scholarly journals Information retrieval for systematic reviews in food and feed topics: A narrative review

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 527-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hannah Wood ◽  
Annette O'Connor ◽  
Jan Sargeant ◽  
Julie Glanville
Keyword(s):  
Information Retrieval ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Food And Feed

scholarly journals Effect of probiotic interventions on depressive symptoms: A narrative review evaluating systematic reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 73 (4) ◽  
pp. 154-162 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ibrahim Nadeem ◽  
Mohammed Z. Rahman ◽  
Yasser Ad‐Dab'bagh ◽  
Mahmood Akhtar
Keyword(s):  
Depressive Symptoms ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Narrative Review

scholarly journals A Narrative Review and Proposed Framework for Using Health System Data with Systematic Reviews to Support Decision-making

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (6) ◽  
pp. 1830-1835 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jennifer S. Lin ◽  
M. Hassan Murad ◽  
Brian Leas ◽  
Jonathan R. Treadwell ◽  
Roger Chou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Health System ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
System Data ◽  
Health System Data ◽  
Support Decision Making

scholarly journals Redundancy of terms is not an error but plays a positive role in composing search strategies

2020 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan W. Schoones
Keyword(s):  
Information Retrieval ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Positive Role

Comment on Salvador-Oliván JA, Marco-Cuenca G, Arquero-Avilés R. Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on information retrieval. J Med Libr Assoc. 2019 Apr;107(2):210–21. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2019.567.

A narrative review of systematic reviews on adherence to psoriasis treatments

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Armaan Guraya ◽  
Uros Rakita ◽  
Caroline L. Porter ◽  
Steven R. Feldman
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Narrative Review

scholarly journals Trick or Treating in Forensics—The Challenge of the Saliva Microbiome: A Narrative Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (10) ◽  
pp. 1501
Author(s):  
Gabriella D’Angiolella ◽  
Pamela Tozzo ◽  
Sarah Gino ◽  
Luciana Caenazzo
Keyword(s):  
Microbial Community ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
State Of The Art ◽  
Current Knowledge ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Oral Microbiome ◽  
Current State ◽  
Microbial Analysis ◽  
Specific Factors ◽  
Meta Analyses

The oral microbiome harbours microbial community signatures that differ among individuals, highlighting that it could be highly individualizing and potentially unique to each individual. Therefore, the oral microbial traces collected in crime scenes could produce investigative leads. This narrative review will describe the current state-of-the-art of how the salivary microbiome could be exploited as a genetic signature to make inferences in the forensic field. This review has been performed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Guidelines. Even if further studies are needed to relate the variation in the oral microbiome to specific factors, in order to understand how the salivary microbiome is influenced by an individual’s lifestyle, by reviewing the studies published so far, it is clear that the oral microbial analysis could become a useful forensic tool. Even if promising, caution is required in interpreting the results and an effort to direct research towards studies that fill the current knowledge gaps is certainly useful.

scholarly journals A Randomized Survey of the Preference of Gastroenterologists for a Cochrane Review versus a Traditional Narrative Review

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
John WD McDonald ◽  
Jeffrey Mahon ◽  
Kelly Zarnke ◽  
Brian Feagan ◽  
Lorinda Simms ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Clinical Scenario ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
Specific Therapy ◽  
Azathioprine Therapy ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

BACKGROUND: Clinicians often rely on review material rather than analysis of primary research to guide therapy. Systematic reviews use methods to insure thoroughness and to minimize bias, but many clinicians are not familiar with systematic reviews and continue to rely on narrative reviews.OBEJCTIVES: To determine whether a traditional narrative review or a systematic review is perceived to be more useful.METHODS: A clinical scenario (patient with chronic Crohn’s disease considered for azathioprine therapy) was circulated to gastroenterologists, along with a narrative review of therapy (including azathioprine) for inflammatory bowel disease written by an acknowledged expert, or with a systematic Cochrane review of the use of azathioprine for this disease. Whether knowledge of authorship and journal source influences the perception of usefulness of a narrative review was investigated.RESULTS: The Cochrane review was rated significantly more highly than the narrative review on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (21.3 mm; 95% CI 14.5 to 28 mm). The proportion of respondents who considered the review to be a useful guide was also higher in the group that received the Cochrane review (91%) than in the group that received the narrative review, with author and journal concealed (62%) or identified (70%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Ratings from the two groups that received the narrative review were not significantly different.CONCLUSIONS: The focused systematic review was perceived to be more useful than a traditional broad narrative review as a guide to making a decision concerning the use of specific therapy. The possible strengths of systematic reviews should be more fully investigated. If there is additional evidence supporting their greater value to clinicians, they should be made more widely available to clinicians and their strengths should be publicized.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document