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.

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

2022 ◽  
pp. 17-31
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 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.

Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A.T. Ghogomu ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
Tamara Rader ◽  
Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Previous Method ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

scholarly journals Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Rethlefsen ◽  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Lex Bouter ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Ana Patricia Ayala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Background: Problems continue to exist with the reporting of and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers.Methods: This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment.Discussion: The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers.Trial registration: This trial was registered on the Open Science Framework on June 17, 2021 at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2.

scholarly journals Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review

BMJ ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 348 (jan08 1) ◽  
pp. f7668-f7668 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Zorzela ◽  
S. Golder ◽  
Y. Liu ◽  
K. Pilkington ◽  
L. Hartling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Of Reporting

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 3: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidencebased medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” In contrast, meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of data across studies to generate pooled estimates of effects. Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggest that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to interpret the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the subject matter is crucial, expertise in review methods is also particularly important. Despite an explosion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the empiric research on the quality of systematic reviews has shown that not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, having highly variable quality, deficiencies in methodologic assessment of the quality of the included manuscripts, and bias. Even then, systematic review of the literature is currently the best, least biased, and most rational way to organize, cull, evaluate, and integrate the research evidence from among the expanding medical and healthcare literature. However, a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence continues to persist in part because multiple instruments are available to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Steps in conducting systematic reviews include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement provides a checklist and a flow diagram. The checklist describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the report of an analysis. This review describes various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials with a special focus on interventional pain management. Key words: Randomized trials, pragmatic trials, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines, bias, interventional pain management, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Cochrane reviews

scholarly journals Librarians’ Participation in the Systematic Reviews Published by Iranian Researchers and Its Impact on the Quality of Reporting Search Strategy

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-84
Author(s):  
Rogheyeh Eskrootchi ◽  
Azita Shahraki Mohammadi ◽  
Sirous Panahi ◽  
Razieh Zahedi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Meaningful Relationship ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Objective – The validity of the results from systematic review studies depends largely on the implementation and the reporting of the search strategy. Using an experienced librarian can greatly enhance the quality of results. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between the librarian’s participation and the quality of reporting search strategy in systematic reviews published by Iranian researchers in medical fields. Methods – Three databases were searched to identify the systematic review studies conducted by Iranian researchers from 2008 to 2018. A total of 310 studies were selected using systematic random sampling, and the quality of their search strategy reports was reviewed by the Institute of Medicine checklist. A short questionnaire about the librarians’ participation in the search strategy of these studies was sent to the corresponding authors of the selected studies. A total of 229 questionnaires was returned. The data obtained from the questionnaire about the librarians’ participation in reporting search strategy in systematic review studies and also from the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. Results – The mean value of the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies was low. The librarians’ participation rate for these studies was 13.6%. No meaningful relationship was found between the librarians’ participation and the mean value of the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy of systematic review studies. However, an investigation of the relationship between each of the items in the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies and librarians’ participation as the corresponding author or a member of the research team showed a meaningful relationship in five items. Conclusion – The results showed that the quality of reporting the search strategies in systematic reviews was low and the librarians’ participation in designing and reporting the search strategy in systematic reviews was limited. The authors of the systematic review studies, as well as the journals’ editors and referees, need to pay more careful attention to reporting the search strategy exactly and comprehensively. Employing librarians in this area can have a major impact on this part of systematic review studies.

scholarly journals The quality of intervention reporting in trials of therapeutic exercise for hip osteoarthritis: a secondary analysis of a systematic review

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise C. Burgess ◽  
Thomas W. Wainwright ◽  
Khara A. James ◽  
Johan von Heideken ◽  
Maura D. Iversen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Therapeutic Exercise ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Intervention Reporting

Abstract Background Therapeutic exercise is recommended as a core treatment for hip osteoarthritis (HOA). Whilst it is widely accepted that exercise can improve pain and disability, optimal type and dose of exercise are yet to be agreed upon. This may, in part, be attributed to the wide variation and inadequate reporting of interventions within the literature. This study evaluates the quality of intervention reporting among trials of therapeutic exercise in HOA. Methods Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were sourced in a systematic review, completed in August 2020. Two raters independently used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) to evaluate intervention reporting. Correlations between quality assessment scores and CERT and TIDieR scores evaluated the relationship between internal validity and external applicability. The year of publication was compared to the quality of reporting scores. Results Fourteen RCTs were included in the analysis. On average, studies were awarded 9.43 ± 1.95 out of 12 points for the TIDieR checklist (range 4–12) and 13.57 ± 4.01 out of 19 points for the CERT (range 5–19). Pearson’s correlation coefficient suggested that the quality of reporting had improved over time and that there was a fair, positive relationship between internal validity and external applicability. Discussion Whilst the quality of intervention reporting is improving, many RCTs of therapeutic exercise in HOA lack the detail necessary to allow accurate evaluation and replication. Researchers are encouraged to utilise the standardised reporting guidelines to increase the translation of effective interventions into clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document