, teaching and tutoring, coaching and supervision lie within a mentoring spectrum of increasingly structured interactions assisted by assessments, feedback and personalised support that culminate with a mentoring approach. Still requiring validation these findings necessitate a reconceptualization of mentoring and changes to mentor training programs and how mentoring is assessed and supported.

scholarly journals Borrowing trouble? The impact of a systematic review service on interlibrary loan borrowing in an academic health sciences library

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christy Jarvis ◽  
Joan Marcotte Gregory ◽  
Alison Mortensen-Hayes ◽  
Mary McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Financial Impact ◽  
Interlibrary Loan ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Academic Health ◽  
Sample Data ◽  
The Impact

Background: With the mandate to review all available literature in the study’s inclusion parameters, systematic review projects are likely to require full-text access to a significant number of articles that are not available in a library’s collection, thereby necessitating ordering content via interlibrary loan (ILL). The aim of this study is to understand what effect a systematic review service has on the copyright royalty fees accompanying ILL requests at an academic health sciences library.Case Presentation: The library created a custom report using ILLiad data to look specifically at 2018 ILL borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews. This subset of borrowing activity was then analyzed to determine its impact on the library’s copyright royalty expenditures for the year. In 2018, copyright eligible borrowing requests that were known to be part of systematic reviews represented only approximately 5% of total filled requests that involved copyright eligible borrowing. However, these systematic review requests directly or indirectly caused approximately 10% of all the Spencer S. Eccles Library copyright royalty expenditures for 2018 requests.Conclusion: Based on the sample data set, the library’s copyright royalty expenditures did increase, but the overall financial impact was modest.

scholarly journals A protocol and novel tool for systematically reviewing the effects of mindful walking on mental and cardiovascular health

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (10) ◽  
pp. e0258424
Author(s):  
Dustin W. Davis ◽  
Bryson Carrier ◽  
Brenna Barrios ◽  
Kyle Cruz ◽  
James W. Navalta
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cardiovascular Health ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Meta Analyses

To our knowledge, no published systematic review has described the effects of mindful walking on mental and cardiovascular health. We have aimed to fill this gap by first establishing our systematic review protocol. Our protocol was adapted from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and is registered in PROSPERO (Registration Number: CRD42021241180). The protocol is described step-by-step in this paper, which we wrote to achieve three objectives: to adhere to the best practices stated in the PRISMA guidelines, to ensure procedural transparency, and to enable readers to co-opt our protocol for future systematic reviews on mindful walking and related topics. To achieve our third objective, we provide and explain a novel tool we created to track the sources we will find and screen for our review. Ultimately, the protocol and novel tool will lead to the first published systematic review about mindful walking and will also facilitate future systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Boden ◽  
Marie T. Ascher ◽  
Jonathan D. Eldredge
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Program Evaluation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Professional Growth ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Short Answer ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Review Team ◽  
Short Answer Questions

Objectives: The Medical Library Association (MLA) Systematic Review Project aims to conduct systematic reviews to identify the state of knowledge and research gaps for fifteen top-ranked questions in the profession. In 2013, fifteen volunteer-driven teams were recruited to conduct the systematic reviews. The authors investigated the experiences of participants in this large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to answering priority research questions and fostering professional growth among health sciences librarians.Methods: A program evaluation was conducted by inviting MLA Systematic Review Project team members to complete an eleven-item online survey. Multiple-choice and short-answer questions elicited experiences about outputs, successes and challenges, lessons learned, and future directions. Participants were recruited by email, and responses were collected over a two-week period beginning at the end of January 2016.Results: Eighty (8 team leaders, 72 team members) of 198 potential respondents completed the survey. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that the MLA Systematic Review Project should be repeated in the future and were interested in participating in another systematic review. Team outputs included journal articles, conference presentations or posters, and sharing via social media. Thematic analysis of the short-answer questions yielded five broad themes: learning and experience, interpersonal (networking), teamwork, outcomes, and barriers.Discussion: A large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to performing systematic reviews shows promise as a model for answering key questions in the profession and demonstrates the value of experiential learning for acquiring synthesis review skills and knowledge. Our project evaluation provides recommendations to optimize this approach.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document