scholarly journals Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assem M. Khamis ◽  
Lara A. Kahale ◽  
Hector Pardo-Hernandez ◽  
Holger J. Schünemann ◽  
Elie A. Akl
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal ◽  
Over Time

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

scholarly journals Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 221
Author(s):  
Assem M. Khamis ◽  
Lara A. Kahale ◽  
Hector Pardo-Hernandez ◽  
Holger J. Schünemann ◽  
Elie A. Akl
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal ◽  
Over Time

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

Keratolimbal allograft for limbal stem cell deficiency after severe corneal chemical injury: a systematic review

2017 ◽  
Vol 102 (8) ◽  
pp. 1114-1121 ◽  
Author(s):  
Swapna S Shanbhag ◽  
Hajirah N Saeed ◽  
Eleftherios I Paschalis ◽  
James Chodosh
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Stem Cell ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Limbal Stem Cell Deficiency ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Chemical Injury ◽  
Keratolimbal Allograft ◽  
Limbal Stem Cell

PurposeTo review the published literature on outcomes of keratolimbal allograft (KLAL) for the surgical treatment of limbal stem cell deficiency (LSCD) and corneal blindness after severe corneal chemical injury.MethodsLiterature searches were conducted in the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Citation Index, CINAHL, LILACS and the Cochrane Library. Standard systematic review methodology was applied. The main outcome measure was the proportion of eyes with best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) ≥20/200 at last follow-up. Other measures of allograft success were also collected.ResultsWe identified six reports in which KLAL outcomes in the eyes after chemical injury could be distinguished. There were no randomised controlled studies. The outcomes of KLAL in 36 eyes of 33 patients were analysed. One study with seven eyes did not specify KLAL follow-up specific to chemical injury. Median postoperative follow-up for the other 29 eyes in 26 patients was 42 months (range 6.2–114 months). In the same 29 eyes, 69% (20/29) had BCVA ≥20/200 at the last follow-up examination. Eighty-nine per cent of all eyes (32/36) underwent penetrating keratoplasty simultaneous or subsequent to KLAL.ConclusionsThe number of studies where outcomes of KLAL in eyes with severe corneal chemical injury could be discerned was limited, and variability was observed in outcome reporting. The quality of evidence to support the use of KLAL in LSCD in severe chemical corneal burns was low. Standardisation and longer follow-up are needed to better define evidence-based best practice when contemplating surgical intervention for blindness after corneal chemical injury.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017054733.

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 Continuing education for systematic reviews: a prospective longitudinal assessment of a workshop for librarians

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Barbara L. Folb ◽  
Mary L. Klem ◽  
Ada O. Youk ◽  
Julia J. Dahm ◽  
Meiqi He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Continuing Education ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Education Class ◽  
Post Class ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal ◽  
The Impact

Objective: This prospective, longitudinal study explored the impact of a continuing education class on librarians’ knowledge levels about and professional involvement with systematic reviews. Barriers to systematic review participation and the presence of formal systematic review services in libraries were also measured.Methods: Participants completed web-based surveys at three points in time: pre-class, post-class, and six-months’ follow-up. Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographics and survey questions. Linear mixed effects models assessed knowledge score changes over time.Results: Of 160 class attendees, 140 (88%) completed the pre-class survey. Of those 140, 123 (88%) completed the post-class survey, and 103 (74%) completed the follow-up survey. There was a significant increase (p<0.00001) from pre-class to post-class in knowledge test scores, and this increase was maintained at follow-up. At post-class, 69% or more of participants intended to promote peer review of searches, seek peer review of their searches, search for grey literature, read or follow published guidelines on conduct and documentation of systematic reviews, and ask for authorship on a systematic review. Among librarians who completed a systematic review between post-class and follow-up, 73% consulted published guidelines, 52% searched grey literature, 48% sought peer review, 57% asked for authorship, and 70% received authorship.Conclusions: Attendance at this continuing education class was associated with positive changes in knowledge about systematic reviews and in librarians’ systematic review–related professional practices. This suggests that in-depth professional development classes can help librarians develop skills that are needed to meet library patrons’ changing service needs.

scholarly journals Methodological quality for systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions: a cross-sectional survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqin Zhou ◽  
Linji Li ◽  
Lifeng Lin ◽  
Ke Ju ◽  
Joey S. W. Kwong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Absolute Difference ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Surgical Interventions ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Background An increasing number of systematic reviews assessed the safety of surgical interventions over time. How well these systematic reviews were designed and conducted determines the reliability of evidence. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the safety of surgical interventions. Methods We searched PubMed for systematic reviews of surgical interventions with safety as the exclusive outcome from 1st-Jan, 2015 to 1st-Jan, 2020. The methodological quality of eligible systematic reviews was evaluated according to the AMSTAR 2.0 instrument. The primary outcomes were the number of methodological weaknesses and the global methodological quality. The proportion of each methodological weakness among eligible systematic reviews was compared by three pre-defined stratification variables. The absolute difference of the proportion (PD) was used as the effect estimator, with the two-tailed z-test for the significance. Results We identified 127 systematic reviews from 18,636 records. None (n = 0, 0.00%) of them could be rated as “high” in terms of the global methodological quality; in contrast, they were either rated as “low” (n = 18, 14.17%) or as “critically low” (n = 109, 85.83%). The median number of methodological weaknesses of these systematic reviews was 8 (interquartile range, IQR: 6 to 9), in which 4 (IQR: 2 to 4) were critical weaknesses. Systematic reviews that used any reporting guideline (e.g., domain 13, PD = -0.22, 95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.06; p = 0.01) and developed a protocol in advance (e.g., domain 6, PD = -0.20, 95% CI: − 0.39, − 0.01; p = 0.04) were less likely to have methodological weakness in some domains but not for the rest (e.g., domain 8, PD = 0.04, 95% CI: − 0.14, 0.21; p = 0.68; with protocol vs. without). Conclusions The methodological quality of current systematic reviews of adverse events with surgical interventions was poor. Further efforts, for example, encouraging researchers to develop a protocol in advance, are needed to enhance the methodological quality of these systematic reviews.

scholarly journals The role of pragmatism in explaining heterogeneity in meta-analyses of randomised trials: a protocol for a cross-sectional methodological review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017887 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theresa Aves ◽  
Katherine S Allan ◽  
Daeria Lawson ◽  
Robby Nieuwlaat ◽  
Joseph Beyene ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Pool Data ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Methodological Review ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionThere has been increasing interest in pragmatic trials methodology. As a result, tools such as the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) are being used prospectively to help researchers design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) within the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. There may be value in applying the PRECIS-2 tool retrospectively in a systematic review setting as it could provide important information about how to pool data based on the degree of pragmatism.ObjectivesTo investigate the role of pragmatism as a source of heterogeneity in systematic reviews by (1) identifying systematic reviews with meta-analyses of RCTs that have moderate to high heterogeneity, (2) applying PRECIS-2 to RCTs of systematic reviews, (3) evaluating the inter-rater reliability of PRECIS-2, (4) determining how much of this heterogeneity may be explained by pragmatism.MethodsA cross-sectional methodological review will be conducted on systematic reviews of RCTs published in the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2014 to 1 January 2017. Included systematic reviews will have a minimum of 10 RCTs in the meta-analysis of the primary outcome and moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I2≥50%). Of the eligible systematic reviews, a random selection of 10 will be included for quantitative evaluation. In each systematic review, RCTs will be scored using the PRECIS-2 tool, in duplicate. Agreement between raters will be measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression will be used to evaluate how much variability in the primary outcome may be due to pragmatism.DisseminationThis review will be among the first to evaluate the PRECIS-2 tool in a systematic review setting. Results from this research will provide inter-rater reliability information about PRECIS-2 and may be used to provide methodological guidance when dealing with pragmatism in systematic reviews and subgroup considerations. On completion, this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication.

scholarly journals “ET Plus”: Instability of the Diagnosis During Prospective Longitudinal Follow-up of Essential Tremor Cases

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniella Iglesias-Hernandez ◽  
Nikki Delgado ◽  
Margaret McGurn ◽  
Edward D. Huey ◽  
Stephanie Cosentino ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
A Priori ◽  
Clinical Feature ◽  
Time Interval ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Phenotypic Data ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Prospective Longitudinal ◽  
Over Time

Background: A recent consensus statement introduced the term “ET plus”. Although investigators have quantified the prevalence of ET plus in cross-sectional studies, patients with ET plus have not been tracked longitudinally; hence, there is no understanding of its stability over time.Methods: We present prospective, longitudinal phenotypic data on an ET cohort that was followed regularly at 18-month intervals (T1, T2, T3, T4) for up to 64 months. We assigned an ET or ET plus diagnosis to each case at each time interval.Results: There were 201 participants at baseline. The proportion with ET plus increased from 58.7% at baseline to 72.1% at T4 (p = 0.046). Of 172 (85.6%) who received a diagnosis of ET plus at one or more time intervals, the diagnosis was unstable (e.g., with reversion) in 62 (36.0%). We also assessed the stability of the clinical features of ET plus. Rest tremor was the most unstable clinical feature of ET plus; it was present in 59 participants, among whom it reverted from present to absent in 23 (39.0%). By contrast, for “memory impairment” (i.e., either mild cognitive impairment or dementia), the proportion who reverted from present to absent was only 21.3%.Conclusion: These data support our two a priori hypotheses: (1) the prevalence of ET plus would increase progressively, as it likely represents a more advanced stage of ET, and (2) the ET plus diagnosis would not be stable over time, as cases would fluctuate with respect to their phenotypic features and their assigned diagnoses.

Are neighborhood restaurants related to frequency of restaurant meals and dietary quality?: Prevalence and changes over time in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-29
Author(s):  
Amy H. Auchincloss ◽  
Jingjing Li ◽  
Kari A. B. Moore ◽  
Manuel Franco ◽  
Mahasin S. Mujahid ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthy Eating Index ◽  
Dietary Quality ◽  
Longitudinal Analyses ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cross Sectional Analysis ◽  
Eating Out ◽  
Restaurant Meals ◽  
Sectional Analysis ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Objective: To examine whether the density of neighbourhood restaurants affected the frequency of eating restaurant meals and subsequently affected diet quality. Design: Cross-sectional and longitudinal designs. Structural equation models assessed the indirect relationship between restaurant density (≤3 miles (4.8 km) of participant addresses) and dietary quality (Healthy Eating Index 2010 (HEI)) via the frequency of eating restaurant meals, after adjustment for sociodemographics, select health conditions, region, residence duration and area-level income. Setting: Urbanised areas in multiple regions of the USA, years 2000–2002 and 2010–2012. Participants: Participants aged 45–84 years were followed for 10 years (n 3567). Results: Median HEI (out of 100) was 59 at baseline and 62 at follow-up. Cross-sectional analysis found residing in areas with a high density of restaurants (highest ranked quartile) was associated with 52% higher odds of frequently eating restaurant meals (≥3 times/week, odds ratio [OR]:1.52, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.18-1.98) and 3% higher odds of having lower dietary quality (HEI lowest quartile<54, OR:1.03,CI:1.01-1.06); associations were not sustained in longitudinal analyses. Cross-sectional analysis found 34% higher odds of having lower dietary quality for those who frequently ate at restaurants (OR:1.34,CI:1.12-1.61); and more restaurant meals (over time increase ≥1 times/week) was associated with higher odds of having worse dietary quality at follow-up (OR:1.21,CI:1.00-1.46). Conclusions: Restaurant density was associated with frequently eating out in cross-sectional and longitudinal analyses but was associated with the lower dietary quality only in cross-sectional analyses. Frequent restaurant meals were negatively related to dietary quality. Interventions that encourage less frequent eating out may improve population dietary quality.

scholarly journals Appraisal of systematic reviews on interventions for postpartum depression: systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan Chow ◽  
Eileen Huang ◽  
Allen Li ◽  
Sophie Li ◽  
Sarah Y. Fu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Postpartum Depression ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Behavioural Therapy ◽  
Therapeutic Interventions ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Measurement Tool

Abstract Background Postpartum depression (PPD) is a highly prevalent mental health problem that affects parental health with implications for child health in infancy, childhood, adolescence and beyond. The primary aim of this study was to critically appraise available systematic reviews describing interventions for PPD. The secondary aim was to evaluate the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews and their conclusions. Methods An electronic database search of MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to 2020 was conducted to identify systematic reviews that examined an intervention for PPD. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews was utilized to independently score each included systematic review which was then critically appraised to better define the most effective therapeutic options for PPD. Results Of the 842 studies identified, 83 met the a priori criteria for inclusion. Based on the systematic reviews with the highest methodological quality, we found that use of antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective treatments for PPD. Symptoms of PPD were also improved by traditional herbal medicine and aromatherapy. Current evidence for physical exercise and cognitive behavioural therapy in treating PPD remains equivocal. A significant, but weak relationship between AMSTAR score and journal impact factor was observed (p = 0.03, r = 0.24; 95% CI, 0.02 to 0.43) whilst no relationship was found between the number of total citations (p = 0.27, r = 0.12; 95% CI, − 0.09 to 0.34), or source of funding (p = 0.19). Conclusion Overall the systematic reviews on interventions for PPD are of low-moderate quality and are not improving over time. Antidepressants and telemedicine were the most effective therapeutic interventions for PPD treatment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document