scholarly journals P.002 Improving the quality of systematic reviews of neurological conditions with more accurate search strategies: a series of validation studies

2017 ◽  
Vol 44 (S2) ◽  
pp. S14-S15
Author(s):  
KA Bui ◽  
J Abdaem ◽  
GC Gore ◽  
MR Keezer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Electronic Database ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Pubmed Search ◽  
Neurological Conditions ◽  
Sensitivity Specificity

Background: A well-constructed search strategy is an important feature of any systematic review. We aimed to design and validate electronic database (e.g. Pubmed) search strategies (i.e. a hedge or series of words used to identify articles of interest) for six neurological conditions. Methods: We enumerated 10311 consecutive articles in the 21 highest impact factor English-language general neurology journals. We constructed a simple hedge, limited to one keyword, for each condition. We also constructed a complex hedge using a series of MeSH terms and keywords. Two reviewers independently reviewed (confirmed by a third reviewer) all articles and established which condition(s) were the article’s subject. We calculated sensitivity/specificity estimates for the simple and complex hedges, and compared these using McNemar’s test. Results: The results are summarized in the Table. Conclusions: Our complex hedges for most conditions dramatically improve sensitivity without compromising specificity. This study will help improve the accuracy of search strategies in future systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Efficiency and contribution of strategies for finding randomized controlled trials: a case study from a systematic review on therapeutic interventions of chronic depression

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Annika Westphal ◽  
Levente Kriston ◽  
Lars P. Hölzel ◽  
Martin Härter ◽  
Alessa Von Wolff
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Reference Lists ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Database Search ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Electronic Database ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Electronic Database Search

<em>Background</em>. Identifying all existing evidence is a crucial aspect in conducting systematic reviews. Since the retrieval of electronic database searches alone is limited, guidelines recommend the use of addi- tional search strategies. The aim of this investigation was to assess the efficiency and contribution of additional search strategies for identifying randomized controlled trials in conducting a systematic review on interventions after performing a sensitive electronic database search. <br /><em>Design and Methods</em>. Seven electronic databases, 3 journals and 11 systematic reviews were searched. All first authors of the included studies were contacted; citation tracking and a search in clinical trial registers were performed. <em>A priori</em> defined evaluation criteria were calculated for each search strategy. <br /><em>Results</em>. A total of 358 full-text articles were identified; 50 studies were included in the systematic review, wherefrom 84.0% (42) were acquired by the sensitive electronic database search and 16.0% (8) through additional search strategies. Screening reference lists of related systematic reviews was the most beneficial additional search strategy, with an efficiency of 31.3% (5) and a contribution of 10.0% (5/50), whereas hand-searching and author contacts contributed two and one additional studies, respectively. Citation tracking and searching clinical trial registers did not lead to any further inclusion of primary studies. <br /><em>Conclusions</em>. Based on our findings, hand-searching contents of relevant journals and screening reference lists of related systematic reviews may be helpful additional strategies to identify an extensive body of evidence. In case of limited resources, a sensitive electronic database search may constitute an appropriate alternative for identifying relevant trials.

Reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Danah AlMubarak ◽  
Nikolaos Pandis ◽  
Martyn T Cobourne ◽  
Jadbinder Seehra
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

Summary Background This study aimed to assess the reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews (SRs) and hence their reproducibility. Materials and methods A search of a single electronic database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify interventional orthodontic SRs with meta-analysis published within a 10-year period. The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was also sourced. Full articles were reviewed by two assessors against the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality of each search strategy was assessed using a previously validated checklist with a score of 1 or 2 given for each of the eight items. Cumulative totals were calculated. Guided by previous research, the authors agreed the following cut-offs to categorize the overall level of quality: 8–10 (poor), 10–12 (fair), and greater than 13 (good). Results A total of 127 SRs were analysed. The overall median quality score for the reporting of the search strategy was 14 [interquartile range (IQR): 13–15]. Cochrane SRs and those originating in Europe received higher aggregate scores, whereas no difference was evident based on Prospero registration. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the overall score. Non-Cochrane reviews achieved lower overall scores compared to Cochrane reviews (−1.0, 95% confidence interval: −1.65, −0.34, P = 0.003). The most frequently searched database was EMBASE (N = 93) and the median number of authors was 5 (IQR 4–6). Authors of 26.8% of SRs searched the grey literature. Language restrictions were applied to the search strategies of 88 (69.3%) SRs. Conclusions The reporting quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic SRs is at a good level but differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews currently exist. The reporting of searching of the grey literature and application of no language restrictions can be improved.

scholarly journals The Relationship between the Number of Emergency Room Patient Visits with Triage Accuracy and Emergency Nurse Response Time in the Covid 19 Pandemic Season

2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 21-24
Author(s):  
Ali Humardani ◽  
Yuly Peristiowati ◽  
Agusta D. Ellina
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Service ◽  
Response Time ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
The Other ◽  
Bleeding Control ◽  
Electronic Database ◽  
Standard Operating ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Spine Control

Handling emergency cases must not only be carried out quickly but also must be precise. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) is one of the instruments to measure the quality of service. the number of patient visits that can affect the quality of service. Triage is a way of sorting patients based on therapy needs and available resources. Therapy is based on ABC conditions (Airway, with cervical spine control, Breathing, and Circulation with bleeding control). On the other hand, the COVID-19 pandemic greatly affects the response time, impacting the number of patient visits. Response time is the time between the beginning of a request being responded to in other words it can be called response time. A good response time for patients is 5 minutes. The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between the number of patient visits and the accuracy of triage implementation and response time. The electronic database used is PubMed, Springer, and Google Scholar with a search strategy using the PICO (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome) method.

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

scholarly journals Development of an efficient search filter to retrieve systematic reviews from PubMed

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
José Antonio Salvador-Oliván ◽  
Gonzalo Marco-Cuenca ◽  
Rosario Arquero-Avilés
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Average Precision ◽  
Search Filter ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Mesh Terms ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Relevant Publication

Objective: Locating systematic reviews is essential for clinicians and researchers when creating or updating reviews and for decision-making in health care. This study aimed to develop a search filter for retrieving systematic reviews that improves upon the performance of the PubMed systematic review search filter.Methods: Search terms were identified from abstracts of reviews published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the titles of articles indexed as systematic reviews in PubMed. Both the precision of the candidate terms and the number of systematic reviews retrieved from PubMed were evaluated after excluding the subset of articles retrieved by the PubMed systematic review filter. Terms that achieved a precision greater than 70% and relevant publication types indexed with MeSH terms were included in the filter search strategy.Results: The search strategy used in our filter added specific terms not included in PubMed’s systematic review filter and achieved a 61.3% increase in the number of retrieved articles that are potential systematic reviews. Moreover, it achieved an average precision that is likely greater than 80%.Conclusions: The developed search filter will enable users to identify more systematic reviews from PubMed than the PubMed systematic review filter with high precision.

scholarly journals A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wichor M. Bramer ◽  
Gerdien B. De Jonge ◽  
Melissa L. Rethlefsen ◽  
Frans Mast ◽  
Jos Kleijnen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Optimization Technique ◽  
Search Strategies ◽  
Biomedical Literature ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Text Document ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Free Text Search

Creating search strategies for systematic reviews, finding the best balance between sensitivity and specificity, and translating search strategies between databases is challenging. Several methods describe standards for systematic search strategies, but a consistent approach for creating an exhaustive search strategy has not yet been fully described in enough detail to be fully replicable. The authors have established a method that describes step by step the process of developing a systematic search strategy as needed in the systematic review. This method describes how single-line search strategies can be prepared in a text document by typing search syntax (such as field codes, parentheses, and Boolean operators) before copying and pasting search terms (keywords and free-text synonyms) that are found in the thesaurus. To help ensure term completeness, we developed a novel optimization technique that is mainly based on comparing the results retrieved by thesaurus terms with those retrieved by the free-text search words to identify potentially relevant candidate search terms. Macros in Microsoft Word have been developed to convert syntaxes between databases and interfaces almost automatically. This method helps information specialists in developing librarian-mediated searches for systematic reviews as well as medical and health care practitioners who are searching for evidence to answer clinical questions. The described method can be used to create complex and comprehensive search strategies for different databases and interfaces, such as those that are needed when searching for relevant references for systematic reviews, and will assist both information specialists and practitioners when they are searching the biomedical literature.

scholarly journals Randomized controlled trials and neurosurgery: the ideal fit or should alternative methodologies be considered?

2016 ◽  
Vol 124 (2) ◽  
pp. 558-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alireza Mansouri ◽  
Benjamin Cooper ◽  
Samuel M. Shin ◽  
Douglas Kondziolka
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Sample Size ◽  
English Language ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Median Number ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Mesh Terms

OBJECT Randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are advocated to provide high-level medical evidence. However, in neurosurgery, there are barriers to conducting RCTs. The authors of this study sought to analyze the quality of neurosurgical RCTs since 2000 to determine the adequacy of their design and reporting. METHODS A search of the MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (2000–2014) was conducted. The medical subject heading (MeSH) terms used in the search included: “neurosurgery” OR “neurosurgical procedure,” “brain neoplasms,” “infarction” and “decompression,” “carotid stenosis,” “cerebral hemorrhage,” and “spinal fusion.” These studies were limited to RCTs, in humans, and in the English language. The Consolidated Standards for Reporting of Trials (CONSORT) and Jadad scales were used to assess the quality of RCT design and reporting. The standardized median times cited (median citations divided by years since publication) were used to assess impact. A pragmatic-explanatory continuum indicator summary-based scale was used to assess the design of the studies as primarily pragmatic or explanatory. RESULTS Sixty-one articles were identified, and the following subspecialties were the most common: vascular (23, 37%), followed by functional neurosurgery and neurooncology (both 13, 21%). The following nations were the primary leaders in RCTs: US (25 studies, 41%), Germany (8 studies, 13%), and the United Kingdom (7 studies, 11%). Median sample size was 100 (interquartile range [IQR] 41.5–279). The majority of the studies (40, 66%) had pragmatic objectives. The median number of times cited overall was 69 (IQR 20.5–193). The combined median CONSORT score was 36 (IQR 27.5–39). Blinding was most deficiently reported. Other areas with a relatively low quality of reporting were sample size calculation (34.2% of surgical, 38.5% of drug, and 20% of device studies), allocation concealment (28.9% of surgical, 23.1% of drug, and 50% of device studies), and protocol implementation (18.4% of surgical, 23% of drug, and 20% of device studies). The quality of reporting did not correlate with the study impact. All studies had a median Jadad score ≤ 3. Thirty-three pragmatic studies (83%) and 5 explanatory studies (25%) met the design objectives. All pragmatic studies based on drug and device trials met their objectives, while 74% of pragmatic surgical trials met their objectives. CONCLUSIONS The prevalence of neurosurgical RCTs is low. The quality of RCT design and reporting in neurosurgery is also low. Many study designs are not compatible with stated objectives. Pragmatic studies were more likely to meet design objectives. Given the role of RCTs as one of the highest levels of evidence, it is critical to improve on their methodology and reporting.

scholarly journals Reporting quality of systematic review abstracts in articles hand and wrist pathology: a review

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 50-57
Author(s):  
Amanda Yang Shen ◽  
Robert S Ware ◽  
Tom J O'Donohoe ◽  
Jason Wasiak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
English Language ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Annual Basis ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Abstract Reporting

Background: An increasing number of systematic reviews are published on an annual basis. Although perusal of the full text of articles is preferable, abstracts are sometimes relied upon to guide clinical decisions. Despite this, the abstracts of systematic reviews have historically been poorly reported. We evaluated the reporting quality of systematic review abstracts within hand and wrist pathology literature. Methods: We searched MEDLINE®, EMBASE and Cochrane Library from inception to December 2017 for systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology using the 12-item PRISMA-A checklist to assess abstract reporting quality. Results: A total of 114 abstracts were included. Most related to fracture (38%) or arthritis (17%) management. Forty-seven systematic reviews (41%) included meta-analysis. Mean PRISMA-A score was 3.6/12 with Cochrane reviews having the highest mean score and hand-specific journals having the lowest. Abstracts longer than 300 words (mean difference [MD]: 1.43, 95% CI [0.74, 2.13]; p <0.001) and systematic reviews with meta-analysis (MD: 0.64, 95% CI [0.05, 1.22]; p = 0.034) were associated with higher scores. Unstructured abstracts were associated with lower scores (MD: –0.65, 95% CI [–1.28, –0.02]; p = 0.044). A limitation of this study is the possible exclusion of relevant studies that were not published in the English language. Conclusion: Abstracts of systematic reviews pertaining to hand and wrist pathology have been suboptimally reported as assessed by the PRISMA-A checklist. Improvements in reporting quality could be achieved by endorsement of PRISMA-A guidelines by authors and journals, and reducing constraints on abstract length.

scholarly journals 2050

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 (S1) ◽  
pp. 42-43
Author(s):  
Melissa L. Rethlefsen ◽  
Mellanye Lackey ◽  
Michelle Fiander ◽  
Mary McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Translational Science ◽  
University Of Utah ◽  
The Core ◽  
The University ◽  
Strategy Design

OBJECTIVES/SPECIFIC AIMS: To improve the quality of evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews and other comparative effectiveness reviews, at the University of Utah. METHODS/STUDY POPULATION: Systematic reviews and other types of evidence syntheses are best when collaborative teams with expertise in multiple disciplines participate, including content experts, librarians and information specialists, systematic review methodologists, and statisticians. The Center for Clinical & Translational Science (CCTS), due to its interdisciplinary nature, connectivity to clinical experts, and existing Cores of methodologists, presented an opportune location for a Systematic Review Core. We designed the Systematic Review Core to focus on 2 primary aspects of evidence synthesis support: overall systematic review methodology guidance and in-depth information retrieval planning and execution. After establishing a conceptual partnership, a new position, Evidence Retrieval and Synthesis Librarian, was created to build capacity within the Core. RESULTS/ANTICIPATED RESULTS: Close connections with the CCTS’s Population Health Research Foundation have led to better interdisciplinary coverage of systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses produced by the University of Utah. We are able to partner with statisticians and clinical experts from formulating the question to completing the final manuscript. Hourly rates charged through a cost recovery model have enabled us to grow our staff able to work on the Core, as well as offset costs for major databases and resources these bibliographic data-heavy research methods require. After 1 year of existence, the Core is already at maximum capacity, with no sign of slowing. Projects have ranged from brief consultations to highly intense interactions for the duration of the research spectrum. We have also been added as key personnel to grants with systematic review components. DISCUSSION/SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACT: Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses are a labor-intense, interdisciplinary team effort that fit well within the scope of CTSA’s. They are a key component of the translation of science to practice, and can be used at all stages of the translational science spectrum. Quality of systematic reviews remains poor, particularly surrounding protocol development, sensitive search strategy design and reporting, and overall reporting. Librarians and information specialist involvement has been shown to positively correlate to the search strategy design and reporting aspects of systematic reviews, and librarians and information specialists increasingly act as systematic review methodologists. By including librarians and information specialists as part of the CTSA’s official Core structure, these systematic review methodologists are able to connect with statisticians, other methodologists, and clinical experts in a nexus of interdisciplinarity. At the University of Utah, the visibility and structure provided by the CCTS helps the Systematic Review Core with promotion, creating connections and opportunities for collaboration across the campus. This partnership has already led to increased uptake in services, and over time, we believe it will increase the quality of the science produced. CTSA’s have a natural partner with their health science library colleagues in translational science, as shown by this model.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document