scholarly journals Technical Standards for Integrating Automation Tools for Evidence Synthesis

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandra Bannach-Brown ◽  
Paul Glasziou ◽  
Matt Carter
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Research Process ◽  
Minimum Level ◽  
Technical Standards ◽  
Steep Learning Curve ◽  
Potential Barriers ◽  
Automation Tools

Systematic review and meta-analysis are powerful tools to provide an unbiased overview of all available literature addressing a specific research question. However, systematic reviews are resource-intensive. To address this, the development of automation tools to aid systematic review research is increasing. But despite the development of these automation tools, recent research suggests that uptake of these tools is slow among evidence synthesis researchers and are potential barriers to using automation tools which include: steep learning curve, mismatched workflow, and lack of support. Here we propose a set of standards for automation tools and platforms that have been built to aid the systematic review community. The aim of these standards is to improve the integration of different tools into the research process and to increase transparency in the field of automation tools for evidence synthesis. The technical standards set out a minimum level and format of documentation required for publishing and disseminating automation tools. Further, we present an orchestrator platform, the Integration Interface, a system to bring compliant automation tools together, independent of programming language, into a succinct workflow. The Integration Interface aims to reduce the barriers associated with using a single or multiple automation tools in the evidence synthesis research process.

scholarly journals Study protocol of a systematic review and qualitative evidence synthesis using two different approaches: Healthcare related needs and desires of older people with post-stroke aphasia

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e039348
Author(s):  
Nadine Janis Pohontsch ◽  
Thorsten Meyer ◽  
Yvonne Eisenmann ◽  
Maria-Inti Metzendorf ◽  
Verena Leve ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older People ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Treatment Success ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Healthcare Needs ◽  
Qualitative Evidence

IntroductionStroke is a frequent disease in the older population of Western Europe with aphasia as a common consequence. Aphasia is known to impede targeting treatment to individual patients’ needs and therefore may reduce treatment success. In Germany, the postacute care of patients who had stroke is provided by different healthcare institutions of different sectors (rehabilitation, nursing and primary care) with substantial difficulties to coordinate services. We will conduct two qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) aiming at exploring distinct healthcare needs and desires of older people living with poststroke aphasia. We thereby hope to support the development of integrated care models based on needs of patients who are very restricted to communicate them. Since various methods of QESs exist, the aim of the study embedding the two QESs was to determine if findings differ according to the approach used.Methods and analysisWe will conduct two QESs by using metaethnography (ME) and thematic synthesis (ThS) independently to synthesise the findings of primary qualitative studies. The main differences between these two methods are the underlying epistemologies (idealism (ME) vs realism (ThS)) and the type of research question (emerging (ME) vs fixed (ThS)).We will search seven bibliographical databases. Inclusion criteria comprise: patients with poststroke aphasia, aged 65 years and older, studies in German/English, all types of qualitative studies concerning needs and desires related to healthcare or the healthcare system. The protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews, follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines and includes three items from the Enhancing Transparency in Reporting the synthesis of Qualitative Research checklist.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. Findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented on national conferences.

scholarly journals What are Systematic Reviews?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Jack Nunn ◽  
Steven Chang
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Environmental Interventions

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question. While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively. Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine, and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study. While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful. Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions, social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations. An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.

scholarly journals What are Systematic Reviews?

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Jack Nunn ◽  
◽  
Steven Chang ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Secondary Data ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Economic Evaluations ◽  
Environmental Interventions

Systematic reviews are a type of review that uses repeatable analytical methods to collect secondary data and analyse it. Systematic reviews are a type of evidence synthesis which formulate research questions that are broad or narrow in scope, and identify and synthesize data that directly relate to the systematic review question.[1] While some people might associate ‘systematic review’ with 'meta-analysis', there are multiple kinds of review which can be defined as ‘systematic’ which do not involve a meta-analysis. Some systematic reviews critically appraise research studies, and synthesize findings qualitatively or quantitatively.[2] Systematic reviews are often designed to provide an exhaustive summary of current evidence relevant to a research question. For example, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are an important way of informing evidence-based medicine,[3] and a review of existing studies is often quicker and cheaper than embarking on a new study. While systematic reviews are often applied in the biomedical or healthcare context, they can be used in other areas where an assessment of a precisely defined subject would be helpful.[4] Systematic reviews may examine clinical tests, public health interventions, environmental interventions,[5] social interventions, adverse effects, qualitative evidence syntheses, methodological reviews, policy reviews, and economic evaluations.[6][7] An understanding of systematic reviews and how to implement them in practice is highly recommended for professionals involved in the delivery of health care, public health and public policy.

scholarly journals Zumba®, Fat Mass and Maximum Oxygen Consumption: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 105
Author(s):  
Manuel Chavarrias ◽  
Santos Villafaina ◽  
Ana Myriam Lavín-Pérez ◽  
Jorge Carlos-Vivas ◽  
Eugenio Merellano-Navarro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Oxygen Consumption ◽  
Body Mass ◽  
Fat Mass ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
P Value ◽  
Maximum Oxygen Consumption ◽  
Mass Percentage ◽  
Large Heterogeneity

Background and objectives: Obesity or overweight is associated with many health risk factors and preventable mortality. Even people with normal weight and without history of obesity or overweight should avoid weight gain to reduce health risks factors. In this regard Latin aerobic dances involved in Zumba® practice make this modality motivating for people. Apart from weight loss and VO2peak benefits, Zumba practice is also interesting by the increase in adherence which can also avoid weight regain. The aim was to systematically review the scientific literature about the effects of any randomized intervention of Zumba® practice on total fat mass (%) and maximum oxygen consumption (VO2peak), besides establishing directions for the clinical practice. Evidence acquisition: Two systematic searches were conducted in two electronic databases following the PRISMA guidelines. The eligibility criteria were (a) outcomes: body mass or VO2peak data including mean and standard deviation (SD) before and after Zumba® intervention, (b) study design: randomized controlled trial (RCT) and (c) language: English. GRADE guidelines were used to assess the quality of evidence. A meta-analysis was performed to determine mean differences. Nine and four studies were selected for fat mass percentage and VO2peak in the systematic review, respectively. However, only eight studies for fat mass percentage and three for VO2peak could be included in the meta-analysis. Evidence synthesis: The overall standardized mean difference for fat mass was −0.25 with a 95% CI from −0.67 to 0.16 with a p-value of 0.69, with large heterogeneity. On the other hand, the overall effect size for VO2peak was 0.53 (95% CI from 0.04 to 1.02 with a p-value of 0.03) with large heterogeneity. Conclusions: Based on the evidence, we cannot conclude that Zumba® is effective at reducing body mass but it may improve VO2peak. However, the limited number of studies that met the inclusion criteria makes it too early to reach a definite conclusion, so more research is needed.

scholarly journals Effect modification of the association between comorbidities and severe course of COVID-19 disease by age of study participants: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathalie Verónica Fernández Villalobos ◽  
Jördis Jennifer Ott ◽  
Carolina Judith Klett-Tammen ◽  
Annabelle Bockey ◽  
Patrizio Vanella ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Icu Admission ◽  
Vaccination Strategies ◽  
Relative Risks ◽  
Quantitative Synthesis ◽  
Meta Regression ◽  
Behavioural Factors ◽  
Study Participants

Abstract Background Comprehensive evidence synthesis on the associations between comorbidities and behavioural factors with hospitalisation, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, and death due to COVID-19 is required for deriving national and international recommendations on primary targets for non-pharmacological interventions (NPI) and vaccination strategies. Methods We performed a rapid systematic review and meta-analysis on studies and publicly accessible data to quantify associations between predisposing health conditions, demographics, behavioural factors on the one hand and hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death from COVID-19 on the other hand. We provide ranges of reported and calculated effect estimates and pooled relative risks derived from a meta-analysis and meta-regression. Results Seventy-five studies were included in qualitative and 74 in quantitative synthesis, with study populations ranging from 19 to 44,672 COVID-19 cases. The risk of dying from COVID-19 was significantly associated with cerebrovascular [pooled relative risk (RR) 2.7 (95% CI 1.7–4.1)] and cardiovascular [RR 3.2 (CI 2.3–4.5)] diseases, hypertension [RR 2.6 (CI 2.0–3.4)], and renal disease [RR 2.5 (CI 1.8–3.4)], with high heterogeneity in pooled estimates, partly but not solely explained by age of study participants. For some comorbidities, our meta-regression showed a decrease in effect on the severity of disease with a higher median age of the study population. Compared to death, associations between several comorbidities and hospitalisation and ICU admission were less pronounced. Conclusions We obtained robust estimates on the magnitude of risk for COVID-19 hospitalisation, ICU admission, and death associated with comorbidities, demographic, and behavioural risk factors and show that these estimates are modified by age of study participants. This interaction is an important finding to be kept in mind for current vaccination strategies and for the protection of individuals with high risk for a severe COVID-19 course.

scholarly journals Sleep in youth with autism spectrum disorders: systematic review and meta-analysis of subjective and objective studies

2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 146-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amparo Díaz-Román ◽  
Junhua Zhang ◽  
Richard Delorme ◽  
Anita Beggiato ◽  
Samuele Cortese
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Autism Spectrum Disorders ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Newcastle Ottawa Scale ◽  
Spectrum Disorders ◽  
Sleep Alterations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Ottawa Scale

BackgroundSleep problems are common and impairing in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Evidence synthesis including both subjective (ie, measured with questionnaires) and objective (ie, quantified with neurophysiological tools) sleep alterations in youth with ASD is currently lacking.ObjectiveWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of subjective and objective studies sleep studies in youth with ASD.MethodsWe searched the following electronic databases with no language, date or type of document restriction up to 23 May 2018: PubMed, PsycInfo, Embase+Embase Classic, Ovid Medline and Web of Knowledge. Random-effects models were used. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran’s Q and I2 statistics. Publication (small studies) bias was assessed with final plots and the Egger’s test. Study quality was evaluated with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Analyses were conducted using Review Manager and Comprehensive Meta-Analysis.FindingsFrom a pool of 3359 non-duplicate potentially relevant references, 47 datasets were included in the meta-analyses. Subjective and objective sleep outcome measures were extracted from 37 and 15 studies, respectively. Only five studies were based on comorbidity free, medication-naïve participants. Compared with typically developing controls, youth with ASD significantly differed in 10/14 subjective parameters and in 7/14 objective sleep parameters. The average quality score in the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale was 5.9/9.Discussion and clinical implicationsA number of subjective and, to a less extent, objective sleep alterations might characterise youth with ASD, but future studies should assess the impact of pharmacological treatment and psychiatric comorbidities.

scholarly journals Relationship between hormonal contraceptives and sleep among women of reproductive age: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. e045819
Author(s):  
Jinhui Ma ◽  
Megan Cheng ◽  
Lehana Thabane ◽  
Caihong Ma ◽  
Ning Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Reproductive Age ◽  
Hormonal Contraceptives ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Women Of Reproductive Age

IntroductionThe aetiology of sleep disruptions is unknown, but hormonal fluctuations during the menstrual cycle, pregnancy and menopause have been shown to potentially affect how well a woman sleeps. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate whether hormonal contraceptives are associated with a decreased quality of sleep and increased sleep duration in women of reproductive age.MethodsThis review will analyse data from randomised controlled trials or non-randomised comparative studies investigating the association between hormonal contraceptives and sleep outcomes among women of reproductive age. Reviews addressing the same research question with similar eligibility criteria will be included. A literature search will be performed using the MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases from inception to 7 March 2021. The Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias for Randomised Trials V.2.0 and The Risk of Bias for Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool will be used to assess risk of bias for each outcome in eligible studies. Two reviewers will independently assess eligibility of studies and risk of bias and extract the data. All extracted data will be presented in tables and narrative form. For sleep measures investigated by two or more studies with low heterogeneity, we will conduct random-effects meta-analysis to estimate the magnitude of the overall effect of hormonal contraceptives. If studies included in this systematic review form a connected network, a network meta-analysis will be conducted to estimate the comparative effect of different contraceptives. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach will be used to summarise the quality of evidence. Our protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 guidelines.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as data were sourced from previously reported studies. The findings of this review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020199958.

Vacuum Therapy and Internal Drainage as the First-Line Endoscopic Treatment for Post-Bariatric Leaks: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Issaree Laopeamthong ◽  
Thanita Akethanin ◽  
Wisit Kasetsermwiriya ◽  
Suphakarn Techapongsatorn ◽  
Amarit Tansawet
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Fixed Effects ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Clinical Success ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Data Availability ◽  
Vacuum Therapy ◽  
Internal Drainage ◽  
First Line

<b><i>Introduction:</i></b> Several endoscopic methods can be employed to manage post-bariatric leaks. However, endoluminal vacuum therapy (EVT) and endoscopic internal drainage (EID) are relatively new methods, and studies regarding these methods are scarce. We performed a systematic review of the literature and a meta-analysis to evaluate the efficacy of EVT and EID. <b><i>Methods:</i></b> Databases were searched for eligible studies. The clinical success of leak closure was the primary outcome of interest. A proportional meta-analysis was performed for pooling the primary outcome using a fixed-effects model. A meta-analysis or descriptive analysis of other outcomes was performed based on the data availability. <b><i>Results:</i></b> Data from 3 EVT and 10 EID studies (<i>n</i> = 279) were used for evidence synthesis. The leak closure rates (95% confidence interval [CI]) of EVT and EID were 85.2% (75.1%–95.4%) and 91.6% (88.1%–95.2%), respectively. The corresponding mean treatment durations (95% CI) were 28 (2.4–53.6) and 78.4 (50.1–106.7) days, respectively. However, data about other outcomes were extremely limited; thus, a pooled analysis could not be performed. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> Both EVT and EID were effective when used as the first-line treatment for post-bariatric leaks. However, larger studies must be conducted to compare the efficacy of the 2 interventions.

scholarly journals Laboratory Tests and Outcome for Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (5) ◽  
pp. 1038-1049 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Alnor ◽  
Maria B Sandberg ◽  
Charlotte Gils ◽  
Pernille J Vinholt
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Disease Severity ◽  
Laboratory Tests ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Severe Disease ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Mean Difference ◽  
Routine Laboratory ◽  
Standard Mean Difference

Abstract Background Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and poses substantial challenges for healthcare systems. With a vastly expanding number of publications on COVID-19, clinicians need evidence synthesis to produce guidance for handling patients with COVID-19. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we examine which routine laboratory tests are associated with severe COVID-19 disease. Content PubMed (Medline), Scopus, and Web of Science were searched until March 22, 2020, for studies on COVID-19. Eligible studies were original articles reporting on laboratory tests and outcome of patients with COVID-19. Data were synthesized, and we conducted random-effects meta-analysis, and determined mean difference (MD) and standard mean difference at the biomarker level for disease severity. Risk of bias and applicability concerns were evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. Summary 45 studies were included, of which 21 publications were used for the meta-analysis. Studies were heterogeneous but had low risk of bias and applicability concern in terms of patient selection and reference standard. Severe disease was associated with higher white blood cell count (MD, 1.28 ×109/L), neutrophil count (MD, 1.49 ×109/L), C-reactive protein (MD, 49.2 mg/L), lactate dehydrogenase (MD, 196 U/L), D-dimer (standardized MD, 0.58), and aspartate aminotransferase (MD, 8.5 U/L); all p &lt; 0.001. Furthermore, low lymphocyte count (MD −0.32 × 109/L), platelet count (MD −22.4 × 109/L), and hemoglobin (MD, −4.1 g/L); all p &lt; 0.001 were also associated with severe disease. In conclusion, several routine laboratory tests are associated with disease severity in COVID-19.

scholarly journals Postsurgical rehabilitation for adults with low back pain with or without radiculopathy who were treated surgically: protocol for a mixed studies systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. e036817 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol Cancelliere ◽  
Jessica J. Wong ◽  
Hainan Yu ◽  
Margareta Nordin ◽  
Silvano Mior ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Low Back Pain ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Sports Medicine ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Qualitative Studies ◽  
Low Back ◽  
Sequential Approach

IntroductionSurgical rates for low back pain (LBP) have been increasing in Europe, North America and Asia. Many patients treated surgically will require postsurgical rehabilitation. Little is known about the effectiveness of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions on health outcomes or about patients’ experiences with these interventions.ObjectivesTo conduct a mixed studies systematic review of quantitative and qualitative studies regarding: (1) the effectiveness and safety of postsurgical rehabilitation interventions for adults with LBP treated surgically and (2) the experiences of patients, healthcare providers, caregivers or others involved with the rehabilitation.Methods and analysisWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, the Index to Chiropractic Literature, the Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials and the Rehabilitation & Sports Medicine Source for peer-reviewed empirical studies published from inception in any language. Studies using quantitative, qualitative and mixed methodologies will be included. We will also search reference lists of all eligible articles. Data extraction will include type of presurgical pathology, indication for surgery, surgical procedure, how the intervention was delivered and by whom, context and setting. We will conduct a quality assessment of each study and consider study quality in our evidence synthesis. We will use a sequential approach at the review level to synthesise and integrate data. First, we will synthesise the quantitative and qualitative studies independently, conducting a meta-analysis of the quantitative studies if appropriate and thematic synthesis of the qualitative studies. Then, we will integrate the quantitative and qualitative evidence by juxtaposing the findings in a matrix.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this knowledge synthesis. Findings will be disseminated through knowledge translation activities including: (1) presentations at national and international conferences and scientific meetings; (2) presentations to local and international stakeholders; (3) publications in peer-reviewed journals and (4) posts on organisational websites.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019134607.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document