scholarly journals Predicting the time needed to conduct an environmental systematic review or systematic map: analysis and decision support tool

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neal R Haddaway ◽  
Martin J Westgate
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Decision Support Tool ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Systematic Map ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Resource Requirements ◽  
Time Requirements

AbstractSystematic reviews aim to maximise transparency and comprehensiveness, whilst also minimising subjectivity and sources of bias. Because of these time-consuming and complex tasks, systematic reviews are perceived as being resource-intensive. To date, published estimates of systematic review resource requirements have been largely anecdotal, being imprecise and not based on evidence. However, it is valuable to provide reliable means of estimating the resource and time requirements of systematic reviews and maps. We analysed all CEE systematic reviews (n=66) and maps (n=20) published or registered between 2012 and 2017 to estimate the average time needed to complete a systematic review and map. We then surveyed 33 experienced systematic reviewers to collate information on time needed for each stage of the review process. Our results show that the average CEE systematic review takes 157 days (SD; ±22), whilst the average CEE systematic map takes 209 days (SD; ±53). While screening of titles and abstracts is widely accepted to be time-consuming, in practice meta-data extraction and critical appraisal can take as long (or even longer) to complete, especially when producing systematic maps. Finally, we present a tool that allows the user to predict the time requirements of a review or map given information known about the planned methods and evidence base likely to be identified. Our tool uses evidence-based defaults as a useful starting point for those wishing to predict the time requirements for a particular review. Our analyses shed light on the most time-consuming stages of the systematic review and map process, and highlight key bottlenecks from the perspective of time requirements, helping future reviewers to plan their time accordingly. Future predictions of effort required to complete systematic reviews and maps could be improved if CEE and CEE review authors provided more detailed reporting of the methods and results of their reviewing processes.

scholarly journals Extended use or reuse of single-use surgical masks and filtering face-piece respirators during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: A rapid systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elaine C. Toomey ◽  
Yvonne Conway ◽  
Chris Burton ◽  
Simon Smith ◽  
Michael Smalle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
World Health ◽  
Healthcare Organizations ◽  
Surgical Masks ◽  
Single Use ◽  
Current Guidance ◽  
The Impact

AbstractBackground:Shortages of personal protective equipment during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic have led to the extended use or reuse of single-use respirators and surgical masks by frontline healthcare workers. The evidence base underpinning such practices warrants examination.Objectives:To synthesize current guidance and systematic review evidence on extended use, reuse, or reprocessing of single-use surgical masks or filtering face-piece respirators.Data sources:We used the World Health Organization, the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Public Health England websites to identify guidance. We used Medline, PubMed, Epistemonikos, Cochrane Database, and preprint servers for systematic reviews.Methods:Two reviewers conducted screening and data extraction. The quality of included systematic reviews was appraised using AMSTAR-2. Findings were narratively synthesized.Results:In total, 6 guidance documents were identified. Levels of detail and consistency across documents varied. They included 4 high-quality systematic reviews: 3 focused on reprocessing (decontamination) of N95 respirators and 1 focused on reprocessing of surgical masks. Vaporized hydrogen peroxide and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation were highlighted as the most promising reprocessing methods, but evidence on the relative efficacy and safety of different methods was limited. We found no well-established methods for reprocessing respirators at scale.Conclusions:Evidence on the impact of extended use and reuse of surgical masks and respirators is limited, and gaps and inconsistencies exist in current guidance. Where extended use or reuse is being practiced, healthcare organizations should ensure that policies and systems are in place to ensure these practices are carried out safely and in line with available guidance.

scholarly journals Soil carbon enhancing practices: a systematic review of barriers and enablers of adoption

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
Stanley Karanja Ng’ang’a ◽  
Dorcas Anyango Jalang’o ◽  
Evan Hartunian Girvetz
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Soil Fertility ◽  
Soil Carbon ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Holistic View ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Current Evidence Base

AbstractSustained adoption of soil carbon enhancing practices (SCEPs) at scale remains an aspiration goal to maintain sufficient amount of soil carbon in household farms in order to impact on the sustained farm productivity caused by sustained soil fertility. The objective of this study is to systematically evaluate the current evidence base to identify: (a) which factors enable or constrain adoption of SCEPs and hence maintain soil carbon in Kenya and Ethiopia; (b) to be able to lessons learnt concerning what influences the adoption of the SCEPs for the purpose of maintaining soil fertility among smallholder farms; and (c) how this can be improved going into the future for the purpose of formulating appropriate policies in Kenya and Ethiopia in both the short and long run. A systematic review was conducted using established review methodology and extensive searches of published and unpublished literature sources. Data extraction and quality appraisal of quantitative, qualitative and case studies that met the inclusion criteria were conducted while checking for reliability. A broad range of interrelated enabling and constraining factors was identified for the SCEPs. All the factors matter, and some of most of these factors are important to be considered during planning and implementation of SCEPs aiming at promoting soil carbon sequestration. Despite the limitation in the quantity of evidence, this systematic review provides a useful starting point for the scaling up programmes to ensure more effective adoption of SCEPs. This review also underscores the need for a multidisciplinary approach in understanding what determines the adoption of SCEPs to capture a holistic view.

scholarly journals Systematic review of the factors affecting cat and dog owner compliance with pharmaceutical treatment recommendations

2018 ◽  
Vol 184 (5) ◽  
pp. 154-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Jennifer Wareham ◽  
Marnie Louise Brennan ◽  
Rachel S Dean
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Treatment Recommendations ◽  
Social Risk ◽  
Dosing Regimen ◽  
Pharmaceutical Treatment ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Factors Affecting

The aim of this systematic review is to describe and assess the quality of the existing evidence base concerning factors that influence the compliance of cat and dog owners to pharmaceutical and specifically polypharmacy treatment recommendations. PubMed, CAB Abstracts and Google were searched to identify relevant literature and search results were filtered according to predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Standardised data extraction and critical appraisal were carried out on each included study, and a Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine level of evidence grading was applied. Of the 8589 studies, eight studies were included in the review. Majority (five of eight) of the included studies were examining compliance with short-term antimicrobial therapies and none examined polypharmacy. Multiple definitions of compliance, methods of measurement and different factors potentially affecting compliance were used. Factors reported to have affected compliance in at least one study were dosing regimen, discussion of dosing regimen in light of owners’ circumstances, consultation time, disease, month of consultation/treatment, physical risk, social risk and method of administration. The evidence available regarding factors affecting client compliance with pharmaceutical treatment recommendations in cats and dogs is scarce and of poor quality.

scholarly journals Health Informatics in Developing Countries: Systematic Review of Reviews Contribution of the IMIA Working Group Health Informatics for Development

2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (01) ◽  
pp. 28-33
Author(s):  
C. Otero ◽  
A. Marcelo ◽  
D. Luna
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Developing Countries ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Informatics ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Search Term ◽  
Manual Search ◽  
Time Period ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Review Of Reviews

Summary Objectives: An evidence-base is important for medicine and health informatics. Despite numerous publications showing the benefits of health informatics, the emergence of health information systems in developing countries has been slower than expected. The aim of this paper is to identify systematic reviews on the domain of health informatics in developing countries, and classify the different types of applications covered. Methods: A systematic review of reviews was conducted. The literature search spanned the time period between 2000 and 2012 and included PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, Cochrane Systematic Reviews, LILACS, and Google Scholar. The search term was ‘systematic reviews of health informatics in developing countries’, and transparent and systematic procedures were applied to limit bias at all stages. Results: Of the 982 identified articles, only 10 met the inclusion criteria and one more article was added in a second manual search, resulting in a total of 11 systematic reviews for the analysis. Conclusions: Although it was difficult to find high quality resources on the selected domain, the best evidence available allowed us to generate this report and create an incipient review of the state of the art in health informatics in the developing countries. More studies will be needed to optimize the results.

scholarly journals Development of the ACTIVE framework to describe stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 245-255 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Pollock ◽  
Pauline Campbell ◽  
Caroline Struthers ◽  
Anneliese Synnot ◽  
Jack Nunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Public Involvement ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Stakeholder Involvement ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Health Decision

Objectives Involvement of patients, health professionals, and the wider public (‘stakeholders’) is seen to be beneficial to the quality, relevance and impact of research and may enhance the usefulness and uptake of systematic reviews. However, there is a lack of evidence and resources to guide researchers in how to actively involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. In this paper, we report the development of the ACTIVE framework to describe how stakeholders are involved in systematic reviews. Methods We developed a framework using methods previously described in the development of conceptual frameworks relating to other areas of public involvement, including: literature searching, data extraction, analysis, and categorization. A draft ACTIVE framework was developed and then refined after presentation at a conference workshop, before being applied to a subset of 32 systematic reviews. Data extracted from these systematic reviews, identified in a systematic scoping review, were categorized against pre-defined constructs, including: who was involved, how stakeholders were recruited, the mode of involvement, at what stage there was involvement and the level of control or influence. Results The final ACTIVE framework described whether patients, carers and/or families, and/or other stakeholders (including health professionals, health decision makers and funders) were involved. We defined: recruitment as either open or closed; the approach to involvement as either one-time, continuous or combined; and the method of involvement as either direct or indirect. The stage of involvement in reviews was defined using the Cochrane Ecosystem stages of a review. The level of control or influence was defined according to the roles and activities of stakeholders in the review process, and described as the ACTIVE continuum of involvement. Conclusions The ACTIVE framework provides a structure with which to describe key components of stakeholder involvement within a systematic review, and we have used this to summarize how stakeholders have been involved in a subset of varied systematic reviews. The ACTIVE continuum of involvement provides a new model that uses tasks and roles to detail the level of stakeholder involvement. This work has contributed to the development of learning resources aimed at supporting systematic review authors and editors to involve stakeholders in their systematic reviews. The ACTIVE framework may support the decision-making of systematic review authors in planning how to involve stakeholders in future reviews.

scholarly journals Assisting With Systematic Reviews Can Be Associated With Job-Related Burnout in Information Professionals

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 181-183
Author(s):  
Kimberly MacKenzie
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Rating Scale ◽  
The United States ◽  
Average Score ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Demographic Groups ◽  
Work Related ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Information Professionals

Demetres, M. R., Wright, D. N., & DeRosa, A. P. (2020). Burnout among medical and health sciences information professionals who support systematic reviews: An exploratory study. Journal of the Medical Library Association, 108(1), 89–97. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2020.665 Abstract Objective – This study explored reports of burnout among librarians who assist with systematic review preparation. Design – Electronic survey (Copenhagen Burnout Inventory). Setting – The survey was advertised via three email discussion lists based in the United States of America. Subjects – The study surveyed 198 librarians and information specialists who support the systematic review process. Of these, 166 completed the personal burnout scale, 159 completed the work burnout scale, and 151 completed the client burnout scale. Methods – The Copenhagen Burnout Inventory (CBI) is a validated survey that includes three separate scales: personal burnout, work-related burnout, and client-related burnout. The end of the survey addressed demographics, including questions on the respondents’ involvement with systematic reviews. Survey questions use a 0 to 100 rating scale, with 0 indicating Never/To a Low Degree and 100 indicating Always/To a High Degree. The researchers shared the survey to the email discussion lists MEDLIB-L and DOCLINE and advertised it on the Medical Library Association (MLA) News. Survey answers were collected using Qualtrics Survey Software. Once emailed, the survey remained open for one month. Data was coded in Excel and analysis included scoring following the CBI metrics, as well as TukeyHSD and Kruskal-Wallis tests to determine differences in demographic groups. Main Results – Reported burnout levels were significantly lower for those who spend more than 80% of their time helping with systematic reviews compared to those who spend less than 10%. The consistent use of a systematic review support tool was also associated with significantly lower burnout levels. Other comparisons were not significant. The average overall response score for personal burnout was 48.6. The average score for work-related burnout was 46.4 and the average score for client-related burnout was 32.5. Reference librarians reported the highest average total burnout scores (47.1), while research librarians had the lowest (37.7). Conclusion – Consistency, either in time spent dedicated to systematic reviews or in the use of a support tool, was associated with lower levels of burnout among librarians and information specialists. The authors suggest that these results could inform ways of improving burnout among those assisting with systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Prevalence and predictors of medication non-adherence among patients with multimorbidity: A systematic review protocol

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Louise Foley ◽  
James Larkin ◽  
Richard Lombard-Vance ◽  
Andrew W. Murphy ◽  
Gerard J. Molloy
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Full Text ◽  
Chronic Conditions ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Intervention Development ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Multiple Chronic Conditions ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
Form Quality

Introduction: Patients with multimorbidity are expected to adhere to complex medication regimens in order to manage their multiple chronic conditions. It has been reported the likelihood of adherence decreases as patients are prescribed more medications. Much medication adherence research to date is dominated by a single-disease focus, which is at odds with the rising prevalence of multimorbidity and may artificially underestimate the complexity of managing chronic illness. This review aims to describe the prevalence of medication non-adherence among patients with multimorbidity, and to identify potential predictors of non-adherence in this population. Methods: A systematic review will be conducted and reported according to PRISMA guidelines. PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO will be searched using a predefined search strategy from 2009–2019. Quantitative studies will be considered eligible for review if prevalence of medication non-adherence among adults with two or more chronic conditions is reported. Studies will be included in the review if available in English full text. Titles and abstracts will be screened by single review, with 20% of screening cross-checked by a second reviewer. Full-text articles will be screened by two independent reviewers, noting reasons for exclusions. Data extraction will be performed using a predefined extraction form. Quality and risk of bias assessment will be conducted using criteria for observational studies outlined by Sanderson et al. (2007). A narrative synthesis and, if feasible, meta-analysis will be conducted. Discussion: By exploring medication non-adherence from a multimorbidity perspective, the review aims to inform an evidence base for intervention development which accounts for the rising prevalence of patients with multiple chronic conditions.  Study registration: The systematic review is prospectively registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019133849); registered on 12 June 2019.

scholarly journals Experiences of living with long COVID and of accessing healthcare services: a qualitative systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. e050979
Author(s):  
Karen Macpherson ◽  
Kay Cooper ◽  
Jenny Harbour ◽  
Dawn Mahal ◽  
Charis Miller ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Support Groups ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Healthcare Services ◽  
Bibliographic Databases ◽  
Discussion Forums ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Systematic Map ◽  
Qualitative Systematic Review ◽  
Review Team

ObjectiveTo explore the experiences of people living with long COVID and how they perceive the healthcare services available to them.DesignQualitative systematic review.Data sourcesElectronic literature searches of websites, bibliographic databases and discussion forums, including PubMed LitCovid, Proquest COVID, EPPI Centre living systematic map of evidence, medRxiv, bioRxiv, Medline, Psychinfo and Web of Science Core Collection were conducted to identify qualitative literature published in English up to 13 January 2021.Inclusion criteriaPapers reporting qualitative or mixed-methods studies that focused on the experiences of long COVID and/or perceptions of accessing healthcare by people with long COVID. Title/abstract and full-text screening were conducted by two reviewers independently, with conflicts resolved by discussion or a third reviewer.Quality appraisalTwo reviewers independently appraised included studies using the qualitative CASP (Critical Appraisal Skills Programme) checklist. Conflicts were resolved by discussion or a third reviewer.Data extraction and synthesisThematic synthesis, involving line-by-line reading, generation of concepts, descriptive and analytical themes, was conducted by the review team with regular discussion.ResultsFive studies published in 2020 met the inclusion criteria, two international surveys and three qualitative studies from the UK. Sample sizes varied from 24 (interview study) to 3762 (survey). Participants were predominantly young white females recruited from social media or online support groups. Three analytical themes were generated: (1) symptoms and self-directed management of long COVID; (2) emotional aspects of living with long COVID and (3) healthcare experiences associated with long COVID.ConclusionsPeople experience long COVID as a heterogeneous condition, with a variety of physical and emotional consequences. It appears that greater knowledge of long COVID is required by a number of stakeholders and that the design of emerging long COVID services or adaptation of existing services for long COVID patients should take account of patients’ experiences in their design.

Guidance for reporting clinical trial registry records and published protocols use in systematic reviews of interventions

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia Bidonde ◽  
Jose Francisco Meneses-Echavez ◽  
Angela Jean Busch ◽  
Catherine Boden
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trial ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Subject Area ◽  
Selective Reporting ◽  
Trial Registry ◽  
Clinical Trial Registry ◽  
Reporting Practices ◽  
Starting Point

Abstract Background: Transparency is a tenet of systematic reviews. Searching for clinical trial registry records and published protocols has become a mandatory standard when conducting a systematic review of interventions. However, there is no comprehensive guidance for review authors on how to report the use of registry records and published protocols in their systematic review. The objective of this study was to generate initial guidance to assist authors of systematic reviews of interventions in the reporting of registry records and published protocols in systematic reviews of interventions. Methods: We used a compilation of the procedures recommended by expert organizations (e.g., Cochrane Collaboration) related to the reporting of use of registry records and published protocols in the conduct of systematic reviews. The compilation was developed by one of the authors in this study and served as a starting point in developing the algorithm. We extracted current practice data related to registry records and published protocols from a stratified random sample of Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions published between 2015 and 2016 (n=169). We identified examples that adhered to or extended the current guidance. Based on the on the elements above, we created the algorithm to bridge gaps and improve current reporting practices. Results: Trial protocols should be used to account for all evidence in a subject area, evaluate reporting bias (i.e. selective reporting and publication bias), and determine the nature and number of ongoing or unpublished studies for planning review updates. Review authors’ terminology (e.g., ongoing, terminated) and consequent reporting in the review should reflect the phase of the trial found. Protocols should be clearly and consistently reported throughout the review (e.g. abstract, methods, results) as is done with published articles. Conclusions: Our study expands on available guidance to describe in greater detail the reporting of registry records and published protocols for review authors. We believe this is a timely investigation that will increase transparency in the reporting of trial records in systematic reviews of interventions and bring clarification to current fuzziness in terminology. We invite researchers to provide feedback on our work for its improvement and dissemination. Trial Registration: not applicable

scholarly journals Umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on comorbid physical conditions in people with autism spectrum disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 218 (1) ◽  
pp. 10-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ewelina Rydzewska ◽  
Kirsty Dunn ◽  
Sally-Ann Cooper
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Sleep Problems ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Physical Conditions ◽  
Sensory Impairments ◽  
Meta Analyses

BackgroundComorbid physical conditions may be more common in people with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) than other people.AimsTo identify what is and what is not known about comorbid physical conditions in people with ASD.MethodWe undertook an umbrella systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on comorbid physical conditions in people with ASD. Five databases were searched. There were strict inclusion/exclusion criteria. We undertook double reviewing for eligibility, systematic data extraction and quality assessment. Prospective PROSPERO registration: CRD42015020896.ResultsIn total, 24 of 5552 retrieved articles were included, 15 on children, 1 on adults, and 8 both on children and adults. Although the quality of included reviews was good, most reported several limitations in the studies they included and considerable heterogeneity. Comorbid physical conditions are common, and some are more prevalent than in the general population: sleep problems, epilepsy, sensory impairments, atopy, autoimmune disorders and obesity. Asthma is not. However, there are substantial gaps in the evidence base. Fewer studies have been undertaken on other conditions and some findings are inconsistent.ConclusionsComorbid physical conditions occur more commonly in people with ASD, but the evidence base is slim and more research is needed. Some comorbidities compound care if clinicians are unaware, for example sensory impairments, given the communication needs of people with ASD. Others, such as obesity, can lead to an array of other conditions, disadvantages and early mortality. It is essential that potentially modifiable physical conditions are identified to ensure people with ASD achieve their best outcomes. Heightening clinicians’ awareness is important to aid in assessments and differential diagnoses, and to improve healthcare.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document