scholarly journals How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper)

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Marcel Mertz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Research Quality ◽  
Quality Appraisal ◽  
Literature Information ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Normative Argument

Abstract Background In the last years, there has been an increase in publication of systematic reviews of normative (“argument-based”) literature or of normative information (such as ethical issues) in bioethics. The aim of a systematic review is to search, select, analyse and synthesise literature in a transparent and systematic way in order to provide a comprehensive and unbiased overview of the information sought, predominantly as a basis for informed decision-making in health care. Traditionally, one part of the procedure when conducting a systematic review is an appraisal of the quality of the literature that could be included. Main text However, while there are established methods and standards for appraising e.g. clinical studies or other empirical research, quality appraisal of normative literature (or normative information) in the context of a systematic review is still rather a conundrum – not only is it unclear how it could or should be done, but also the question whether it necessarily must be done is not settled yet. Based on a pragmatic definition of “normative literature” as well as on a typology of different types of systematic reviews of normative literature/information, this paper identifies and critically discusses three possible strategies of conducting quality appraisal. Conclusions The paper will argue that none of the three strategies is able to provide a general and satisfying solution to the problems associated with quality appraisal of normative literature/information. Still, the discussion of the three strategies allows outlining minimal conditions that elaborated strategies have to meet in future, and facilitates sketching a theoretically and practically promising strategy.

scholarly journals Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study

2021 ◽  
pp. bmjebm-2021-111710
Author(s):  
Rebecca Abbott ◽  
Alison Bethel ◽  
Morwenna Rogers ◽  
Rebecca Whear ◽  
Noreen Orr ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Definition Of

ObjectiveThe academic and scientific community has reacted at pace to gather evidence to help and inform about COVID-19. Concerns have been raised about the quality of this evidence. The aim of this review was to map the nature, scope and quality of evidence syntheses on COVID-19 and to explore the relationship between review quality and the extent of researcher, policy and media interest.Design and settingA meta-research: systematic review of reviews.Information sourcesPubMed, Epistemonikos COVID-19 evidence, the Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection and the WHO COVID-19 database, searched between 10 June 2020 and 15 June 2020.Eligibility criteriaAny peer-reviewed article reported as a systematic review, rapid review, overview, meta-analysis or qualitative evidence synthesis in the title or abstract addressing a research question relating to COVID-19. Articles described as meta-analyses but not undertaken as part of a systematic or rapid review were excluded.Study selection and data extractionAbstract and full text screening were undertaken by two independent reviewers. Descriptive information on review type, purpose, population, size, citation and attention metrics were extracted along with whether the review met the definition of a systematic review according to six key methodological criteria. For those meeting all criteria, additional data on methods and publication metrics were extracted.Risk of biasFor articles meeting all six criteria required to meet the definition of a systematic review, AMSTAR-2 ((A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews, version 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the reported methods.Results2334 articles were screened, resulting in 280 reviews being included: 232 systematic reviews, 46 rapid reviews and 2 overviews. Less than half reported undertaking critical appraisal and a third had no reproducible search strategy. There was considerable overlap in topics, with discordant findings. Eighty-eight of the 280 reviews met all six systematic review criteria. Of these, just 3 were rated as of moderate or high quality on AMSTAR-2, with the majority having critical flaws: only a third reported registering a protocol, and less than one in five searched named COVID-19 databases. Review conduct and publication were rapid, with 52 of the 88 systematic reviews reported as being conducted within 3 weeks, and a half published within 3 weeks of submission. Researcher and media interest, as measured by altmetrics and citations, was high, and was not correlated with quality.DiscussionThis meta-research of early published COVID-19 evidence syntheses found low-quality reviews being published at pace, often with short publication turnarounds. Despite being of low quality and many lacking robust methods, the reviews received substantial attention across both academic and public platforms, and the attention was not related to the quality of review methods.InterpretationFlaws in systematic review methods limit the validity of a review and the generalisability of its findings. Yet, by being reported as ‘systematic reviews’, many readers may well regard them as high-quality evidence, irrespective of the actual methods undertaken. The challenge especially in times such as this pandemic is to provide indications of trustworthiness in evidence that is available in ‘real time’.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020188822.

scholarly journals Barriers to Incident Reporting among Nurses: A Qualitative Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 019394592199944
Author(s):  
Moataz Mohamed Maamoun Hamed ◽  
Stathis Konstantinidis
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Incident Reporting ◽  
Negative Consequences ◽  
Incident Reporting Systems ◽  
Qualitative Systematic Review ◽  
Blame Culture ◽  
Critical Appraisal Skills ◽  
Definition Of

Incident reporting in health care prevents error recurrence, ultimately improving patient safety. A qualitative systematic review was conducted, aiming to identify barriers to incident reporting among nurses. Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for qualitative systematic reviews was followed, with data extracted using JBI QARI tools, and selected studies assessed for methodological quality using Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP). A meta-aggregation synthesis was carried out, and confidence in findings was assessed using GRADE ConQual. A total of 921 records were identified, but only five studies were included. The overall methodological quality of these studies was good and GRADE ConQual assessment score was “moderate.” Fear of negative consequences was the most cited barrier to nursing incident reporting. Barriers also included inadequate incident reporting systems and lack of interdisciplinary and interdepartmental cooperation. Lack of nurses’ necessary training made it more difficult to understand the importance of incident reporting and the definition of error. Lack of effective feedback and motivation and a pervasive blame culture were also identified.

scholarly journals Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

scholarly journals Health Informatics in Developing Countries: Systematic Review of Reviews Contribution of the IMIA Working Group Health Informatics for Development

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (01) ◽  
pp. 28-33
Author(s):  
C. Otero ◽  
A. Marcelo ◽  
D. Luna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Informatics ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Review Of Reviews

Summary Objectives: An evidence-base is important for medicine and health informatics. Despite numerous publications showing the benefits of health informatics, the emergence of health information systems in developing countries has been slower than expected. The aim of this paper is to identify systematic reviews on the domain of health informatics in developing countries, and classify the different types of applications covered. Methods: A systematic review of reviews was conducted. The literature search spanned the time period between 2000 and 2012 and included PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The search term was ‘systematic reviews of health informatics in developing countries’, and transparent and systematic procedures were applied to limit bias at all stages. Results: Of the 982 identified articles, only 10 met the inclusion criteria and one more article was added in a second manual search, resulting in a total of 11 systematic reviews for the analysis. Conclusions: Although it was difficult to find high quality resources on the selected domain, the best evidence available allowed us to generate this report and create an incipient review of the state of the art in health informatics in the developing countries. More studies will be needed to optimize the results.

scholarly journals Evaluating measures of quality of life in adult scoliosis: a protocol for a systematic review and narrative synthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Archer ◽  
Charles Baird ◽  
Adrian Gardner ◽  
Alison B. Rushton ◽  
Nicola R. Heneghan
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Adult Scoliosis ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Narrative Synthesis

Abstract Background Adult scoliosis represents a distinct subgroup of scoliosis patients for whom the diagnosis can have a large impact on their health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Therefore, HR-QOL patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential to assess disease progression and the impact of interventions. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the measurement properties of HR-QOL PROMs in adult scoliosis patients. Methods We will conduct a literature search, from their inception onwards, of multiple electronic databases including AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO and PubMed. The searches will be performed in two stages. For both stages of the search, participants will be aged 18 and over with a diagnosis of scoliosis. The primary outcome of interest in the stage one searches will be studies which use PROMs to investigate HR-QOL as defined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy, the secondary outcome will be to assess the frequency of use of the various PROMs. In stage two, the primary outcome of interest will be studies which assess the measurement properties of the HR-QOL PROMs identified in stage one. No specific measurement property will be given priority. No planned secondary outcomes have been identified but will be reported if discovered. In stage one, the only restriction on study design will be the exclusion of systematic reviews. In Stage two the only restriction on study design will be the exclusion of full-text articles not available in the English language. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study methodological quality (or risk of bias) will be appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The overall strength of the body of evidence will then be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A narrative synthesis will be provided with information presented in the main text and tables to summarise and explain the characteristics and findings of the included studies. The narrative synthesis will explore the evidence for currently used PROMs in adult scoliosis patients and any areas that require further study. Discussion The review will help clinicians and researchers identify a HR-QOL PROM for use in patients with adult scoliosis. Findings from the review will be published and disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. Systematic review registration This systematic review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), reference number: CRD42020219437

Can Exergaming Promote Physical Fitness and Physical Activity?

Gamification ◽  
2015 ◽  
pp. 2022-2039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuomas Kari
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Fitness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Significant Health

This systematic review of systematic reviews evaluates the effectiveness of exergaming on physical fitness and physical activity. A systematic literature search was conducted on 10 databases, and 1040 articles were identified. Sixty-eight articles were found potentially relevant and were selected for closer screening. Cross-referencing was conducted to find other potentially relevant articles. The quality of all relevant articles was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool. After all the duplicates were removed and inclusion, exclusion, and quality criteria were implemented, six articles remained for review. The results indicate that exergaming is generally enjoyed and can evoke some benefits for physical fitness and physical activity, but the current evidence does not support the ability of exergaming to increase physical fitness or physical activity levels sufficiently for significant health benefits. This systematic review also revealed several gaps in previous research. Additional high-quality research and systematic reviews concerning exergaming are needed.

Promoting Physical Activity and Fitness with Exergames

2016 ◽  
pp. 225-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuomas Kari
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Fitness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Significant Health

This updated systematic review of systematic reviews evaluates the effectiveness of exergaming on physical fitness and physical activity. A systematic literature search was conducted on 10 databases, first in 2014 and then repeated in 2016. In total, 1040 and 287 articles were identified. 68 and 31 articles were found potentially relevant and selected for closer screening. The quality of all relevant articles was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool. After the duplicates were removed and inclusion, exclusion, and quality criteria were implemented, six and three articles remained for review. The results indicate that exergaming is generally enjoyed and can evoke some benefits for physical fitness and physical activity, but the current evidence does not support the ability of exergaming to increase physical fitness or physical activity levels sufficiently for significant health benefits. This systematic review also revealed gaps in previous research. Additional high-quality research and systematic reviews concerning exergaming are needed.

scholarly journals A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HEPATITIS VIRUS REVIEW STUDIES: A CASE OF HEALTH ECONOMIC EVALUATION ANALYSIS

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (5) ◽  
pp. 114
Author(s):  
Phuong Hong Le ◽  
Quang Vinh Tran ◽  
Trung Quang Vo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Economic ◽  
Economic Evaluation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Hepatitis Virus ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Publication Period

Objective: Systematic reviews of economic analysis are necessary for assessing reports and making a decision. A systematic review of systematic reviews is mean of summarizing the current evidence across specialties of the same or very similar intervention, to provide a synthesis treatment effect. The aim of this study was to explore and to assess the quality of systematic reviews conducted hepatitis economic evaluation.Methods: This study was designed as a systematic review following the AMSTAR guideline through Medline, Cochrane, and Science Direct databases. It was scoped in publication period of 2001 and 2016 in international journals. The quality assessment of the included studies was based on AMSTAR checklist. Two authors did the appreciation independently and all the different results were solved by discussion to give the conclusion.Results: 851 publications found, only 25 studies of those met the inclusion criteria. These studies consisted of 5 studies for vaccination and 20 for non-vaccination. There were only 16% (n=4) based on PRISMA guideline; and twenty-one studies (64%) were not showing about the method of the systematic review or not based on any guideline. Only three articles has published in 2016 with a high standard.Conclusion: According to the results of the appraisal AMSTAR checklist, this review shows clearly the current situation and an urgent need for an increase of quality of hepatitis virus review studies based on health economic evaluation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document