scholarly journals STARE-HI – Statement on Reporting of Evaluation Studies in Health Informatics

2013 ◽  
Vol 04 (03) ◽  
pp. 331-358 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Brender ◽  
J. Talmon ◽  
N. de Keizer ◽  
P. Nykänen ◽  
M. Rigby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Informatics ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Qualitative Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Study ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Proper Context

SummaryBackground: Improving the quality of reporting of evaluation studies in health informatics is an important requirement towards the vision of evidence-based health informatics. The STARE-HI – Statement on Reporting of Evaluation Studies in health informatics, published in 2009, provides guidelines on the elements to be contained in an evaluation study report.Objectives: To elaborate on and provide a rationale for the principles of STARE-HI and to guide authors and readers of evaluation studies in health informatics by providing explanatory examples of reporting.Methods: A group of methodologists, researchers and editors prepared the present elaboration of the STARE-HI statement and selected examples from the literature.Results: The 35 STARE-HI items to be addressed in evaluation papers describing health informatics interventions are discussed one by one and each is extended with examples and elaborations. Conclusion: The STARE-HI statement and this elaboration document should be helpful resources to improve reporting of both quantitative and qualitative evaluation studies. Evaluation manuscripts adhering to the principles will enable readers of such papers to better place the studies in a proper context and judge their validity and generalizability, and thus in turn optimize the exploitation of the evidence contained therein.Limitations: This paper is based on experiences of a group of editors, reviewers, authors of systematic reviews and readers of the scientific literature. The applicability of the details of these principles has to evolve as a function of their use in practice.

scholarly journals STARE-HI -Statement on Reporting of Evaluation Studies in Health Informatics

2009 ◽  
Vol 18 (01) ◽  
pp. 23-31
Author(s):  
E. Ammenwerth ◽  
J. Brender ◽  
N. de Keizer ◽  
P. Nykänen ◽  
M. Rigby ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Informatics ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Qualitative Evaluation ◽  
Organizational Setting ◽  
Study Planning ◽  
Study Context ◽  
Real Practice ◽  
E Mail ◽  
Initial List

Summary Objective Development of guidelines for publication of evaluation studies of Health Informatics applications. Methods An initial list of issues to be addressed in reports on evaluation studies was drafted based on experiencesas editorsand reviewers and as authors of systematic reviews , taking into account guidelines for reporting of medical research. This list has been discussed in several rounds by an increasing number of experts in Health Informatics evaluation during conferences and by using e-mail. ResultsA set of STARE-HI principles to be addressed in papers describing evaluations of Health Informatics interventions is presented. These principles include formulation of title and abstract, of introduction (e.g. scientific background, study objectives), study context (e.g. organizational setting, system details), methods (e.g. study design, outcome measures), results (e.g. study findings, unexpected observations)and discussion and conclusion. Conclusion Acomprehensivelistofprinciplesrelevantforproperlydescribing Health Informatics evaluations has been developed. When manuscripts submitted to Health Informatics journals and general medical journals adhere to these aspects, readers will be better positioned to place the studies in a proper context and judge their validity and generalisability. STARE-HI may also be used for study planning and hence positively influence the quality of evaluation studies in Health Informatics. We believe that better publication of (both quantitative and qualitative) evaluation studies is an important step toward the vision of evidence-based Health Informatics. Limitations This study is based on experiences from editors, reviewers, authors of systemati c reviews and readers of the scientific literature. The applicability of the principles has not been evaluated in real practice. Only when authors start to use these principles for reporting, shortcomings in the principles will emerge.

scholarly journals Quality of reporting of systematic reviews published in “evidence-based” Chinese journals

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jin-long Li ◽  
Long Ge ◽  
Ji-chun Ma ◽  
Qiao-ling Zeng ◽  
Lu Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Quality Of Reporting

scholarly journals Nutritional interventions to improve muscle mass, muscle strength, and physical performance in older people: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evelien Gielen ◽  
David Beckwée ◽  
Andreas Delaere ◽  
Sandra De Breucker ◽  
Maurits Vandewoude ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Muscle Strength ◽  
Muscle Mass ◽  
Physical Performance ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Belgian Society ◽  
Nutritional Interventions ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Context Sarcopenia is a progressive and generalized skeletal muscle disorder associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes such as falls, disability, and death. The Belgian Society of Gerontology and Geriatrics has developed evidence-based guidelines for the prevention and treatment of sarcopenia. This umbrella review presents the results of the Working Group on Nutritional Interventions. Objective The aim of this umbrella review was to provide an evidence-based overview of nutritional interventions targeting sarcopenia or at least 1 of the 3 sarcopenia criteria (ie, muscle mass, muscle strength, or physical performance) in persons aged ≥ 65 years. Data sources Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, the PubMed and Web of Science databases were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting the effect of nutritional supplementation on sarcopenia or muscle mass, strength, or physical performance. Data extraction Two authors extracted data on the key characteristics of the reviews, including participants, treatment, and outcomes. Methodological quality of the reviews was assessed using the product A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews. Three authors synthesized the extracted data and generated recommendations on the basis of an overall synthesis of the effects of each intervention. Quality of evidence was rated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Data analysis A total of 15 systematic reviews were included. The following supplements were examined: proteins, essential amino acids, leucine, β-hydroxy-β-methylbutyrate, creatine, and multinutrient supplementation (with or without physical exercise). Because of both the low amount and the low to moderate quality of the reviews, the level of evidence supporting most recommendations was low to moderate. Conclusions Best evidence is available to recommend leucine, because it has a significant effect on muscle mass in elderly people with sarcopenia. Protein supplementation on top of resistance training is recommended to increase muscle mass and strength, in particular for obese persons and for ≥ 24 weeks. Effects on sarcopenia as a construct were not reported in the included reviews.

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 Pearls for Interpreting Neurosurgical Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: Lessons From a Collaborative Effort

Neurosurgery ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 87 (3) ◽  
pp. 435-441 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victor M Lu ◽  
Christopher S Graffeo ◽  
Avital Perry ◽  
Michael J Link ◽  
Fredric B Meyer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Based Medicine ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Cranial Neuralgia ◽  
The Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Over Time

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the neurosurgical literature have surged in popularity over the last decade. It is our concern that, without a renewed effort to critically interpret and appraise these studies as high or low quality, we run the risk of the quality and value of evidence-based medicine in neurosurgery being misinterpreted. Correspondingly, we have outlined 4 major domains to target in interpreting neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the lessons learned by a collaboration of clinicians and academics summarized as 4 pearls. The domains of (1) heterogeneity, (2) modeling, (3) certainty, and (4) bias in neurosurgical systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified as aspects in which the authors’ approaches have changed over time to improve robustness and transparency. Examples of how and why these pearls were adapted were provided in areas of cranial neuralgia, spine, pediatric, and neuro-oncology to demonstrate how neurosurgical readers and writers may improve their interpretation of these domains. The incorporation of these pearls into practice will empower neurosurgical academics to effectively interpret systematic reviews and meta-analyses, enhancing the quality of our evidence-based medicine literature while maintaining a critical focus on the needs of the individual patients in neurosurgery.

Scientific Papers and Patents on Substances with Unproven Effects

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 37-45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sergei V. Jargin
Keyword(s):  
Medical Research ◽  
Dietary Supplements ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Scientific Papers ◽  
Constructive Discussion

It is evident from reviewing scientific literature that the quality of argumentation in some areas of medical research has deteriorated during the last decades. Publication of a series of questionable reliability has continued without making references to the published criticism; examples are discussed in this review. Another tendency is that drugs without proven efficiency are advertised, corresponding products patented and marketed as evidence-based medications. Professional publications are required to register drugs and dietary supplements to obtain permissions for the practical use; and such papers appeared, sometimes being of questionable reliability. Several examples are discussed in this review when substances without proven effects were patented and introduced into practice being supported by publications of questionable reliability. Some of the topics are not entirely clear; and the arguments provided here can induce a constructive discussion.

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 Evidence Based Health Informatics: 10 Years of Efforts to Promote the Principle

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (01) ◽  
pp. 34-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. Ammenwerth ◽  
M.-C. Beuscart-Zephir ◽  
J. Brender ◽  
H. Hyppönen ◽  
S. Melia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Informatics ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Care Delivery ◽  
Evaluation Studies ◽  
Objective Evaluation ◽  
Evaluation Methods ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Health It ◽  
Evaluation Practice ◽  
Reliable Source

Summary Objectives: To present the importance of Evidence-based Health Informatics (EBHI) and the ethical imperative of this approach; to highlight the work of the IMIA Working Group on Technology Assessment and Quality Improvement and the EFMI Working Group on Assessment of Health Information Systems; and to introduce the further important evaluation and evidence aspects being addressed. Methods: Reviews of IMIA, EFMA and other initiatives, together with literature reviews on evaluation methods and on published systematic reviews. Results: Presentation of the rationale for the health informatics domain to adopt a scientific approach by assessing impact, avoiding harm, and empirically demonstrating benefit and best use; reporting of the origins and rationale of the IMIA- and EQUATOR-endorsed Statement on Reporting of Evaluation Studies in Health Informatics (STARE-HI) and of the IMIA WG's Guideline for Good Evaluation Practice in Health Informatics (GEP-HI); presentation of other initiatives for objective evaluation; and outlining of further work in hand on usability and indicators; together with the case for development of relevant evaluation methods in newer applications such as telemedicine. The focus is on scientific evaluation as a reliable source of evidence, and on structured presentation of results to enable easy retrieval of evidence. Conclusions: EBHI is feasible, necessary for efficiency and safety, and ethically essential. Given the significant impact of health informatics on health systems, care delivery and personal health, it is vital that cultures change to insist on evidence-based policies and investment, and that emergent global moves for this are supported.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document