scholarly journals Cochrane Interactive Learning

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Ghezzi-Kopel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Interactive Learning ◽  
Educational Tool ◽  
Learning Tool ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Cochrane Interactive Learning (CIL) is a modular, self-directed, educational tool for researchers performing systematic reviews. Systematic reviews present unbiased, transparent, and reproducible syntheses of all research pertaining to a well-formulated question and are a critical tool to inform clinical practice and decision-making. Researchers must adhere to a rigorous set of standards when performing systematic reviews, and robust training is required to learn the complex requirements of the methodology. CIL provides an accessible, well-designed, step-by-step guide for navigating the systematic review process. This resource review outlines the major features of CIL and discusses the usability and accessibility of this learning tool for both researchers and librarians.

Partnering Up: Including Managers as Research Partners in Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
pp. 109442812096570
Author(s):  
Garima Sharma ◽  
Pratima (Tima) Bansal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Practical Knowledge ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Knowledge Systems ◽  
Business Sustainability ◽  
Research Endeavor ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews of academic research have not impacted management practice as much as many researchers had hoped. Part of the reason is that researchers and managers differ so significantly in their knowledge systems—in both what they know and how they know it. Researchers can overcome some of these challenges by including managers as knowledge partners in the research endeavor; however, doing so is rife with challenges. This article seeks to answer, how can researchers and managers navigate the tensions related to differences in their knowledge systems to create more impactful systematic reviews? To answer this question, we embarked on a data-guided journey of the experience of the Network for Business Sustainability, which had undertaken 15 systematic reviews that involved researchers and managers. We interviewed previous participants of the projects, observed different systematic review processes, and collected archival data to learn more about researcher-manager collaborations in the systematic review process. This article offers guidance to researchers in imbricating academic with practical knowledge in the systematic review process.

scholarly journals PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: Common Questions on Tracking Records and the Flow Diagram

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Rethlefsen ◽  
Matthew James Page
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Original Version ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Sufficient Detail ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Systematic Review Process

PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S are newly released guidelines to help systematic review teams report their reviews clearly, transparently, and with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. PRISMA 2020, the updated version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, is complemented by PRISMA-S, an extension to PRISMA focusing on reporting the search components of systematic reviews. Several significant changes were implemented in PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S when compared with the original version of PRISMA in 2009, including the recommendation to report search strategies for all databases, registries, and websites that were searched. PRISMA-S also recommends reporting the number of records identified from each information source. One of the most challenging aspects of the new guidance from both documents has been changes to the flow diagram. In this article, we review some of the common questions about using the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and tracking records through the systematic review process.

scholarly journals Canvas Framework for Performing Systematic Reviews Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Fernando Almeida
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Scientific Domain ◽  
Research Theme ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Systematic Review Process

<p class="Textoindependiente21">The systematic review of the literature is a fundamental methodology for analyzing critically the existing literature on a given research theme. They are designed to be methodical, replicable and guide the author in identifying the main lines of investigation and conclusions in each scientific domain and, in addition, help them in the identification of new directions of research. However, the systematic review process is typically viewed as too heterogeneous, complex and time-consuming. In this sense, it is pertinent to propose a new approach for conducting systematic reviews that may be more agile, not only in terms of development, but also in the analysis of the results of a systematic review process. This article presents a canvas framework for conducting a systematic review composed of nine blocks and based on a set of identified good practices found in the literature, in which it is possible to easily identify all the steps of the process, options taken, and main results.</p>

scholarly journals Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process?

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Wissinger
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Basic Education ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Training Opportunities ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews are a well-established and well-honed research methodology in the medical and health sciences fields. As the popularity of systematic reviews has increased, disciplines outside the sciences have started publishing them. This increase in familiarity has begun to trickle down from practitioners and faculty to graduate students and recently undergraduates. The amount of work and rigor that goes into producing a quality systematic review may make these types of research projects seem unattainable for undergraduate or graduate students, but is this an accurate assumption? This commentary discusses whether there is a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process. It explains the possible benefits of having undergraduate and graduate students engage in systematic reviews and concludes with ideas for creating basic education or training opportunities for researchers and students who are new to the systematic review process.

Systematic Reviews

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia H. Littell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Helping Professions ◽  
Statistical Procedures ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews summarize a body of empirical evidence to address important questions for practice and social policy. Widely used to compile evidence about intervention effects in the helping professions, systematic reviews can also be used to assess rates, trends, associations, and variations on many topics. Credible reviews are based on the science of research synthesis, which provides the theoretical and empirical foundations that undergird efforts to minimize bias and error at each step in the review process to ensure that systematic reviews are comprehensive and their conclusions are accurate. Methods for the synthesis of quantitative studies are well developed. Meta-analysis, a set of statistical procedures, is often used in quantitative reviews, but meta-analysis is only one part of the systematic review process; other steps are needed to limit bias and error. Methods for systematic reviews of qualitative research are under development, as are strategies to combine quantitative and qualitative data in reviews.

scholarly journals Building the Capacity of African Health Sciences Librarians in the Development and Conduct of Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 25-33
Author(s):  
Alison Annet Kinengyere ◽  
Haruna Hussein ◽  
Richard Ssenono ◽  
Rehema Chande Mallya
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Evidence ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
African Health ◽  
Evaluation Feedback ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Systematic Review Process ◽  
Ibadan Nigeria

While African health sciences librarians’ role as expert searchers is widely recognized, they have much more to contribute to supporting the development and conduct of systematic reviews. Research evidence has indicated that the librarians rarely participate in the development and conduct of systematic reviews because they are either not called upon to be part, or do not have the skills to participate. Moreover, few librarians who have participated are from outside Africa. Keeping this in mind, the Network of African Medical Librarians (NAML) conducted a pre-AHILA Conference training workshop to introduce participants, specifically the librarians, to the systematic review process. The regional conference for health librarians took place in Ibadan, Nigeria from 14-18 October 2019. This paper evaluates the impact of training of African health sciences librarians in the conduct of systematic reviews. Participants' evaluation feedback was collected using pre and post-training surveys. A mixed-method was employed to gather and analyze both quantitative and qualitative data. The results indicated that the main barriers to librarians’ participation in systematic reviews were lack of skills due to insufficient training and lack of time. This paper is expected to encourage the librarians to advocate for further skills development, in addition to their normal information searching roles. Their participation in the systematic review process would make them, not just relevant but dependable collaborators of systematic review teams, as they participate in improving systematic review reporting.

scholarly journals Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document