scholarly journals Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians

2017 ◽  
Vol 105 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joey Nicholson ◽  
Aileen McCrillis ◽  
Jeff D. Williams
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Methodological Issues ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
General Communication

Objective: While many librarians have been asked to participate in systematic reviews with researchers, often these researchers are not familiar with the systematic review process or the appropriate role for librarians. The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges and barriers that librarians face when collaborating on systematic reviews. To take a wider view of the whole process of collaborating on systematic reviews, the authors deliberately focused on interpersonal and methodological issues other than searching itself.Methods: To characterize the biggest challenges that librarians face while collaborating on systematic review projects, we used a web-based survey. The thirteen-item survey included seventeen challenges grouped into two categories: methodological and interpersonal. Participants were required to indicate the frequency and difficulty of the challenges listed. Open-ended questions allowed survey participants to describe challenges not listed in the survey and to describe strategies used to overcome challenges.Results: Of the 17 challenges listed in the survey, 8 were reported as common by over 40% of respondents. These included methodological issues around having too broad or narrow research questions, lacking eligibility criteria, having unclear research questions, and not following established methods. The remaining challenges were interpersonal, including issues around student-led projects and the size of the research team. Of the top 8 most frequent challenges, 5 were also ranked as most difficult to handle. Open-ended responses underscored many of the challenges included in the survey and revealed several additional challenges.Conclusions: These results suggest that the most frequent and challenging issues relate to development of the research question and general communication with team members. Clear protocols for collaboration on systematic reviews, as well as a culture of mentorship, can help librarians prevent and address these challenges.

scholarly journals Efficacy and safety of instantaneous wave-free ratio in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation: protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (9) ◽  
pp. e017868
Author(s):  
Joey S.W. Kwong ◽  
Sheyu Li ◽  
Wan-Jie Gu ◽  
Hao Chen ◽  
Chao Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Adverse Outcomes ◽  
Coronary Revascularisation ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Collection Form ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionEffective selection of coronary lesions for revascularisation is pivotal in the management of symptoms and adverse outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease. Recently, instantaneous ‘wave-free’ ratio (iFR) has been proposed as a new diagnostic index for assessing the severity of coronary stenoses without the need of pharmacological vasodilation. Evidence of the effectiveness of iFR-guided revascularisation is emerging and a systematic review is warranted.Methods and analysisThis is a protocol for a systematic review of randomised controlled trials and controlled observational studies. Electronic sources including MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Cochrane databases and ClinicalTrials.gov will be searched for potentially eligible studies investigating the effects of iFR-guided strategy in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation. Studies will be selected against transparent eligibility criteria and data will be extracted using a prestandardised data collection form by two independent authors. Risk of bias in included studies and overall quality of evidence will be assessed using validated methodological tools. Meta-analysis will be performed using the Review Manager software. Our systematic review will be performed according to the guidance from the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required. Results of the systematic review will be disseminated as conference proceedings and peer-reviewed journal publication.Trial registration numberThis protocol is registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42017065460.

E-voting adoption in many countries: A literature review

2021 ◽  
pp. 205789112110405
Author(s):  
Ikhsan Darmawan
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Single Case ◽  
Research Question ◽  
The United States ◽  
Single Case Study ◽  
Academic Publications ◽  
Research Questions

Although the number of countries that have adopted e-voting has decreased lately, the number of academic publications on e-voting adoption has increased in the last two years. To date, there is no coherent narrative in the existing literature that explains the progress of the research on e-voting adoption. This article aims to answer the following research question: “How has research on the topic of e-voting adoption progressed over the last 15 years?” The article provides a semi-systematic review of 78 studies that were conducted from 2005 to 2020. In this article, I argue that although the studies on e-voting adoption are dominated by a single case study, by research in the United States, and by the positivist paradigm, scholars have employed the term “e-voting adoption” diversely and the research on e-voting adoption has evolved to address more specific research questions. Recommendations for the future agenda of research on e-voting adoption are also discussed.

scholarly journals PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal R Haddaway ◽  
Matthew J Page ◽  
Christopher C Pritchard ◽  
Luke A McGuinness
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Science Communication ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
R Package ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Shiny App ◽  
Data Files ◽  
Flow Diagrams

Background Reporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy-to-use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of tools for the production of PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Methods and Findings We developed a free-to-use, Open Source R package and web-based Shiny app to allow users to design PRISMA flow diagrams for their own systematic reviews. Our tools allow users to produce standardised visualisations that transparently document the methods and results of a systematic review process in a variety of formats. In addition, we provide the opportunity to produce interactive, web-based flow diagrams (exported as HTML files), that allow readers to click on boxes of the diagram and navigate to further details on methods, results or data files. We provide an interactive example here; https://driscoll.ntu.ac.uk/prisma/. Conclusions We have developed a user-friendly suite of tools for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams for users with coding experience and, importantly, for users without prior experience in coding by making use of Shiny. These free-to-use tools will make it easier to produce clear and PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Significantly, users can also produce interactive flow diagrams for the first time, allowing readers of their reviews to smoothly and swiftly explore and navigate to further details of the methods and results of a review. We believe these tools will increase use of PRISMA flow diagrams, improve the compliance and quality of flow diagrams, and facilitate strong science communication of the methods and results of systematic reviews by making use of interactivity. We encourage the systematic review community to make use of these tools, and provide feedback to streamline and improve their usability and efficiency.

scholarly journals Programme frequency, type, time and duration do not explain the effects of balance exercise in older adults: a systematic review with a meta-regression analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 53 (16) ◽  
pp. 996-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melanie K Farlie ◽  
Lauren Robins ◽  
Romi Haas ◽  
Jennifer L Keating ◽  
Elizabeth Molloy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Older Adults ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Centre Of Mass ◽  
Randomised Trials ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Exercise Interventions ◽  
Balance Exercise ◽  
Control Centre ◽  
Meta Analyses

ObjectiveThe objective of this systematic review was to examine the effects of different balance exercise interventions compared with non-balance exercise controls on balance task performance in older adults.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesMedline, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, EMBASE, Scopus and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched until July 2017.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised trials of balance exercise interventions for older adults were identified for extraction of eligible randomised trials. Eligibility criteria for inclusion of randomised trials in meta-analyses were comparison of a balance exercise intervention with a control group that did not perform balance exercises, report of at least one end-intervention balance outcome measurement that was consistent with the five subgroups of balance exercise identified, and full-text article available in English.ResultsNinety-five trials were included in meta-analyses and 80 in meta-regressions. For four balance exercise types (control centre of mass, multidimensional, mobility and reaching), significant effects for balance exercise interventions were found in meta-analyses (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31–0.50), however with considerable heterogeneity in observed effects (I2: 50.4%–80.6%). Risk of bias assessments (Physiotherapy Evidence Database score and funnel plots) did not explain heterogeneity. One significant relationship identified in the meta-regressions of SMD and balance exercise frequency, time and duration explained 2.1% of variance for the control centre of mass subgroup.ConclusionLimitations to this study included the variability in design of balance interventions, incomplete reporting of data and statistical heterogeneity. The design of balance exercise programmes provides inadequate explanation of the observed benefits of these interventions.

scholarly journals Visual Evidence: Increasing Usability of Systematic Reviews in Health Systems Guidelines Development

2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (04) ◽  
pp. 743-750 ◽  
Author(s):  
Connor J. Smith ◽  
Rebecca M. Jungbauer ◽  
Annette M. Totten
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Visual Analytics ◽  
Dynamic Visualization ◽  
Static Structure ◽  
Web Based ◽  
Guidelines Development ◽  
Potential Benefits ◽  
Visualization Of Data ◽  
Aid Decision

Abstract Background Integration of evidence from systematic reviews is an essential step in the development of clinical guidelines. The current practice for reporting uses a static structure that does not allow for dynamic investigation. A need exists for an alternate reporting modality to facilitate dynamic visualization of results to match different end-users' queries. Objectives We developed a dynamic visualization of data from a systematic review using the commercial product Tableau and assessed its potential to permit customized inquiries. Methods Data were selected and extracted from a previously completed systematic review. The resulting dataset was then used to develop an interactive, web-based report designed for use by a guidelines development committee. Results A novel example of combining existing reporting standards for systematic review data and modern reporting tools was developed to investigate potential benefits of a dynamic report. Demonstrations of the report to clinicians sitting on previous and future guideline committees received positive feedback for its potential benefit in guidelines development. The report received a runner-up award during the design challenge at the 2018 Workshop on Visual Analytics in Health Care. Conclusion The use of interactive, accessible data may increase the use of systematic reviews and aid decision makers in developing evidence-based practice changes.

scholarly journals Psychology of Forced Displacement and Migration: A systematic review of the scientific literature

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-136
Author(s):  
Jonas CARVALHO e SILVA ◽  
Júlia Sursis Nobre Ferro BUCHER-MALUSCHKE
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Forced Displacement ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Units Of Analysis ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
And Migration ◽  
General Aspects ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Forced displacement is a research field in specific social and cultural contexts. This systematic review aims to identify, describe and analyze the research in Psychology of Forced Displacement and Migration published between 2006 and 2016. The databases selected were PsycINFO, Lilacs and SciELO following the criteria of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, 2009. Content and methodology were assessed by Critical Appraisal Skill Programme. A total of 34 out of 491 articles fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were categorized in a framework that summarizes the main research questions and methodologies, including authors, research questions, units of analysis, dominant theories, and hypotheses. In conclusion, the framework helped to comprehend the general aspects of the existing research and pointed out interdisciplinary tendencies in the studies on this phenomenon.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

scholarly journals Binge drinking in young people: protocol for a systematic review of neuropsychological, neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies

BMJ Open ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (7) ◽  
pp. e023629 ◽  
Author(s):  
Briana Lees ◽  
Louise Mewton ◽  
Lexine Stapinski ◽  
Lindsay M Squeglia ◽  
Caroline Rae ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Alcohol Use ◽  
Young People ◽  
Binge Drinking ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Primary Data ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Impact

IntroductionBinge drinking is the most common pattern of alcohol use among young people in Western countries. Adolescence and young adulthood is a vulnerable developmental period and binge drinking during this time has a higher potential for neurotoxicity and interference with ongoing neural and cognitive development. The purpose of this systematic review will be to assess and integrate evidence of the impact of binge drinking on cognition, brain structure and function in youth aged 10–24 years. Cross-sectional studies will synthesise the aberrations associated with binge drinking, while longitudinal studies will distinguish the cognitive and neural antecedents from the cognitive and neural effects that are a consequence of binge drinking.Methods and analysisA total of five peer-reviewed databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO, ProQuest) will be systematically searched and the search period will include all studies published prior to 1 April 2018. The search terms will be a combination of MeSH keywords that are based on previous relevant reviews. Study selection will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and study quality will be assessed using The Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. All studies will be screened against eligibility criteria designed to synthesise studies that examined a young binge drinking sample and used neuropsychological, neurophysiological or neuroimaging assessment techniques. Studies will be excluded if participants were significantly involved in other substances or if they had been clinically diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder, or any psychiatric, neurological or pharmacological condition. If available data permits, a meta-analysis will be conducted.Ethics and disseminationFormal ethics approval is not required as primary data will not be collected. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, conference presentations and social media.Trial registration numberInternational Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) number: CRD42018086856.

scholarly journals A Scientometric Systematic Review of Entrepreneurial Wellbeing Knowledge Production

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolás Contreras-Barraza ◽  
Juan Felipe Espinosa-Cristia ◽  
Guido Salazar-Sepulveda ◽  
Alejandro Vega-Muñoz ◽  
Antonio Ariza-Montes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Knowledge Production ◽  
Research Field ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Robust Approach ◽  
Research Organizations ◽  
Level Of Knowledge ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Amount Of Knowledge ◽  
Scientometric Study

This article presents a scientometric study regarding entrepreneurship and its relationship with wellbeing. The study presents a systematic review and measures impact and relational character to identify the relevance of countries, research organizations, and authors in the field of entrepreneurial wellbeing. The study poses the following research questions: What is the nature of the evolution of scientific knowledge in the entrepreneurial wellbeing field? What is the nature of the concentration in terms of geographical distribution and co-authorship level of knowledge production in the entrepreneurial wellbeing field? What are the knowledge trends in knowledge production for entrepreneurial wellbeing literature? The contribution of this research is two-fold. First, in terms of methodology, it contributes study into the use of a more robust approach to search for the scientometric trends about entrepreneurship wellbeing in addition to the PRISMA review tools and the PICOS eligibility criteria. Secondly, the study presents research updates in the search for results for the last 2 years of knowledge production. This upgrade is particularly important in a research field that presents exponential growth, where 2019 and 2020 presented almost double the amount of knowledge production compared to 2017 and 2018.

scholarly journals Engaging Knowledge Users with Mental Health Experience in a Mixed-Methods Systematic Review of Post-secondary Students with Psychosis: Reflections and Lessons Learned from a Master’s Thesis

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria Sanderson ◽  
Amanda Vandyk ◽  
Jean Daniel Jacob ◽  
Ian D. Graham
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Secondary Students ◽  
Research Team ◽  
Research Question ◽  
Lessons Learned ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Advisory Panel ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Master's Thesis

Engaging knowledge users (KUs) as research team members throughout the research process helps generate relevant knowledge and may improve uptake of research results. The purpose of this article is to describe how an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) approach was embedded within a master’s thesis project comprising a mixed-methods systematic review. KUs were engaged in four distinct phases of the systematic review process, including (1) proposal development; (2) development of the research question and approach; (3) creation of an advisory panel; and (4) an end of study meeting to interpret findings and plan dissemination of findings. The extent of each KU’s engagement on the research team fluctuated during the study. Challenges included maintaining the same KUs throughout the project and maintaining the scope of the project to align with a master’s thesis. Our suggestions for optimizing graduate student iKT projects include having regular team meetings and periodically checking in with team members to encourage reflection on overall engagement and progress of the project. Overall, KUs helped create a research project designed to address their needs and provided input on how results might translate into implications for clinical practice, education, academic policy, and future research within their respective contexts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document