Correction to: Evidence synthesis relevant to COVID-19: a protocol for multiple systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews

Abstract Background A standard or consensus definition of a systematic review does not exist. Therefore, if there is no definition about a systematic review in secondary studies that analyse them or the definition is too broad, inappropriate studies might be included in such evidence synthesis. The aim of this study was to analyse the definition of a systematic review (SR) in health care literature, elements of the definitions that are used and to propose a starting point for an explicit and non-ambiguous SR definition. Methods We included overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs), meta-epidemiological studies and epidemiology textbooks. We extracted the definitions of SRs, as well as the inclusion and exclusion criteria that could indicate which definition of a SR the authors used. We extracted individual elements of SR definitions, categorised and quantified them. Results Among the 535 analysed sources of information, 188 (35%) provided a definition of a SR. The most commonly used reference points for the definitions of SRs were Cochrane and the PRISMA statement. We found 188 different elements of SR definitions and divided them into 14 categories. The highest number of SR definition elements was found in categories related to searching (N = 51), analysis/synthesis (N = 23), overall methods (N = 22), quality/bias/appraisal/validity (N = 22) and aim/question (N = 13). The same five categories were also the most commonly used combination of categories in the SR definitions. Conclusion Currently used definitions of SRs are vague and ambiguous, often using terms such as clear, explicit and systematic, without further elaboration. In this manuscript we propose a more specific definition of a systematic review, with the ultimate aim of motivating the research community to establish a clear and unambiguous definition of this type of research.

Download Full-text

Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review

npj Digital Medicine ◽

10.1038/s41746-021-00430-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Anne M. Finucane ◽

Hannah O’Donnell ◽

Jean Lugton ◽

Tilly Gibson-Watt ◽

Connie Swenson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Palliative Care ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Psychological Symptoms ◽

Digital Health ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Information Provision ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Meta Review

AbstractDigital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.

Download Full-text

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis: Where Are We at?

International Journal of Qualitative Methods ◽

10.1177/1609406921993276 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 20 ◽

pp. 160940692199327

Author(s):

Kate Flemming ◽

Jane Noyes

Keyword(s):

Qualitative Research ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Synthesis Methods ◽

Qualitative Evidence Synthesis ◽

Policy Makers ◽

Qualitative Evidence ◽

Health And Social Care ◽

Method Paper ◽

Increasing Demand

Qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) have increased in prominence and profile over the last decade as a discrete set of methodologies to undertake systematic reviews of primary qualitative research in health and social care and in education. The findings from a qualitative evidence synthesis can enable a richer interpretation of a particular phenomenon, set of circumstances, or experiences than single primary qualitative research studies can achieve. Qualitative evidence synthesis methods were developed in response to an increasing demand from health and social professionals, policy makers, guideline developers and educationalists for review evidence that goes beyond “what works” afforded by systematic reviews of effectiveness. The increasing interest in the synthesis of qualitative research has led to methodological developments documented across a plethora of texts and journal articles. This “State of the Method” paper aims to bring together these methodological developments in one place, contextualizing advances in methods with exemplars to support readers in making choices in approach to a synthesis and aid understanding. The paper clarifies what a “qualitative evidence synthesis” is and explores its role, purpose and development. It details the kind of questions a QES can explore, the processes associated with a QES, including the methods for synthesis. The rational and methods for integrating a QES with systematic reviews of effectiveness are also detailed. Finally approaches reporting and recognition of what a “good” or rigorous QES look like are provided.

Download Full-text

Personal protective equipment for reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection among healthcare workers involved in emergency trauma surgery during the pandemic: an umbrella review protocol

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2020-045598 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. e045598

Author(s):

Dylan P Griswold ◽

Andres Gempeler ◽

Angelos G Kolias ◽

Peter J Hutchinson ◽

Andres M Rubiano

Keyword(s):

Health Systems ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Low Income ◽

Personal Protective Equipment ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Trauma Surgery ◽

Experimental Studies ◽

Protective Equipment ◽

Cochrane Central Register

IntroductionMany healthcare facilities in low-income and middle-income countries are inadequately resourced and may lack optimal organisation and governance, especially concerning surgical health systems. COVID-19 has the potential to decimate these already strained surgical healthcare services unless health systems take stringent measures to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) from viral exposure and ensure the continuity of specialised care for patients. The objective of this broad evidence synthesis is to identify and summarise the available literature regarding the efficacy of different personal protective equipment (PPE) in reducing the risk of COVID-19 infection in health personnel caring for patients undergoing trauma surgery in low-resource environments.MethodsWe will conduct several searches in the L·OVE (Living OVerview of Evidence) platform for COVID-19, a system that performs automated regular searches in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and over 30 other sources. The search results will be presented according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. This review will preferentially consider systematic reviews of experimental and quasi-experimental studies, as well as individual studies of such designs, evaluating the effect of different PPE on the risk of COVID-19 infection in HCWs involved in emergency trauma surgery. Critical appraisal of eligible studies for methodological quality will be conducted. Data will be extracted using the standardised data extraction tool in Covidence. Studies will, when possible, be pooled in a statistical meta-analysis using JBI SUMARI. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach for grading the certainty of evidence will be followed and a summary of findings will be created.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. The plan for dissemination is to publish review findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present findings at high-level conferences that engage the most pertinent stakeholders.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020198267.

Download Full-text

Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor

Research Synthesis Methods ◽

10.1002/jrsm.1530 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Trish Neelakant ◽

Alyssa Chen ◽

Gavindeep Shinger ◽

Adrienne Stevens ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Bibliometric Study ◽

Journal Impact ◽

Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

Download Full-text

Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis Published in Indexed Portuguese Medical Journals: Time Trends and Critical Appraisal.

10.21203/rs.3.rs-354547/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Luísa Prada ◽

Ana Prada ◽

Miguel Antunes ◽

Ricardo Fernandes ◽

João Costa ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Critical Appraisal ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Measurement Tool ◽

Medical Journals ◽

Electronic Search ◽

Potential Impact

Abstract Introduction:Over the last years, the number of systematic reviews published is steadily increasing due to the global interest in this type of evidence synthesis. However, little is known about the characteristics of this research published in Portuguese medical journals. This study aims to evaluate the publication trends and overall quality of these systematic reviews.Material and Methods:Systematic reviews were identified through an electronic search up to August 2020, targeting Portuguese Medical journals indexed in MEDLINE. Systematic reviews selection and data extraction were done independently by three authors. The overall quality critical appraisal using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR II) was independently assessed by three authors. Disagreements were solved by consensus.Results:Seventy systematic reviews published in 5 Portuguese medical journals were included. Most (n=57; 81,4%) were systematic reviews without meta-analysis. Until 2010, the number of systematic reviews per year increased. Since then, the number of reviews published has not remained stable and no less than 3 SRs were published per year. According to the systematic reviews’ typology, most have been predominantly conducted to assess the effectiveness of health interventions (n=28; 40,0%). General and Internal Medicine (n=26; 37,1%) was the most addressed field. Most systematic reviews (n=45; 64,3%) were rated as being of “critically low-quality”.Conclusions:There were consistent flaws in the methodological quality report of the systematic reviews included, particularly in establishing a prior protocol and not assessing the potential impact of the risk of bias on the results.Through the years, the number of systematic reviews published increased, yet their quality is suboptimal. There is a need to improve the reporting of systematic reviews in Portuguese medical journals, which can be achieved by better adherence to quality checklists/tools.Systematic review registration: INPLASY202090105

Download Full-text

CogTale: An online platform for the evaluation, synthesis and dissemination of evidence from cognitive interventions studies

10.21203/rs.3.rs-39520/v2 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Julieta Sabates ◽

Sylvie Belleville ◽

Mary Castellani ◽

Tzvi Dwolatsky ◽

Benjamin M. Hampstead ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Intervention Studies ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Research Synthesis ◽

Cognitive Intervention ◽

Synthesis Methods ◽

Data Synthesis ◽

Advanced Search ◽

Health Related ◽

Meta Analyses

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are critical in health-related decision making, and are considered the gold standard in research synthesis methods. However, with new trials being regularly published and with the development of increasingly rigorous standards of data synthesis, systematic reviews often require much expertise and long periods of time to be completed. Automation of some of the steps of evidence synthesis productions is a promising improvement in the field, capable of reducing the time and costs associated with the process. This article describes the development and main characteristics of a novel online repository of cognitive intervention studies entitled Cognitive Treatments Article Library and Evaluation (CogTale). The platform is currently in a Beta Release phase, as it is still under development. However, it already contains over 70 studies, and the CogTale team is continuously coding and uploading new studies into the repository. Key features include advanced search options, the capability to generate meta-analyses, and an up-to-date display of relevant published studies.

Download Full-text

Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.18005.2 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 8 ◽

pp. 221 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Assem M. Khamis ◽

Lara A. Kahale ◽

Hector Pardo-Hernandez ◽

Holger J. Schünemann ◽

Elie A. Akl

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Cochrane Library ◽

Cross Sectional Survey ◽

Systematic Review Methodology ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Prospective Longitudinal ◽

Over Time

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

Download Full-text

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

10.1101/2021.07.14.21260492 ◽

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.

Download Full-text