scholarly journals Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines

2017 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lorraine C. Toews
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Search Process ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Accurate Reporting

Objective: Complete, accurate reporting of systematic reviews facilitates assessment of how well reviews have been conducted. The primary objective of this study was to examine compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for literature search reporting and to examine the completeness, bias, and reproducibility of the searches in these reviews from what was reported. The second objective was to examine reporting of the credentials and contributions of those involved in the search process.Methods: A sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in veterinary journals between 2011 and 2015 was obtained by searching PubMed. Reporting in the full text of each review was checked against certain PRISMA checklist items.Results: Over one-third of reviews (37%) did not search the CAB Abstracts database, and 9% of reviews searched only 1 database. Over two-thirds of reviews (65%) did not report any search for grey literature or stated they excluded grey literature. The majority of reviews (95%) did not report a reproducible search strategy.Conclusions: Most reviews had significant deficiencies in reporting the search process that raise questions about how these searches were conducted and ultimately cast serious doubts on the validity and reliability of reviews based on a potentially biased and incomplete body of literature. These deficiencies also highlight the need for veterinary journal editors and publishers to be more rigorous in requiring adherence to PRISMA guidelines and to encourage veterinary researchers to include librarians or information specialists on systematic review teams to improve the quality and reporting of searches.

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses

2018 ◽  
Vol 157 (04) ◽  
pp. 392-399
Author(s):  
Sebastian Scheidt ◽  
Patrick Vavken ◽  
Cornelius Jacobs ◽  
Sebastian Koob ◽  
Davide Cucchi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scientific Knowledge ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Review Article ◽  
Systematic Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractThe rising number of medical publications makes it difficult to keep up-to-date on scientific knowledge. In recent years, reviews in the form of narrative or systematic publications and meta-analyses have increased. These can only be interpreted and evaluated if the reader understands the techniques used. This review article describes the differences between narrative and systematic reviews, together with the characteristics of meta-analysis, and discusses their interpretation. The concept of systematic reviews and meta-analysis includes a systematic literature search and summary, together with an appraisal of the quality of the publications. Systematic reviews are often considered to be original studies due to their structure and ability to reduce bias.

Is grey literature essential for a better control of publication bias in psychiatry? An example from three meta-analyses of schizophrenia

2005 ◽  
Vol 20 (8) ◽  
pp. 550-553 ◽  
Author(s):  
José Luis R. Martin ◽  
Víctor Pérez ◽  
Montse Sacristán ◽  
Enric Álvarez
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Medical Databases ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Heterogeneous Nature ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Literature Material

AbstractSystematic reviews in mental health have become useful tools for health professionals in view of the massive amount and heterogeneous nature of biomedical information available today. In order to determine the risk of bias in the studies evaluated and to avoid bias in generalizing conclusions from the reviews it is therefore important to use a very strict methodology in systematic reviews. One bias which may affect the generalization of results is publication bias, which is determined by the nature and direction of the study results. To control or minimize this type of bias, the authors of systematic reviews undertake comprehensive searches of medical databases and expand on the findings, often undertaking searches of grey literature (material which is not formally published). This paper attempts to show the consequences (and risk) of generalizing the implications of grey literature in the control of publication bias, as was proposed in a recent systematic work. By repeating the analyses for the same outcome from three different systematic reviews that included both published and grey literature our results showed that confusion between grey literature and publication bias may affect the results of a concrete meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Understanding loneliness: a systematic review of the impact of social prescribing initiatives on loneliness

2021 ◽  
pp. 175791392096704
Author(s):  
GY Reinhardt ◽  
D Vidovic ◽  
C Hammerton
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Outpatient Services ◽  
Social Prescribing ◽  
Positive Individual ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Aims: The aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the impact of social prescribing (SP) programmes on loneliness among participants and the population. Methods: We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines to search EBSCOHost (CINAHL Complete, eBook Collection, E-Journals, MEDLINE with Full Text, Open Dissertations, PsycARTICLES, and PsycINFO), UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Web of Science Core Collection, and grey literature. We included studies measuring the effectiveness and impact of SP programmes in terms of loneliness. We excluded systematic reviews and studies without evaluations. Due to the absence of confidence intervals and the low number of studies, we conduct no meta-analysis. Results: From 4415 unique citations, nine articles met the inclusion criteria. The studies do not use uniform measures or randomised samples. All nine studies report positive individual impacts; three report reductions in general practitioner (GP), A&E, social worker, or inpatient/outpatient services; and one shows that belonging to a group reduces loneliness and healthcare usage. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review indicate that individuals and service providers view SP as a helpful tool to address loneliness. However, evidence variability and the small number of studies make it difficult to draw a conclusion on the extent of the impact and the pathways to achieving positive change. More research is needed into the impact of SP programmes on participants, populations, and communities in terms of loneliness, isolation, and connectedness, especially in light of the surge in SP activity as a key part of pandemic response.

scholarly journals Does pain influence force steadiness? A protocol for a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. e042525
Author(s):  
Michail Arvanitidis ◽  
Deborah Falla ◽  
Andy Sanderson ◽  
Eduardo Martinez-Valdes
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Force Steadiness ◽  
Assessment Development ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionPerforming contractions with minimum force fluctuations is essential for everyday life as reduced force steadiness impacts on the precision of voluntary movements and functional ability. Several studies have investigated the effect of experimental or clinical musculoskeletal pain on force steadiness but with conflicting findings. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the current literature to determine whether pain, whether it be clinical or experimental, influences force steadiness.Methods and analysisThis protocol for a systematic review was informed and reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Key databases will be searched from inception to 31 August 2020, including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL Plus, ZETOC and Web of Science. Grey literature and key journals will be also reviewed. Risk of bias will be assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa tool, and the quality of the cumulative evidence assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. If homogeneity exists between groups of studies, meta-analysis will be conducted. Otherwise, a narrative synthesis approach and a vote-counting method will be used, while the results will be presented as net increases or decreases of force steadiness.Ethics and disseminationThe findings will be presented at conferences and the review will be also submitted for publication in a refereed journal. No ethical approval was required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020196479

scholarly journals The differential efficacy of systemic therapy: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Niels Braus ◽  
Rebecca von Oepen ◽  
Nina Immel ◽  
Johanna Wichmann ◽  
Christian Frankman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Social Systems ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
System Functioning ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background: Systemic therapy is a widespread evidence-based psychotherapy approach. Its main goal revolves around the concept of viewing mental symptoms within the context of social systems (e.g., families, couples). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have confirmed that systemic therapy significantly reduces symptom severity of DSM- or ICD-diagnosed patients. This meta-analysis aims to investigate the differential efficacy of systemic therapy, taking into account moderators (e.g., allegiance, adherence) and outcomes (system functioning) not considered in previous meta-analytical investigations.Methods: To conduct a comprehensive literature search, we will optimize search strategies from previous systematic reviews on systemic therapy. The search strategy presented in this protocol has improved the precision and sensitivity by using an iterative validation and optimization process. We will conduct the literature search in multiple electronic databases (PsycInfo, Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL)). We will include all randomized controlled trials that report quantitative outcomes for symptom change and/or system functioning. For the calculations, we will conduct a Bayesian meta-analysis for the outcomes based on a random-effects model, a Bayesian meta-regression for the moderators, and Bayesian subgroup analysis for disorder-specific differences.Discussion: Understanding the differential efficacy of systemic therapy is essential for the conceptualization, performance, and analysis of future research and therapeutic practice. This meta-analysis faces potential limitations associated with the definition of systemic therapy, as well as methodological problems in systemic therapy research.

A PRISMA review of collective flow experiences in music contexts

2019 ◽  
pp. 030573561987338
Author(s):  
Kenneth Tay ◽  
Leonard Tan ◽  
Wilson Goh
Keyword(s):  
Search Engine ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Collective Flow ◽  
Emergent Phenomenon ◽  
Collective Performance ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Flow Experiences

This PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) review examines collective flow experiences in music contexts. Articles ( N = 598) were searched using a publicly available scholarly literature search engine and critically evaluated for inclusion. The result of 20 articles matching the search criteria reveals a scarcity of theoretical and empirical studies that examine collective flow in music contexts. Our meta-analysis indicated that collective flow is an emergent phenomenon and the available studies reiterate the importance of (1) subsuming of individual goals to the collective level, such that “I” becomes “we”; (2) coalescing of individual skills to meet collective challenges; and (3) coordination of the contributions of individuals to a coherent collective performance. The work of R. Keith Sawyer, in particular, was the most salient and frequently cited among scholars studying collective flow in music contexts. We hope that this review provides the groundwork for further research, and for scholars to further examine the prerequisites, characteristics, and benefits of collective flow as experienced by musicians through collaborative musical activities.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of acupuncture for cancer pain: protocol for an umbrella review and meta-analyses of controlled trials

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (12) ◽  
pp. e018494 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yihan He ◽  
Yihong Liu ◽  
Brian H May ◽  
Anthony Lin Zhang ◽  
Haibo Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Pain ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Sensitivity Analyses ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines for adult cancer pain indicate that acupuncture and related therapies may be valuable additions to pharmacological interventions for pain management. Of the systematic reviews related to this topic, some concluded that acupuncture was promising for alleviating cancer pain, while others argued that the evidence was insufficient to support its effectiveness.Methods and analysisThis review will consist of three components: (1) synthesis of findings from existing systematic reviews; (2) updated meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials and (3) analyses of results of other types of clinical studies. We will search six English and four Chinese biomedical databases, dissertations and grey literature to identify systematic reviews and primary clinical studies. Two reviewers will screen results of the literature searches independently to identify included reviews and studies. Data from included articles will be abstracted for assessment, analysis and summary. Two assessors will appraise the quality of systematic reviews using Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews; assess the randomised controlled trials using the Cochrane Collaboration’s risk of bias tool and other types of studies according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. We will use ‘summary of evidence’ tables to present evidence from existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Using the primary clinical studies, we will conduct meta-analysis for each outcome, by grouping studies based on the type of acupuncture, the comparator and the specific type of pain. Sensitivity analyses are planned according to clinical factors, acupuncture method, methodological characteristics and presence of statistical heterogeneity as applicable. For the non-randomised studies, we will tabulate the characteristics, outcome measures and the reported results of each study. Consistencies and inconsistencies in evidence will be investigated and discussed. Finally, we will use the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach to evaluate the quality of the overall evidence.Ethics and disseminationThere are no ethical considerations associated with this review. The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed journals or conference presentations.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017064113.

scholarly journals Development of a checklist to detect errors in meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 455
Author(s):  
Raju Kanukula ◽  
Matthew Page ◽  
Kerry Dwan ◽  
Simon Turner ◽  
Elizabeth Loder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Core Component ◽  
Step Process ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtual Meeting ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Systematic reviews underpin clinical practice and policies that guide healthcare decisions. A core component of many systematic reviews is meta-analysis, which is a statistical synthesis of results across studies. Errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis can lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of interventions; and studies have shown that these errors are common. Enabling peer reviewers to better detect errors in meta-analysis through the use of a checklist provides an opportunity for these errors to be rectified before publication. To our knowledge, no such checklist exists. Objective: To develop and evaluate a checklist to detect errors in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions. Methods: We will undertake a four-step process to develop the checklist. First, we will undertake a systematic review of studies that have evaluated errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis to generate a bank of items to consider for the checklist. Second, we will undertake a survey of systematic review methodologists and statisticians to seek their views on which items, of the bank of items generated in step 1, are most important to include in the checklist. Third, we will hold a virtual meeting to agree upon which items to include in the checklist. Fourth, before finalising the checklist, we will pilot with editors and peer reviewers of journals. Conclusion: The developed checklist is intended to help journal editors and peer reviewers identify errors in the application and interpretation of meta-analyses in systematic reviews. Fewer errors in the conduct and improved interpretation will lead to more accurate review findings and conclusions to inform clinical practice.

scholarly journals Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e029704 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Krnic Martinic ◽  
Joerg J Meerpohl ◽  
Erik von Elm ◽  
Florian Herrle ◽  
Ana Marusic ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Qualitative Interview ◽  
Interview Study ◽  
Similar Proportion ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Almost All

ObjectivesIn 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors’ opinion regarding SRs as original research.DesignWe conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors.ParticipantsAll editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals.MethodsWe contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study.ResultsWe received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty.ConclusionThe majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.

scholarly journals Application of the Subspace-Based Methods in Health Monitoring of Civil Structures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. 3607
Author(s):  
Hoofar Shokravi ◽  
Hooman Shokravi ◽  
Norhisham Bakhary ◽  
Mahshid Heidarrezaei ◽  
Seyed Saeid Rahimian Koloor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
System Identification ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Monitoring ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Civil Structures ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Research Gap ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Subspace System Identification ◽  
Insight Into

A large number of research studies in structural health monitoring (SHM) have presented, extended, and used subspace system identification. However, there is a lack of research on systematic literature reviews and surveys of studies in this field. Therefore, the current study is undertaken to systematically review the literature published on the development and application of subspace system identification methods. In this regard, major databases in SHM, including Scopus, Google Scholar, and Web of Science, have been selected and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) has been applied to ensure complete and transparent reporting of systematic reviews. Along this line, the presented review addresses the available studies that employed subspace-based techniques in the vibration-based damage detection (VDD) of civil structures. The selected papers in this review were categorized into authors, publication year, name of journal, applied techniques, research objectives, research gap, proposed solutions and models, and findings. This study can assist practitioners and academicians for better condition assessment of structures and to gain insight into the literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document