scholarly journals Honorary Authorship in Health Sciences: A Protocol for a Systematic Review of Survey Research

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reint A Meursinge Reynders ◽  
Gerben Ter Riet ◽  
Nicola Di Girolamo ◽  
Mario Malički
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Honorary Authorship ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
New Research

Abstract BackgroundHonorary authorship refers to the practice of naming an individual who has made little or no contribution to a publication as an author. Honorary authorship inflates the output estimates of honorary authors and deflates the value of the work by authors who truly merit authorship. This manuscript presents the protocol for a systematic review that will assess the prevalence of five honorary authorship issues in health sciences.MethodsSurveys of authors of scientific publications in health sciences that assess prevalence estimates will be eligible. No selection criteria will be set for the time point for measuring outcomes, the setting, the language of the publication, and the publication status. Eligible manuscripts are searched from inception onwards in PubMed, Lens.org, and Dimensions.ai. Two calibrated authors will independently search, determine eligibility of manuscripts and conduct data extraction. The quality of each review outcome for each eligible manuscript will be assessed with a 14 items checklist developed and piloted for this review. Data will be qualitatively synthesized and quantitative syntheses will be performed where feasible. Criteria for precluding quantitative syntheses were defined a priori. The pooled random effects double arcsine transformed summary event rates of five outcomes on honorary authorship issues with the pertinent 95% confidence intervals will be calculated if these criteria are met. Summary estimates will be displayed after back-transformation. Stata software (Stata Corporation, College Station, Texas, USA) version 16 will be used for all statistical analyses. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed using Tau2 and Chi2 tests and I2 to quantify inconsistency.DiscussionThe outcomes of the planned systematic review will give insights in the magnitude of honorary authorship in health sciences and could direct new research studies to develop and implement strategies to address this problem. However, the validity of the outcomes could be influenced by low response rates, inadequate research design, weighting issues, and recall bias in the eligible surveys. Systematic review registration This protocol was registered a priori in the Open Science Framework (OSF) link: https://osf.io/5nvar/

scholarly journals Downsides of face masks and possible mitigation strategies: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e044364
Author(s):  
Mina Bakhit ◽  
Natalia Krzyzaniak ◽  
Anna Mae Scott ◽  
Justin Clark ◽  
Paul Glasziou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Face Mask ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Mitigation Strategies ◽  
Clinical Registries ◽  
The Face ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
New Research

ObjectiveTo identify, appraise and synthesise studies evaluating the downsides of wearing face masks in any setting. We also discuss potential strategies to mitigate these downsides.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CENTRAL and EuropePMC were searched (inception–18 May 2020), and clinical registries were searched via CENTRAL. We also did a forward–backward citation search of the included studies.Inclusion criteriaWe included randomised controlled trials and observational studies comparing face mask use to any active intervention or to control.Data extraction and analysisTwo author pairs independently screened articles for inclusion, extracted data and assessed the quality of included studies. The primary outcomes were compliance, discomforts, harms and adverse events of wearing face masks.ResultsWe screened 5471 articles, including 37 (40 references); 11 were meta-analysed. For mask wear adherence, 47% (95% CI 25% to 68%, p<0.0001), more people wore face masks in the face mask group compared with control; adherence was significantly higher (26%, 95% CI 8% to 46%, p<0.01) in the surgical/medical mask group than in N95/P2 group. The largest number of studies reported on the discomfort and irritation outcome (20 studies); fewest reported on the misuse of masks, and none reported on mask contamination or risk compensation behaviour. Risk of bias was generally high for blinding of participants and personnel and low for attrition and reporting biases.ConclusionsThere are insufficient data to quantify all of the adverse effects that might reduce the acceptability, adherence and effectiveness of face masks. New research on face masks should assess and report the harms and downsides. Urgent research is also needed on methods and designs to mitigate the downsides of face mask wearing, particularly the assessment of possible alternatives.Systematic review registrationOpen Science Framework website https://osf.io/sa6kf/ (timestamp 20-05-2020).

scholarly journals Epidemiology of gastric cancer in Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Celestin Danwang ◽  
Jean Joel Bigna
Keyword(s):  
Gastric Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Random Effect ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Case Fatality ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
The Usa

Abstract Background Gastric cancer is actually known as the sixth most frequent cancer and the second cancer-related cause of death worldwide. If studies giving an overview of current epidemiology of gastric cancer in Europe, Asia, and the USA are available, in Africa, studies reporting recent data on gastric cancer are sparse. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim therefore to provide relevant data on contemporary epidemiology of gastric cancer in Africa in terms of prevalence, incidence, and case fatality rate. Methods and design We will include cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case series with more than 30 participants. EMBASE, PubMed, Africa Index Medicus, Africa Journals Online, and Web of Science will be searched for relevant abstracts of studies published and unpublished between January 1, 2000, and April 30, 2019, without language restriction. The review will be reported according to the MOOSE (Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guideline. After screening of abstracts, study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment, we shall assess the studies individually for clinical and statistical heterogeneity. Random-effect meta-analysis will be used to pool studies judged to be clinically homogenous. The Egger test and visual inspection of funnel plots will be used to assess publication bias. Discussion This review will provide relevant data on the current burden of gastric cancer in Africa. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42019130348.

scholarly journals Safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy: a systematic review protocol

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Haitham Shoman ◽  
Simone Sandler ◽  
Alexander Peters ◽  
Ameer Farooq ◽  
Magdalen Gruendl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Conventional Laparoscopy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Gasless Laparoscopy ◽  
Resource Setting

Abstract Background Gasless laparoscopy, developed in the early 1990s, was a means to minimize the clinical and financial challenges of pneumoperitoneum and general anaesthesia. It has been used in a variety of procedures such as in general surgery and gynecology procedures including diagnostic laparoscopy. There has been increasing evidence of the utility of gasless laparoscopy in resource limited settings where diagnostic imaging is not available. In addition, it may help save costs for hospitals. The aim of this study is to conduct a systematic review of the available evidence surrounding the safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to conventional laparoscopy and open techniques and to analyze the benefits that gasless laparoscopy has for low resource setting hospitals. Methods This protocol is developed by following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis–Protocols (PRISMA-P). The PRISMA statement guidelines and flowchart will be used to conduct the study itself. MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, and Global Index Medicus (WHO) will be searched and the National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials database. The articles that will be found will be pooled into Covidence article manager software where all the records will be screened for eligibility and duplicates removed. A data extraction spreadsheet will be developed based on variables of interest set a priori. Reviewers will then screen all included studies based on the eligibility criteria. The GRADE tool will be used to assess the quality of the studies and the risk of bias in all the studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk assessment tool. The RoB II tool will assed the risk of bias in randomized control studies and the ROBINS I will be used for the non-randomized studies. Discussion This study will be a comprehensive review on all published articles found using this search strategy on the safety and efficiency of the use of gasless laparoscopy. The systematic review outcomes will include safety and efficiency of gasless laparoscopy compared to the use of conventional laparoscopy or laparotomy. Trial registration The study has been registered in PROSPERO under registration number: CRD42017078338

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 Enamel Renal Syndrome: Protocol for a Scoping Review (Preprint)

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Imaan A Roomaney ◽  
Salma Kabbashi ◽  
Manogari Chetty
Keyword(s):  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Autosomal Recessive Disorder ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Open Access Journal ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Oral Rehabilitation ◽  
Gingival Enlargement ◽  
Data Extraction Form ◽  
Science Framework

BACKGROUND Enamel renal syndrome (ERS) (OMIM 204690) is a rare autosomal recessive disorder characterized by hypoplastic amelogenesis imperfecta, failed tooth eruption, intrapulpal calcifications, gingival enlargement, and nephrocalcinosis. The rarity of the condition and the variability of the phenotype has led to ERS not being fully characterized. OBJECTIVE This scoping review aims to account for the range and current state of knowledge on ERS and synthesize these findings into a comprehensive summary, focusing on the pathophysiology, genotype-phenotype correlations, and patient management from a dental perspective. METHODS The authors will conduct a systematic search of PubMed (MEDLINE), BioMed Central, EbscoHost Web, Web of Science, and WorldCat. We will include all studies with human participants with a confirmed diagnosis of ERS. Articles will be screened in two stages (ie, initially by title and abstract screening and then full-text screening by two independent reviewers). Data extraction will be conducted using a customized electronic data extraction form. We will provide a narrative synthesis of the findings from the included studies. We will structure the results according to themes. RESULTS This protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework. The electronic search was conducted in July 2020 and updated in April 2021. The research findings will be published in an open access journal. CONCLUSIONS Dentists should be able to identify patients with clinical features of ERS so that they receive appropriate referrals for renal evaluation, genetic counseling, and oral rehabilitation to increase the patient’s quality of life. A scoping review is the most appropriate method to conduct this comprehensive exploration of the current evidence, which may be sparse due to the rarity of the condition. It will also enable us to identify gaps in the research. CLINICALTRIAL Open Science Framework; https://osf.io/cghsa INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT DERR1-10.2196/29702

scholarly journals Evacuation solutions for individuals with functional limitations in the built environment: a scoping review protocol

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad W. R. Roberts ◽  
Abdulrahman Al Bochi ◽  
Mark Weiler ◽  
Yashoda Sharma ◽  
Cesar Marquez-Chin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Built Environment ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Functional Limitations ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Science Framework

Abstract Background Whether due to aging, disability, injury, or other circumstances, an increasing number of Canadians experience functional limitations that reduce their ability to participate in activities of daily life. While the built environment has become increasingly accessible, existing Canadian evacuation guidelines lack comprehensive strategies for evacuating individuals with functional limitations from buildings during emergencies. To inform guideline revisions, a map of existing solutions for evacuating such individuals is required. Therefore, this scoping review aims to provide an account of solutions that have been reported to safely evacuate individuals with functional limitations from the built environment. Methods We will conduct a scoping review using the Arksey and O’Malley methodological framework. To identify potentially relevant studies, comprehensive searches (from January 2002 onwards) of the CINAHL, Ei Compendex, Inspec, Embase, MEDLINE, KCI, RSCI, SciELO CI, Web of Science Collection, and Scopus databases will be performed. Using a set of inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers will independently (1) classify identified studies as relevant, irrelevant, or maybe relevant by evaluating their titles and abstracts and (2) classify the relevant and maybe relevant studies as included or excluded by evaluating their full-text. From each included study, data on publication information, study purpose, methodological details, evacuation information, and outcomes will be extracted using a set of data extraction items. We will present a numerical summary of the key characteristics of the included studies. For each evacuation activity, reported evacuation solutions will be summarized, and citations provided for functional limitations that are targeted by a given evacuation solution. To inform Canadian evacuation guideline revisions, we will tabulate evacuation activities common to different types of buildings and emergencies. Discussion To our knowledge, this will be the first scoping review to identify the state and use of solutions for evacuating individuals with functional limitations from the built environment. Identifying solutions that enable all individuals to safely evacuate from different types of buildings will allow us to inform recommendations for the revision of evacuation guidelines in Canada and other jurisdictions. The findings of this scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at relevant conferences, and made publicly available on the internet. Systematic review registration Open Science Framework: osf.io/jefgy

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 Methodological considerations in assessment of language lateralisation with fMRI: a systematic review

PeerJ ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 5 ◽  
pp. e3557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail R. Bradshaw ◽  
Dorothy V.M. Bishop ◽  
Zoe V.J. Woodhead
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Language Functions ◽  
Multiple Regions ◽  
Invasive Method ◽  
Science Framework ◽  
Methodological Considerations ◽  
The Right ◽  
Language Laterality

The involvement of the right and left hemispheres in mediating language functions has been measured in a variety of ways over the centuries since the relative dominance of the left hemisphere was first known. Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) presents a useful non-invasive method of assessing lateralisation that is being increasingly used in clinical practice and research. However, the methods used in the fMRI laterality literature currently are highly variable, making systematic comparisons across studies difficult. Here we consider the different methods of quantifying and classifying laterality that have been used in fMRI studies since 2000, with the aim of determining which give the most robust and reliable measurement. Recommendations are made with a view to informing future research to increase standardisation in fMRI laterality protocols. In particular, the findings reinforce the importance of threshold-independent methods for calculating laterality indices, and the benefits of assessing heterogeneity of language laterality across multiple regions of interest and tasks. This systematic review was registered as a protocol on Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/hyvc4/.

Methodological issues in reporting of systematic reviews of mobile applications: A scoping review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Grainger ◽  
Hemakumar Devan ◽  
Bahram Sangelaji ◽  
Jean Hay-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Mobile Applications ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
App Store

BACKGROUND An emerging literature describes systematic reviews of the app stores to identify mobile applications (apps) to support diagnosis, assessment or management of health conditions. There are currently no guidelines for the conduct and reporting of methods of these studies. The first step in developing guidelines is to evaluate current reporting of methods of systematic reviews of health apps. OBJECTIVE The aims of this scoping review were: 1. To identify what parts of the ‘usual’ methods of systematic review are used and adapted in app-focused systematic reviews; 2. To describe how methods of critical appraisal are adapted and done; and 3. To assess what clinical recommendations are made and the ‘strength’ of those recommendations. METHODS A systematic search of seven databases was undertaken to identify app-focused systematic reviews meeting the inclusion criteria: (1) the article was “systematic” defined by “systematic review” in the title OR an a priori systematic search procedure described in the article methods OR the app search process described based on PRISMA standard flow diagram; (2) the article described a systematic search for apps in at least one app store; (3) the article focused on a named health condition; and (4) the focus of the article was apps for people with any diagnosed acute or chronic health condition or for clinicians in direct clinical care. Articles were excluded if not in English, focused on general or psychological health or nutrition. A data extraction template was created based on standard data elements in PRISMA guidelines. The extracted data from the included articles were summarised by frequencies. RESULTS From 2798 records, 26 of the 177 potentially eligible full text articles were included. In the 26 included app-focused systematic reviews, many of the typical procedures of a systematic review as operationalized for app-focused reviews were not reported at all, or not clearly reported. Absences, lack of clarity or completeness of reporting occured in: a priori review protocol registration or following a reporting guideline; the processes of screening apps in the app stores; the data extracted from app store description or the device the app was downloaded to for data extraction; and appraisal tools for assessing the app quality, usability or clinical content. Further, there was no explicit reporting of clinical efficacy of apps or recommendations for use in the majority of reviews. CONCLUSIONS The reporting of methods used in app-focused systematic reviews is variable and could be substantially improved. Development and publication of consensus reporting guidelines would increase transparency and quality of published studies. A repository for registration of reviews would ensure reviews are easy to find and not duplicated. These steps would also enable clinicians and people with health conditions to more easily find high quality apps.

How Design Can Impact the Performance of a Healthcare Application, Affect Users’ Decisions and Contribute to Patient’s Well-Being: A Scoping Review Protocol.

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose George Dias de Souza ◽  
Frederico M. Bublitz ◽  
Daniel Scherer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Prenatal Care ◽  
Pregnant Women ◽  
Digital Library ◽  
Architectural Design ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Health Applications

Abstract Background: Pregnancy is an important phase in a woman's life, the gestational period however is accompanied by fears and apprehension, especially for women who are experiencing this phase for the first time. Prenatal care is essential to prevent diseases and reduce risk for pregnant women, thus enabling healthy development for the baby. Nowadays many women find it difficult to make an adequate prenatal care, for the most varied reasons. Taking into account that the world is increasingly connected to the internet, it is important to understand, analyzing a set of health applications, which are the best decisions from the design point of view, usability to become a useful application for pregnant women, another relevant point is to understand how the architecture of these solutions were designed to be scalable. Thus, a well-defined systematic review is needed to identify the impacts of architectural, design and performance decisions on health applications, reducing risks and minimizing human errors.Methods/Design: This study will follow a well-defined methodological structure. The methodology is separated into the following sections: Research question identification; Extraction of relevant studies; Selection criteria; Charting the data; Collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The research question aims to analyze the approaches used to build health applications aiming at design decisions, architecture and the impacts that are generated for the end user. The researchers will use the following electronic databases for data extraction: PubMed (Medline); IEEE Xplore Digital Library; ACM Digital Library; Web of Science; and Scopus Document Search. The search for research will consist of a set of terms and keywords.Discussion: This work has the interest of presenting a model, a standard, a guide for creating a health software interface, always aiming at the quality of the interface, the user experience and the possible gain with the performance of the application, considering that users will have more security to make decisions.Systematic review registration: Submitted on October 11, 2020 Open Science Framework.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document