Reliability of search in systematic reviews: Towards a quality assessment framework for the automated-search strategy

2018 ◽  
Vol 99 ◽  
pp. 133-147 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nauman Bin Ali ◽  
Muhammad Usman
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Assessment Framework ◽  
Automated Search

scholarly journals Developing a Comprehensive Search Strategy for Evidence Based Systematic Reviews

2008 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia B. DeLuca ◽  
Mary M. Mullins ◽  
Cynthia M. Lyles ◽  
Nicole Crepaz ◽  
Linda Kay ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Evidence Based Practice ◽  
Reference List ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Comprehensive Search ◽  
Comprehensive Search Strategy ◽  
Automated Search ◽  
Hiv Aids

Objective: As the health care field moves towards evidence-based practice, it becomes ever more critical to conduct systematic reviews of research literature for guiding programmatic activities, policy-making decisions, and future research. Conducting systematic reviews requires a comprehensive search of behavioral, social, and policy research to identify relevant literature. As a result, the validity of the systematic review findings and recommendations is partly a function of the quality of the systematic search of the literature. Therefore, a carefully thought out and organized plan for developing and testing a comprehensive search strategy should be followed. Methods: The comprehensive search strategies, including automated and manual search techniques, were developed, tested, and implemented to locate published and unpublished citations to build a database of HIV/AIDS and STD literature for the CDC’s HIV Prevention Research Synthesis Project. The search incorporates various automated and manual search methods to decrease the chance of missing pertinent information. The automated search was implemented in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Sociological Abstracts and AIDSLINE some of the key databases for biomedical, psychological, behavioral science, and public health literature. These searches utilized indexing, keywords including truncation, proximity, and phrases. The manual search method includes physically examining journals (hand searching), reference list checks, and researching key authors. Results: Using automated and manual search components, the PRS search strategy retrieved 17,493 HIV/AIDS/STD prevention focused articles for the years 1988-2005. The automated search found 91% and the manual search contributed 9% of the articles reporting on HIV/AIDS or STD interventions with behavior/biologic outcomes. Among the automated search citations, 48% were found in one database only (20% MEDLINE, 18% PsycINFO, 8 % EMBASE, 2% Sociological Abstracts). Conclusions: A comprehensive base of literature requires searching multiple databases and methods of manual searching in order to locate all relevant citations. Understanding the project needs, the limitations of different electronic databases, and other methods for developing and refining a search are vital in planning an effective and comprehensive search strategy. Reporting standards for literature searches as part of the broader push for procedurally transparent and reproducible systematic reviews is not only advisable, but good evidence-based practice.

The Scoping Review of Smart Healthcare Applications in Medical Health (Preprint)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng Hang Wu ◽  
Ching Ju Chiu ◽  
Yen Ju Liou ◽  
Chun Ying Lee ◽  
Susan C. Hu
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Mobile Health ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Rapid Development ◽  
Related Research ◽  
Geographic Access ◽  
Smart Healthcare ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Healthcare Interventions

BACKGROUND There is still no consensus on research terms for smart healthcare worldwide. The study conducted by Lewis 10 years ago showed extending geographic access was the major health purpose of health-related information communication technology (ICT), but today's situation may be different because of the rapid development of smart healthcare. Objective: The main aim of this study is to classify recent smart healthcare interventions. Therefore, this scoping review was conducted as a feasible tool for exploring this domain and summarizing related research findings. OBJECTIVE The main aim of this study is to classify recent smart healthcare interventions. Therefore, this scoping review was conducted as a feasible tool for exploring this domain and summarizing related research findings. METHODS The scoping review relies on the analysis of previous reviews of smart healthcare interventions assessed for their effectiveness in the framework of a systematic review and/or meta-analysis. The search strategy was based on the identification of smart healthcare interventions reported as the proposed keywords. In the analysis, the reviews published from January 2015 to December 2019 were included. RESULTS The number of publications for smart healthcare's systematic reviews has continued to grow in the past five years. The search strategy yielded 210 systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses addressed to target groups of interest. 68.5% of these publications used mobile health as a keyword. According to the classification by Lewis, 37.62% of the literature was applied to extend geographic access. According to the classification by the Joint Commission of Taiwan (JCT), 48.84% of smart healthcare was applied in clinical areas, and 60% of it was applied in outpatient medical services. CONCLUSIONS Smart healthcare interventions are being widely used in clinical settings and for disease management. The research of mobile health has received the most attention among smart healthcare interventions. The main purpose of mobile health was used to extend geographic access to increase medical accessibility in clinical areas. CLINICALTRIAL none

scholarly journals Quality assessment with diverse studies (QuADS): an appraisal tool for methodological and reporting quality in systematic reviews of mixed- or multi-method studies

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Reema Harrison ◽  
Benjamin Jones ◽  
Peter Gardner ◽  
Rebecca Lawton
Keyword(s):  
Health Services Research ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Literature Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Content Validity ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Services Research ◽  
Appraisal Tool

Abstract Background In the context of the volume of mixed- and multi-methods studies in health services research, the present study sought to develop an appraisal tool to determine the methodological and reporting quality of such studies when included in systematic reviews. Evaluative evidence regarding the design and use of our existing Quality Assessment Tool for Studies with Diverse Designs (QATSDD) was synthesised to enhance and refine it for application across health services research. Methods Secondary data were collected through a literature review of all articles identified using Google Scholar that had cited the QATSDD tool from its inception in 2012 to December 2019. First authors of all papers that had cited the QATSDD (n=197) were also invited to provide further evaluative data via a qualitative online survey. Evaluative findings from the survey and literature review were synthesised narratively and these data used to identify areas requiring refinement. The refined tool was subject to inter-rater reliability, face and content validity analyses. Results Key limitations of the QATSDD tool identified related to a lack of clarity regarding scope of use of the tool and in the ease of application of criteria beyond experimental psychological research. The Quality Appraisal for Diverse Studies (QuADS) tool emerged as a revised tool to address the limitations of the QATSDD. The QuADS tool demonstrated substantial inter-rater reliability (k=0.66), face and content validity for application in systematic reviews with mixed, or multi-methods health services research. Conclusion Our findings highlight the perceived value of appraisal tools to determine the methodological and reporting quality of studies in reviews that include heterogeneous studies. The QuADS tool demonstrates strong reliability and ease of use for application to multi or mixed-methods health services research.

scholarly journals Evaluation of a staff training programme to reimplement a comprehensive health assessment

2018 ◽  
Vol 7 (4) ◽  
pp. e000353 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luke A Turcotte ◽  
Jake Tran ◽  
Joshua Moralejo ◽  
Nancy Curtin-Telegdi ◽  
Leslie Eckel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Data Quality ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Health Information ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Training Programme ◽  
Care Planning ◽  
Assessment Framework ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Data Quality Assessment ◽  
Comprehensive Health

BackgroundHealth information systems with applications in patient care planning and decision support depend on high-quality data. A postacute care hospital in Ontario, Canada, conducted data quality assessment and focus group interviews to guide the development of a cross-disciplinary training programme to reimplement the Resident Assessment Instrument–Minimum Data Set (RAI-MDS) 2.0 comprehensive health assessment into the hospital’s clinical workflows.MethodsA hospital-level data quality assessment framework based on time series comparisons against an aggregate of Ontario postacute care hospitals was used to identify areas of concern. Focus groups were used to evaluate assessment practices and the use of health information in care planning and clinical decision support. The data quality assessment and focus groups were repeated to evaluate the effectiveness of the training programme.ResultsInitial data quality assessment and focus group indicated that knowledge, practice and cultural barriers prevented both the collection and use of high-quality clinical data. Following the implementation of the training, there was an improvement in both data quality and the culture surrounding the RAI-MDS 2.0 assessment.ConclusionsIt is important for facilities to evaluate the quality of their health information to ensure that it is suitable for decision-making purposes. This study demonstrates the use of a data quality assessment framework that can be applied for quality improvement planning.

scholarly journals Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Zhang ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
Jessie McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Statistical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Statistical Decisions ◽  
Search Quality

Introduction - This study applied the principles of evidence based information practice to clarify the role of information specialists and librarians in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews and to determine whether information specialists impact the quality of searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Objectives - This research project sought to determine how the contribution of the person responsible for searching in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews was reported; whether the contribution was recognized through authorship or acknowledgement; the qualifications of the searcher; and the association between the type of contributorship and characteristics of the search strategy, assessability, and the presence of certain types of errors. Methods - Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library 3 (2002). Inclusion criteria: The study included systematic reviews that met the following criteria: one or more sections of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy were utilised, primary studies were either randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, and included and excluded studies were clearly identified. Data extraction: Two librarians assessed the searches for errors, establishing consensus on discordant ratings. Results - Of the 169 reviews screened for this project, 105 met all eligibility criteria. Authors fulfilled the searching role in 41.9% of reviews studied, acknowledged persons or groups in 13.3%, a combination in 9.5%, and the role was not reported in 35.2% of reviews. For the 78 reviews in which meta-analyses were performed, the positions of those responsible for statistical decisions were examined for comparative purposes. The statistical role was performed by an author in 47.4% of cases and unreported in the same number of cases. Insufficient analyzable data was obtained regarding professional qualifications (3/105 for searching, 2/78 for statistical decisions). Search quality was assessed for 66 searches across 74 reviews. In general, it was more possible to assess the search quality when the searcher role was reported. An association was found between the reporting of searcher role and the presence of a consequential error. There was no association between the number of consequential errors and how the contribution of the searcher was reported. Conclusions - Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical decision-making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies.

Quality assessment of systematic reviews on vertical bone regeneration

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 364-372 ◽  
Author(s):  
J.M. Saletta ◽  
J.J. Garcia ◽  
J.M.M. Caramês ◽  
H. Schliephake ◽  
D.N. da Silva Marques
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Bone Regeneration ◽  
Systematic Reviews

scholarly journals Use of Apps to Promote Childhood Vaccination: Protocol for a Systematic Review

10.2196/16929 ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. e16929
Author(s):  
Michelle Helena Van Velthoven ◽  
Madison Milne-Ives ◽  
Caroline de Cock ◽  
Mary Mooney ◽  
Edward Meinert
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
English Language ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Information Storage ◽  
Childhood Vaccination ◽  
Cochrane Central Register ◽  
Technical Standards

Background The decline in the uptake of routine childhood vaccinations has resulted in outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases. Vaccination apps can be used as a tool to promote immunization through the provision of reminders, dissemination of information, peer support, and feedback. Objective The aim of this review is to systematically review the evidence on the use of apps to support childhood vaccination uptake, information storage, and record sharing. Methods We will identify relevant papers by searching the following electronic databases: PubMed, Embase by Ovid, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ClinicalTrials.gov, and Education Resources Information Center (ERIC). We will review the reference lists of those studies that we include to identify relevant additional papers not initially identified using our search strategy. In addition to the use of electronic databases, we will search for grey literature on the topic. The search strategy will include only terms relating to or describing the intervention, which is app use. As almost all titles and abstracts are in English, 100% of these will be reviewed, but retrieval will be confined to papers written in the English language. We will record the search outcome on a specifically designed record sheet. Two reviewers will select observational and intervention studies, appraise the quality of the studies, and extract the relevant data. All studies will involve the use of apps relating to child vaccinations. The primary outcome is the uptake of vaccinations. Secondary outcomes are as follows: (1) use of app for sharing of information and providing vaccination reminders and (2) use of app for storage of vaccination information; knowledge and decision making by parents regarding vaccination (ie, risks and benefits of vaccination); costs and cost-effectiveness of vaccination apps; use of the app and measures of usability (eg, usefulness, acceptability, and experiences of different users: parents and health care professionals); use of technical standards for development of the app; and adverse events (eg, data leaks and misinformation). We will exclude studies that do not study an app. We anticipate a limited scope for meta-analysis and will provide a narrative overview of findings and tabular summaries of extracted data. Results This project was funded by the Sir David Cooksey Fellowship in Healthcare Translation at the University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom. We will submit the full systematic review for publication in the Journal of Medical Internet Research. Conclusions This review will follow, where possible, the Cochrane Collaboration and the Centre for Review and Dissemination methodologies for conducting systematic reviews. We will report our findings based on guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The review results will be used to inform the development of a vaccination app. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/16929

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document