The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine

Objectives To determine whether librarian or information specialist authorship is associated with better reproducibility of the search, at least three databases searched, and better reporting quality in dental systematic reviews (SRs). Methods SRs from the top ten dental research journals (as determined by Journal Citation Reports and Scimago) were reviewed for search quality and reproducibility by independent reviewers using two Qualtrics survey instruments. Data was reviewed for all SRs based on reproducibility and librarian participation and further reviewed for search quality of reproducible searches. Results Librarians were co-authors in only 2.5% of the 913 included SRs and librarians were mentioned or acknowledged in only 9% of included SRs. Librarian coauthors were associated with more reproducible searches, higher search quality, and at least three databases searched. Although the results indicate librarians are associated with improved SR quality, due to the small number of SRs that included a librarian, results were not statistically significant. Conclusion Despite guidance from organizations that produce SR guidelines recommending the inclusion of a librarian or information specialist on the review team, and despite evidence showing that librarians improve the reproducibility of searches and the reporting of methodology in SRs, librarians are not being included in SRs in the field of dental medicine. The authors of this review recommend the inclusion of a librarian on SR teams in dental medicine and other fields.

Download Full-text

Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies

BMC Health Services Research ◽

10.1186/s12913-021-06122-y ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 21 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Reema Harrison ◽

Benjamin Jones ◽

Peter Gardner ◽

Rebecca Lawton

Keyword(s):

Health Services Research ◽

Health Services ◽

Literature Review ◽

Quality Assessment ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Content Validity ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Services Research ◽

Appraisal Tool

Abstract Background In the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research. Methods Secondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD (n=197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses. Results Key limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research. Conclusion Our findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.

Download Full-text

Exploring reporting quality of systematic reviews and Meta-analyses on nursing interventions in patients with Alzheimer’s disease before and after PRISMA introduction

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-018-0622-7 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 18 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Xiao Sun ◽

Xiaobin Zhou ◽

Yan Yu ◽

Haihua Liu

Keyword(s):

Alzheimer’S Disease ◽

Alzheimer's Disease ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Nursing Interventions ◽

Before And After ◽

Meta Analyses

Download Full-text

Protocol registration improves reporting quality of systematic reviews in dentistry

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-020-00939-7 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos Santos ◽

Bernardo Antônio Agostini ◽

Rafaela Bassani ◽

Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira ◽

Rafael Sarkis-Onofre

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Protocol Registration

Download Full-text

Quality of Systematic Reviews of the Foods with Function Claims in Japan: Comparative Before- and After-Evaluation of Verification Reports by the Consumer Affairs Agency

Nutrients ◽

10.3390/nu11071583 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 11 (7) ◽

pp. 1583 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Kamioka ◽

Tsutani ◽

Origasa ◽

Yoshizaki ◽

Kitayuguchi ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Scientific Evidence ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Health Claims ◽

Scientific Quality ◽

Before And After ◽

Product Effectiveness

Background: In Japan, a new type of foods with health claims, called Foods with Function Claims (FFC), was introduced in April 2015 in order to make more products available that are clearly labeled with certain health functions. Regarding substantiating product effectiveness, scientific evidence for the proposed function claims must be explained by systematic reviews (SRs), but the quality of SRs was not clear. The objectives of this review were to assess the quality of SRs based on the FFC registered on the Consumer Affairs Agency (CAA) website in Japan, and to determine whether the CAA’s verification report in 2016 was associated with improvement in the quality of SRs. Methods: We evaluated the reporting quality of each SR by the AMSTAR checklist on methodological quality. We searched the database from 1 April to 31 October 2015 as the before-SR and from 1 July 2017 to 31 January 2018 as the after-SR. Results: Among the 104 SRs reviewed, 96 final products were included: 51 (53.1%) were supplements, 42 (43.8%) were processed foods without supplements, and 3 (3.1%) were fresh foods. Of the 104 SRs, 92 (88.5%) were qualitative reviews (i.e., without meta-analysis) and 12 (11.5%) performed a meta-analysis. The average quality score of before-SRs and after-SRs was 6.2 ± 1.8 and 5.0 ± 1.9, respectively, a statistically significant decrease (p < 0.001). Conclusion: Overall, the methodology and reporting quality of after-SRs based on the FFC were poorer than those of before-SRs. In particular, there were very poor descriptions and/or implementations of study selection and data extraction, search strategy, evaluation methods for risk of bias, assessment of publication bias, and formulating conclusions based on methodological rigor and scientific quality of the included studies.

Download Full-text

An Overview of Meta-Analyses of Danhong Injection for Unstable Angina

Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine ◽

10.1155/2015/358028 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 2015 ◽

pp. 1-8 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Xiaoxia Zhang ◽

Hui Wang ◽

Yanxu Chang ◽

Yuefei Wang ◽

Xiang Lei ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Unstable Angina ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Conventional Medicine ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Danhong Injection ◽

Statistical Heterogeneity ◽

Comprehensive Search ◽

Meta Analyses

Objective. To systematically collect evidence and evaluate the effects of Danhong injection (DHI) for unstable angina (UA).Methods. A comprehensive search was conducted in seven electronic databases up to January 2015. The methodological and reporting quality of included studies was assessed by using AMSTAR and PRISMA.Result. Five articles were included. The conclusions suggest that DHI plus conventional medicine treatment was effective for UA pectoris treatment, could alleviate symptoms of angina and ameliorate electrocardiograms. Flaws of the original studies and systematic reviews weaken the strength of evidence. Limitations of the methodology quality include performing an incomprehensive literature search, lacking detailed characteristics, ignoring clinical heterogeneity, and not assessing publication bias and other forms of bias. The flaws of reporting systematic reviews included the following: not providing a structured summary, no standardized search strategy. For the pooled findings, researchers took statistical heterogeneity into consideration, but clinical and methodology heterogeneity were ignored.Conclusion. DHI plus conventional medicine treatment generally appears to be effective for UA treatment. However, the evidence is not hard enough due to methodological flaws in original clinical trials and systematic reviews. Furthermore, rigorous designed randomized controlled trials are also needed. The methodology and reporting quality of systematic reviews should be improved.

Download Full-text

Reporting Quality of Drug Safety Systematic Reviews: A Cross-Sectional Study

Value in Health ◽

10.1016/j.jval.2018.07.639 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 21 ◽

pp. S85

Author(s):

L Li ◽

C Xu ◽

K Deng ◽

X Zhou ◽

X Sun

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Drug Safety ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Cross Sectional Study ◽

Sectional Study ◽

Cross Sectional

Download Full-text

Assessing the methodological and reporting quality of clinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric urology: can practices on contemporary highest levels of evidence be built?

Journal of Pediatric Urology ◽

10.1016/j.jpurol.2019.12.002 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 16 (2) ◽

pp. 207-217 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

F. O'Kelly ◽

K. DeCotiis ◽

I. Aditya ◽

L.H. Braga ◽

M.A. Koyle

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Paediatric Urology ◽

Levels Of Evidence ◽

Meta Analyses

Download Full-text

Editorial from the Editor in Chief

Laser and Particle Beams ◽

10.1017/s0263034606060629 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 24 (3) ◽

pp. 333-334

Author(s):

DIETER H.H. HOFFMANN

Keyword(s):

Peer Review Process ◽

Journal Citation Report ◽

Applied Physics ◽

Particle Beams ◽

Journal Citation Reports ◽

Research Fields ◽

The Impact ◽

Journal Citation

Since 2003, the journal of Laser and Particle Beams no longer publishes conference proceedings. Even of those conferences where the topics are very closely related to the research fields discussed in this journal. Authors are instead encouraged to submit a regular paper dealing with the topic presented during a conference. The advantage for authors is that there is no page limit as long as the paper passes the peer review process. The discussion of the presented research during the conference helps reviewers to evaluate the quality of the paper and this usually leads to a speedy publication process. Every year in June, the ISI Web of Knowledge releases the Journal Citation Reports. The publication policy adopted by the Laser and Particle Beams editorial board was obviously quite successful since we experienced a substantial increase in the impact factor and in the immediacy index. Thus the Journal Citation Report lists Laser and Particle Beams now as a leading journal in the field of applied physics. This is an opportunity to thank authors for their high quality contributions to this journal. The publisher and the editorial board will try to continue to improve the service to readers and authors during the upcoming years.

Download Full-text