scholarly journals Evaluation of method in systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in LIS

2008 ◽  
Vol 32 (101) ◽  
pp. 91-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kalyani Ankem
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Assessment Data ◽  
Inferential Statistics ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Meta Analyses

The objective of the research was to evaluate systematic reviews and meta-analyses appearing in library and information science (LIS) literature. LIS databases were searched to find systematic reviews and meta-analyses published during 1996 - 2006 in LIS journals. Seven systematic reviews and five meta-analyses were selected and methods applied (identification of studies, inclusion/exclusion criteria, quality assessment, data extraction, and synthesis) were reviewed. The evaluation indicates that all systematic reviews in LIS have been published on medical library or medical information topics. Searching conducted to identify studies for systematic reviews and meta-analyses is comprehensive. Inclusion/exclusion criteria and quality standards established in systematic reviews and meta-analyses are well developed; however, in most systematic reviews, the analysis is limited to percentages rather than inferential statistics. Analysis based on inferential statistics in systematic reviews will further improve the reviews. The meta-analyses published in LIS illustrate different approaches to conducting the synthesis.

scholarly journals The Medical Library Association’s Role in Disseminating Information Related to the COVID-19 Pandemic

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michele Buscher
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Content Analysis ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Medical Information ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Science Field ◽  
Health Crisis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Public Health Crisis ◽  
Medical Library

The Medical Library Association (MLA) has been part of the library and information science field since 1898 (The Medical Library Association, 2020). According to the website, the mission of the organization is to promote library and information science knowledge and make it available and accessible to medical information specialists and the general public. This content analysis examines the Medical Library Association’s (MLA) role in the 2019/2020 COVID-19 public health crisis, specifically the ways in which the MLA has provided resources about the pandemic to libraries and librarians as well as the public.

scholarly journals Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Maden ◽  
Eleanor Kotas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective – Systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the Library and Information Science (LIS) domain. This paper has three aims: to review approaches to quality assessment in published LIS systematic reviews in order to assess whether and how LIS reviewers report on quality assessment a priori in systematic reviews, to model the different quality assessment aids used by LIS reviewers, and to explore if and how LIS reviewers report on and incorporate the quality of included studies into the systematic review analysis and conclusions. Methods – The authors undertook a methodological study of published LIS systematic reviews using a known cohort of published systematic reviews of LIS-related research. Studies were included if they were reported as a “systematic review” in the title, abstract, or methods section. Meta-analyses that did not incorporate a systematic review and studies in which the systematic review was not a main objective were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies. Data were extracted on the type of synthesis, whether quality assessment was planned and undertaken, the number of reviewers involved in assessing quality, the types of tools or criteria used to assess the quality of the included studies, how quality assessment was assessed and reported in the systematic review, and whether the quality of the included studies was considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review. In order to determine the quality of the reporting and incorporation of quality assessment in LIS systematic reviews, each study was assessed against criteria relating to quality assessment in the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009) and the AMSTAR tool (Shea et al., 2007). Results – Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. The results demonstrate great variation on the breadth, depth, and transparency of the quality assessment process in LIS systematic reviews. Nearly one third of the LIS systematic reviews included in this study did not report on quality assessment in the methods, and less than one quarter adequately incorporated quality assessment in the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Only nine of the 26 systematic reviews that undertook some form of quality assessment incorporated considerations of how the quality of the included studies impacted on the validity of the review findings in the analysis, conclusion, and recommendations. The large number of different quality assessment tools identified reflects not only the disparate nature of the LIS evidence base (Brettle, 2009) but also a lack of consensus around criteria on which to assess the quality of LIS research. Conclusion – Greater clarity, definition, and understanding of the methodology and concept of “quality” in the systematic review process are required not only by LIS reviewers but also by editors of journals in accepting such studies for publication. Further research and guidance is needed on identifying the best tools and approaches to incorporate considerations of quality in LIS systematic reviews. LIS reviewers need to improve the robustness and transparency with which quality assessment is undertaken and reported in systematic reviews. Above all, LIS reviewers need to be explicit in coming to a conclusion on how the quality of the included studies may impact on their review findings.

scholarly journals Do we need to improve the reporting of evidence in tendinopathy management? A critical appraisal of systematic reviews with recommendations on strength of evidence assessment

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e000920
Author(s):  
Dimitris Challoumas ◽  
Neal L Millar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Strength Of Evidence ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cochrane Collaboration

ObjectiveTo critically appraise the quality of published systematic reviews (SRs) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in tendinopathy with regard to handling and reporting of results with special emphasis on strength of evidence assessment.Data sourcesMedline from inception to June 2020.Study eligibilityAll SRs of RCTs assessing the effectiveness of any intervention(s) on any location of tendinopathy.Data extraction and synthesisIncluded SRs were appraised with the use of a 12-item tool devised by the authors arising from the Preferred Reporting Items in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and other relevant guidance. Subgroup analyses were performed based on impact factor (IF) of publishing journals and date of publication.ResultsA total of 57 SRs were included published in 38 journals between 2006 and 2020. The most commonly used risk-of-bias (RoB) assessment tool and strength of evidence assessment tool were the Cochrane Collaboration RoB tool and the Cochrane Collaboration Back Review Group tool, respectively. The mean score on the appraisal tool was 46.5% (range 0%–100%). SRs published in higher IF journals (>4.7) were associated with a higher mean score than those in lower IF journals (mean difference 26.4%±8.8%, p=0.004). The mean score of the 10 most recently published SRs was similar to that of the first 10 published SRs (mean difference 8.3%±13.7%, p=0.54). Only 23 SRs (40%) used the results of their RoB assessment in data synthesis and more than half (n=30; 50%) did not assess the strength of evidence of their results. Only 12 SRs (21%) assessed their strength of evidence appropriately.ConclusionsIn light of the poor presentation of evidence identified by our review, we provide recommendations to increase transparency and reproducibility in future SRs.

scholarly journals Relationship between hospital or surgeon volume and outcomes in joint arthroplasty: protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. e022797 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiang-Dong Wu ◽  
Meng-Meng Liu ◽  
Ya-Ying Sun ◽  
Zhi-Hu Zhao ◽  
Quan Zhou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Dose Response ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
High Volume ◽  
Joint Arthroplasty ◽  
Surgeon Volume ◽  
Published Data ◽  
Records Management ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionJoint arthroplasty is a particularly complex orthopaedic surgical procedure performed on joints, including the hip, knee, shoulder, ankle, elbow, wrist and even digit joints. Increasing evidence from volume–outcomes research supports the finding that patients undergoing joint arthroplasty in high-volume hospitals or by high-volume surgeons achieve better outcomes, and minimum case load requirements have been established in some areas. However, the relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes in patients undergoing arthroplasty are not fully understood. Furthermore, whether elective arthroplasty should be restricted to high-volume hospitals or surgeons remains in dispute, and little is known regarding where the thresholds should be set for different types of joint arthroplasties.Methods and analysesThis is a protocol for a suite of systematic reviews and dose–response meta-analyses, which will be amended and updated in conjunction with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. Electronic databases, including PubMed and Embase, will be searched for observational studies examining the relationship between the hospital or surgeon volume and clinical outcomes in adult patients undergoing primary or revision of joint arthroplasty. We will use records management software for study selection and a predefined standardised file for data extraction and management. Quality will be assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and the meta-analysis, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed using Stata statistical software. Once the volume–outcome relationships are established, we will examine the potential non-linear relationships between hospital/surgeon volume and outcomes and detect whether thresholds or turning points exist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required, because these studies are based on aggregated published data. The results of this suite of systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals for publication.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017056639.

Work Site–Based Environmental Interventions to Reduce Sedentary Behavior: A Systematic Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (1) ◽  
pp. 32-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amanda K. Hutcheson ◽  
Andrew J. Piazza ◽  
Adam P. Knowlden
Keyword(s):  
Sedentary Behavior ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Exclusion Criteria ◽  
Environmental Interventions ◽  
Work Site ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective: The purpose of this investigation was to systematically review work site–based, environmental interventions to reduce sedentary behavior following preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidelines. Data Source: Data were extracted from Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science between January 2005 and December 2015. Study Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria: Inclusion criteria were work site interventions, published in peer-reviewed journals, employing environmental modalities, targeting sedentary behavior, and using any quantitative design. Exclusion criteria were noninterventions and non-English publications. Data Extraction: Data extracted included study design, population, intervention dosage, intervention activities, evaluation measures, and intervention effects. Data Synthesis: Data were tabulated quantitatively and synthesized qualitatively. Results: A total of 15 articles were identified for review and 14 reported statistically significant decreases in sedentary behavior. The majority of studies employed a randomized controlled trial design (n = 7), used inclinometers to measure sedentary behavior (n = 9), recruited predominantly female samples (n = 15), and utilized sit-to-stand desks as the primary intervention modality (n = 10). The mean methodological quality score was 6.2 out of 10. Conclusion: Environmental work site interventions to reduce sedentary behavior show promise because work sites often have more control over environmental factors. Limitations of this intervention stream include inconsistent measurement of sedentary behavior, absence of theoretical frameworks to guide program development, and absence of long-term evaluation. Future studies should include clear reporting of intervention strategies and explicit operationalization of theoretical constructs.

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

2020 ◽  
pp. 80-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mercy Mlay Komba ◽  
Edda Tandi Lwoga
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Knowledge Gaps ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Current State

The aim of this chapter is to assess the current state of application of systematic reviews (SRs) in library and information science (LIS) field and determine how information scientists can advance the SRs as a methodology. The literature shows that there is an increasing number of SRs in LIS although there are still knowledge gaps about the use of SRs as a methodology. The quality of reporting in primary studies in LIS is still poor, and hence, it becomes difficult to appraise the value of the study undertaken. In order to advance the use of SRs in LIS domain, it is important to introduce SRs in LIS education curricular, integrate SRs as part of the continuing scientist development programmes (CPD), use automated SR software to minimize workload, introduce SRs a formal role and service in the libraries, collaborate with research teams as co-authors to conduct SRs not only in the topics defined by research teams, but also in LIS topics, and create SR databases and tools in LIS.

scholarly journals Guidance on conducting systematic reviews/meta-analyses of pharmacoepidemiological studies of safety outcomes: the gap is now filled

2016 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 425-427 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. Cortese
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
European Medicines Agency ◽  
Study Quality ◽  
European Network ◽  
Quality Appraisal ◽  
Comprehensive Guidance ◽  
Extraction Study ◽  
Safety Outcomes ◽  
Meta Analyses

Until recently, no comprehensive guidance specifically on the conduction of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of pharmacoepidemiological studies of safety outcomes was available. In December 2015, the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharamacovigilance (ENCePP), a network coordinated by the European Medicines Agency, published their ‘Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of completed comparative pharmacoepidemiological studies of safety outcomes’, filling an important gap in the field. This paper highlights the ENCePP recommendations in terms of study identification, data extraction, study quality appraisal and analytical plan. Although the ENCePP document should not be considered as definitive, since it will likely be refined following researchers’ feedback, it is expected that it will be highly influential and useful for the field, with the ultimate goal to improve and standardise the conduction and reporting of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of pharmacoepidemiological studies of safety outcomes.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine preventive antibiotic uses and management practices designed to prevent disease in livestock

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-318
Author(s):  
Rachael Vriezen ◽  
Jan M. Sargeant ◽  
Ellen Vriezen ◽  
Charlotte B. Winder ◽  
Annette M. O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractTo implement effective stewardship in food animal production, it is essential that producers and veterinarians are aware of preventive interventions to reduce illness in livestock. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) provide transparent, replicable, and quality-assessed overviews. At present, it is unknown how many SR/MA evaluate preventive antibiotic use or management practices aimed at reducing disease risk in animal agriculture. Further, the quality of existing reviews is unknown. Our aim was to identify reviews investigating these topics and to provide an assessment of their quality. Thirty-eight relevant reviews were identified. Quality assessment was based on the AMSTAR 2 framework for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews. The quality of most of the reviews captured was classified as critically low (84.2%, n = 32/38), and only a small percentage of the evaluated reviews did not contain critical weaknesses (7.9%, n = 3/38). Particularly, a small number of reviews reported the development of an a priori protocol (15.8%, n = 6/38), and few reviews stated that key review steps were conducted in duplicate (study selection/screening: 26.3%, n = 10/38; data extraction: 15.8%, n = 6/38). The development of high-quality reviews summarizing evidence on approaches to antibiotic reduction is essential, and thus greater adherence to quality conduct guidelines for synthesis research is crucial.

scholarly journals Eye tracking in library and information science: a literature review

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 585-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
Haakon Lund
Keyword(s):  
Literature Review ◽  
Eye Tracking ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Reference Databases ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Published Research ◽  
Tracking Technology

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to present a systematic literature review of the application of eye-tracking technology within the field of library and information science. Eye-tracking technology has now reached a level of maturity, which makes the use of the technology more accessible. Subsequently, a growing interest in employing eye tracking as a methodology within library and information science research must be anticipated. Design/methodology/approach The review follows the guidelines set in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses recommendations. Two reference databases are searched for relevant references: Library and Information Science Abstracts and Library, Information Science and Technology Abstracts. The main selection criteria are peer-reviewed literature that describes the experimental setting, including which eye-tracking equipment was used, the number of test persons and reports on the eye-tracking measures. Furthermore, this study will report which other methods were applied in combination with eye tracking. Findings The number of published research utilizing eye-tracking technologies within library and information science (LIS) is still limited although an increase in the use of eye-tracking technologies is observed during recent years. Originality/value To the knowledge of the author, this is the first systematic review on eye-tracking technology and application in LIS.

scholarly journals Usability of Mobile Health Apps for Postoperative Care: Systematic Review

10.2196/19099 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. e19099
Author(s):  
Ben Patel ◽  
Arron Thind
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Measurement Tool ◽  
Validated Questionnaire ◽  
System Usability Scale ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Mhealth Apps

Background Mobile health (mHealth) apps are increasingly used postoperatively to monitor, educate, and rehabilitate. The usability of mHealth apps is critical to their implementation. Objective This systematic review evaluates the (1) methodology of usability analyses, (2) domains of usability being assessed, and (3) results of usability analyses. Methods The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews checklist was consulted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline was adhered to. Screening was undertaken by 2 independent reviewers. All included studies were assessed for risk of bias. Domains of usability were compared with the gold-standard mHealth App Usability Questionnaire (MAUQ). Results A total of 33 of 720 identified studies were included for data extraction. Of the 5 included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), usability was never the primary end point. Methodology of usability analyses included interview (10/33), self-created questionnaire (18/33), and validated questionnaire (9/33). Of the 3 domains of usability proposed in the MAUQ, satisfaction was assessed in 28 of the 33 studies, system information arrangement was assessed in 11 of the 33 studies, and usefulness was assessed in 18 of the 33 studies. Usability of mHealth apps was above industry average, with median System Usability Scale scores ranging from 76 to 95 out of 100. Conclusions Current analyses of mHealth app usability are substandard. RCTs are rare, and validated questionnaires are infrequently consulted. Of the 3 domains of usability, only satisfaction is regularly assessed. There is significant bias throughout the literature, particularly with regards to conflicts of interest. Future studies should adhere to the MAUQ to assess usability and improve the utility of mHealth apps.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document