scholarly journals Is the open access citation advantage real? A systematic review of the citation of open access and subscription-based articles

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. e0253129
Author(s):  
Allison Langham-Putrow ◽  
Caitlin Bakker ◽  
Amy Riegelman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Open Access ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Citation Advantage

Aims Over the last two decades, the existence of an open access citation advantage (OACA)—increased citation of articles made available open access (OA)—has been the topic of much discussion. While there has been substantial research to address this question, findings have been contradictory and inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review to compare studies of citations to OA and non-OA articles. Methods A systematic search of 17 databases attempted to capture all relevant studies authored since 2001. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. We included studies with a direct comparison between OA and non-OA items and reported article-level citation as an outcome. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included. No limitations were placed on study design, language, or publication type. Results A total of 5,744 items were retrieved. Ultimately, 134 items were identified for inclusion. 64 studies (47.8%) confirmed the existence of OACA, while 37 (27.6%) found that it did not exist, 32 (23.9%) found OACA only in subsets of their sample, and 1 study (0.8%) was inconclusive. Studies with a focus on multiple disciplines were significantly positively associated with finding that OACA exists in subsets, and are less associated with finding that OACA did not exist. In the critical appraisal of the included studies, 3 were found to have an overall low risk of bias. Of these, one found that an OACA existed, one found that it did not, and one found that an OACA occurred in subsets. Conclusions As seen through the large number of studies identified for this review, OACA is a topic of continuing interest. Quality and heterogeneity of the component studies pose challenges for generalization. The results suggest the need for reporting guidelines for bibliometrics studies.

scholarly journals Systematic Review of the Use of Telepathology During Intraoperative Consultation

2019 ◽  
Vol 153 (2) ◽  
pp. 198-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robin L Dietz ◽  
Douglas J Hartman ◽  
Liron Pantanowitz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Frozen Section ◽  
Strong Support ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Weighted Mean ◽  
Frozen Section Diagnosis ◽  
Conventional Microscopy

Abstract Objective To compare studies that used telepathology systems vs conventional microscopy for intraoperative consultation (frozen-section) diagnosis. Methods A total of 56 telepathology studies with 13,996 cases in aggregate were identified through database searches. Results The concordance of telepathology with the reference standard was generally excellent, with a weighted mean of 96.9%. In comparison, we identified seven studies using conventional intraoperative consultation that showed a weighted mean concordance of 98.3%. Evaluation of the risk of bias showed that most of these studies were low risk. Conclusions Despite limitations such as variation in reporting and publication bias, this systematic review provides strong support for the safety of using telepathology for intraoperative consultations.

scholarly journals Clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma in hospitalized patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
pp. 175346662110280
Author(s):  
Roberto Ariel Abeldaño Zuñiga ◽  
Ruth Ana María González-Villoria ◽  
María Vanesa Elizondo ◽  
Anel Yaneli Nicolás Osorio ◽  
David Gómez Martínez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Improvement ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Clinical Effectiveness ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Hospitalized Patients ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trials

Aims: Given the variability of previously reported results, this systematic review aims to determine the clinical effectiveness of convalescent plasma employed in the treatment of hospitalized patients diagnosed with COVID-19. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of controlled clinical trials assessing treatment with convalescent plasma for hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. The outcomes were mortality, clinical improvement, and ventilation requirement. Results: A total of 51 studies were retrieved from the databases. Five articles were finally included in the data extraction and qualitative and quantitative synthesis of results. The overall risk of bias in the reviewed articles was established at low-risk only in two trials. The meta-analysis suggests that there is no benefit of convalescent plasma compared with standard care or placebo in reducing the overall mortality and the ventilation requirement. However, there could be a benefit for the clinical improvement in patients treated with plasma. Conclusion: Current results led to assume that the convalescent plasma transfusion cannot reduce the mortality or ventilation requirement in hospitalized patients diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 infection. More controlled clinical trials conducted with methodologies that ensure a low risk of bias are still needed. The reviews of this paper are available via the supplemental material section.

To explore the barriers to and facilitators of adolescents in Low-Middle-Income- Countries (LMICs) seeking mental health care: Protocol for a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sudha Subhadra Kallakuri ◽  
Pallab K Maulik ◽  
Prachi Kaistha ◽  
Maree Hackett
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
World Health ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Middle Income Countries ◽  
Low Middle Income Countries

Abstract Background: Adolescence is a very important transitional phase for an individual as they move from childhood to adulthood. In 2007, the World Health Organization reported that 16% of the global burden of disease and injuries occur among adolescents i.e. those aged between 10 and 19 years, most of them starting by the age of 14 years and usually become serious; if left unrecognised or unattended at that point in time. Several risk factors are associated with increases in the mental health disorders. It is pertinent to promote interventions which teach life skills like regulating one’s emotions, building resilience, and dealing with difficult situations with confidence and strength. This mixed-methods systematic review aims to synthesise best available evidence on the barriers and facilitators to help seeking for mental illnesses among adolescents in Low-Middle-Income Countries Methods and Analyses: The systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Systematic searches will be carried out in electronic databases like PubMed,EMBASE, PsychINFO, Sociofile, CINAHL to identify studies relevant to the review question. At the first stage, titles and abstracts of articles retrieved through the searches will be examined against the eligibility criteria. The second stage will involve independent full-text screening of included articles by two reviewers. All qualitative, quantitative, and mixed method research studies which explicitly answer the research questions will be considered in this review. Methodological appraisal (Risk of Bias) will be conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute's standardized critical appraisal tools or other standardized critical appraisal tools contingent on the study design by two reviewers. Data will be extracted on the aims/purpose, study design, geographical location, study population, study duration, interventions (if applicable) outcomes, and results of included studies. Data analyses will be conducted using the convergent approach to analysis of mixed methods research using JBI guidance. Discussion: The research will help to identify gaps in knowledge and generate evidence for health departments to look more specifically at the mental health of adolescents and challenges of addressing them. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42020214349

scholarly journals Eversion technique versus conventional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in carotid surgery: protocol for a systematic review with meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis of randomised clinical trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. e030503 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martijn S. Marsman ◽  
Jorn Wetterslev ◽  
Patrick W.H.E. Vriens ◽  
Ronald L.A.W. Bleys ◽  
Abdelkarime Kh. Jahrome ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Sequential Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Trial Sequential Analysis ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid ◽  
Patch Angioplasty ◽  
Symptomatic Carotid Stenosis ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionTraditional carotid endarterectomy is considered to be the standard technique for prevention of a new stroke in patients with a symptomatic carotid stenosis. Use of patch angioplasty to restore the arterial wall after longitudinal endarterectomy is, to date, not unequivocally proven to be superior to eversion technique. A systematic review is needed for evaluation of benefits and harms of the eversion technique versus the traditional endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with symptomatic carotid stenosis.Methods and outcomesThe review will be conducted according to this protocol following the recommendations of the ‘Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews’ and reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Randomised clinical trials comparing eversion technique versus endarterectomy with patch angioplasty in patients with a symptomatic stenosis of the internal carotid artery will be included. Primary outcomes are all-cause mortality rate, health-related quality of life and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes are 30-day stroke and mortality rate, symptomatic arterial restenosis or occlusion and non-serious adverse events. The databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE will be searched (November 2019). We will primarily base our conclusions on meta-analyses of trials with overall low-risk of bias. We will use trial sequential analysis to assist the evaluation of imprecision in Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. However, if pooled point estimates of all trials are similar to pooled point estimates of trials with overall low risk of bias and there is lack of a statistical significant interaction between estimates from trials with overall high risk of bias and trials with overall low risk of bias we will consider the trial sequential analysis adjusted precision of the estimate achieved in all trials as the result of our meta-analyses.Ethics and disseminationThe proposed systematic review will collect and analyse data from published studies, therefore, ethical approval is not required. The results of the review will be disseminated by publication in a peer-review journal and submitted for presentation at conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019119361.

scholarly journals Citation Classics on Dental Caries: A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 (01) ◽  
pp. 128-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anas Imran Arshad ◽  
Paras Ahmad ◽  
Paul M.H. Dummer ◽  
Mohammad Khursheed Alam ◽  
Jawaad Ahmed Asif ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Dental Caries ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
Citation Index ◽  
Citation Count ◽  
Significant Negative Correlation ◽  
Changing Trends ◽  
Citation Classics

Abstract Objective A systematic search was performed for the identification and analysis of the 100 most often cited articles on dental caries and to highlight the changing trends in the field of dentistry over time. Materials and Methods The search was performed without any restriction on the study design, publication year, or language using the Web of Science (WoS) group of Clarivate Analytics enabling the search through “All Databases.” Based on the citation count as available in WoS, the articles were sorted in a descending manner. Information regarding each article was then extracted, which included its authorship, counts of citation (in other databases), citation density, current citation index (2019), publication year, country of publication, journal of article, evidence level based on study design, and keywords description. Results The count of citation for each article varied in each database, that is, 175 to 2,003 in WoS, 89 to 1,981 in Scopus, and 126 to 3,492 when searched in Google Scholar. The highest number of articles (n = 10) related to dental caries were published in 2004. A total of 301 authors made valuable contributions to this field, out of which J.D. Featherstone had coauthored 6 articles. A significant negative correlation (p < 0.01) was found between the age of the article and the citation density (r =–0.545). However, a nonsignificant correlation (p = 0.952) occurred between the age of publication and the citation count (r = 0.006). Conclusion The results of this systematic review provide a critical appraisal of the context underpinning scientific developments in the field of dental caries and also highlighted trends in clinical management and research.

scholarly journals Effects of low-level laser therapy on the orthodontic mini-implants stability: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ana Carolina de Figueiredo Costa ◽  
Thays Allane Cordeiro Maia ◽  
Paulo Goberlânio de Barros Silva ◽  
Lucas Guimarães Abreu ◽  
Delane Viana Gondim ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Randomized Clinical Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Low Risk ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Mini Implants ◽  
Level Laser

Abstract Objectives The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) stability. Materials and methods An unrestricted electronic database search in PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov and a hand search were performed up to December 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or non-randomized clinical trials (Non-RCTs) that assessed the effects of LLLT on the OMI stability were included. Data regarding the general information, LLLT characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. The authors performed risk of bias assessment with Cochrane Collaboration’s or ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis was also conducted. Results Five RCTs and one Non-RCT were included and 108 patients were evaluated. The LLLT characteristics presented different wavelength, power, energy density, irradiation time, and protocol duration. Five RCTs had a low risk of selection bias. Two RCTs had a low risk of performance and detection bias. All RCTs had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias. The Non-RCT presented a low risk of bias for all criteria, except for the bias in selection of participants. The meta-analysis revealed that LLLT significantly increased the OMI stability (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.67) and the highest clinical benefit was showed after 1 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.75), 2 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.21), and 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.51) months of OMI placement. Conclusions LLLT shows positive effects on the OMI stability.

scholarly journals Where to prospectively register a systematic review

2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Tanja Rombey
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Open Science ◽  
New Developments ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Study Type ◽  
Different Characteristics ◽  
Responsible Party

Abstract Background Prospective registration aims to reduce bias in the conduct and reporting of research and to increase transparency. In addition, prospective registration of systematic reviews is argued to help preventing unintended duplication, thereby reducing research waste. PROSPERO was launched in 2011 as the first prospective register for systematic reviews. While it has long been the only option to prospectively register systematic reviews, recently there have been new developments. Our aim was to identify and characterize current options to prospectively register a systematic review to assist review authors in choosing a suitable register. Methods To identify systematic review registers, we independently performed internet searches in January 2021 using keywords related to systematic reviews and prospective registration. “Registration” was defined as the process of entering information about a planned systematic review into a database before starting the systematic review process. We collected data on the characteristics of the identified registries and contacted the responsible party of each register for verification of the data related to their registry. Results Overall, we identified five options to prospectively register a systematic review: PROSPERO, the Registry of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Research Registry, and INPLASY, which are specific to systematic reviews, and the Open Science Framework Registries and protocols.io, which represent generic registers open to any study type. Detailed information on each register is presented in tables in the main text. Regarding the systematic-review-specific registries, authors have to trade-off between the costs of registration and the processing time of their registration record. All registers provide an option to search for systematic reviews already registered in the register. However, it is unclear how useful these search functions are. Conclusion Authors can prospectively register their systematic review in five registries, which come with different characteristics and features. The research community should discuss fair and sustainable financing models for registers that are not operated by for-profit organizations.

scholarly journals Interventions to Mitigate COVID-19 Misinformation: Protocol for a Scoping Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Navin Kumar ◽  
Nathan Walter ◽  
Kate Nyhan ◽  
Kaveh Khoshnood ◽  
Joseph D Tucker ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
English Language ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Scoping Reviews ◽  
Science Framework

Abstract Background: The duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends in a large part on individual and societal actions which is influenced by the quality and salience of the information to which they are exposed. Unfortunately, COVID-19 misinformation has proliferated. To date, no systematic efforts have been made to evaluate interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. We plan to conduct a scoping review that seeks to fill several of the gaps in the current knowledge of interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation.Methods: A scoping review focusing on interventions that mitigate COVID-19 misinformation will be conducted. We will search (from January 2020 onwards) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Africa-Wide Information, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Sociological Abstracts. Grey literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, Open Science Framework, governmental websites and preprint servers (e.g. EuropePMC, PsyArXiv, MedRxiv, JMIR Preprints). Study selection will conform to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ Manual 2020 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g. frequencies) and qualitative (e.g. content and thematic analysis) methods.Discussion: Original research is urgently needed to design interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap.Systematic Review registrations: Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework (osf/io/etw9d).

scholarly journals Zheln.com: A protocol for a universal living overview of health-related systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavel Zhelnov
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Human Life ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Business Policy ◽  
Medical Specialties ◽  
The Public ◽  
Overview Of Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Science Framework

BACKGROUNDObjectives. 1. Identify and monitor most of published systematic reviews. 2. Tag the identified systematic records with medical specialties. 3. Select or crowdfund reviews for further appraisal. 4. Critically appraise and replicate the selected systematic reviews. 5. Disseminate practice implications of positively appraised reviews to both the public and evidence-based practitioners in health care and other fields associated with intervention into a human life, such as education, business, policy, or ecology.METHODSEligibility criteria. Record eligibility is assessed by checking the record title and, if the title failed, abstract against the ‘true positive criteria’ for systematic reviews taken from the publication by Shojania &amp; Bero, 2001 (PMID 11525102). The record/study flow is as follows: All eligible records are amenable for tagging, selection, and crowdfunding process; Only those eligible records that have been selected or crowdfunded are subject to critical appraisal; For all records that have been selected, all relevant reports are collected; Reports are grouped into studies; Only for the studies appraised positively, practical implications are summarized and disseminated. COVID-19 publications are not selected. Crowdfunding an appraisal of any eligible record is possible for any individual or organization.Information sources. MEDLINE via PubMed. Adding other search sources, such as Scopus, OSF, and medRxiv, is planned in the future when more appraisers become available. The Replicated Version of the PubMed Systematic Review Subset Query Zheln Edition (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/Z3JU7) will be used. The searches are run daily.Risk of bias. Critical appraisal will feature: Duplication assessment; Replication; Assessment against the MECIR conduct standards; ROB-ME assessment; GRADE assessment.Synthesis of results. No across-studies synthesis is planned. Within-studies, I will formulate explicit practice-relevant statements based on the extracted health outcomes and quality-of-conduct assessment. Also, the process of each critical appraisal is video-recorded and published on YouTube daily.OTHERFunding. The review is crowdfunded; the details are available from the Zheln website (https://zheln.com). Crowd funders had no role in the design of the protocol. They will be able to request critical appraisal and additional critical appraisal (with new data provided) of any eligible record but will not influence the review process otherwise.Registration. The project is hosted on GitHub. Also, there is an umbrella Open Science Framework project that links repositories and preprints (DOI 10.17605/OSF.IO/EJKFC). The protocol for this overview of systematic reviews has been submitted for registration in PROSPERO.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document