scholarly journals Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review

BMJ ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 348 (jan08 1) ◽  
pp. f7668-f7668 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. Zorzela ◽  
S. Golder ◽  
Y. Liu ◽  
K. Pilkington ◽  
L. Hartling ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Of Reporting

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

2020 ◽  
pp. 80-94 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mercy Mlay Komba ◽  
Edda Tandi Lwoga
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Knowledge Gaps ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Current State

The aim of this chapter is to assess the current state of application of systematic reviews (SRs) in library and information science (LIS) field and determine how information scientists can advance the SRs as a methodology. The literature shows that there is an increasing number of SRs in LIS although there are still knowledge gaps about the use of SRs as a methodology. The quality of reporting in primary studies in LIS is still poor, and hence, it becomes difficult to appraise the value of the study undertaken. In order to advance the use of SRs in LIS domain, it is important to introduce SRs in LIS education curricular, integrate SRs as part of the continuing scientist development programmes (CPD), use automated SR software to minimize workload, introduce SRs a formal role and service in the libraries, collaborate with research teams as co-authors to conduct SRs not only in the topics defined by research teams, but also in LIS topics, and create SR databases and tools in LIS.

Updated Method Guidelines for Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (2) ◽  
pp. 194-205 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A.T. Ghogomu ◽  
Lara J. Maxwell ◽  
Rachelle Buchbinder ◽  
Tamara Rader ◽  
Jordi Pardo Pardo ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Musculoskeletal Diseases ◽  
Cochrane Collaboration ◽  
Previous Method ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Cochrane Reviews

The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group (CMSG), one of 53 groups of the not-for-profit, international Cochrane Collaboration, prepares, maintains, and disseminates systematic reviews of treatments for musculoskeletal diseases. It is important that authors conducting CMSG reviews and the readers of our reviews be aware of and use updated, state-of-the-art systematic review methodology. One hundred sixty reviews have been published. Previous method guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions in the musculoskeletal field published in 2006 have been substantially updated to incorporate methodological advances that are mandatory or highly desirable in Cochrane reviews and knowledge translation advances. The methodological advances include new guidance on searching, new risk-of-bias assessment, grading the quality of the evidence, the new Summary of Findings table, and comparative effectiveness using network metaanalysis. Method guidelines specific to musculoskeletal disorders are provided by CMSG editors for various aspects of undertaking a systematic review. These method guidelines will help improve the quality of reporting and ensure high standards of conduct as well as consistency across CMSG reviews.

Systematic Review as a Research Method in Library and Information Science

2022 ◽  
pp. 17-31
Author(s):  
Mercy Mlay Komba ◽  
Edda Tandi Lwoga
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Method ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Knowledge Gaps ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Research Teams ◽  
Current State

The aim of this chapter is to assess the current state of application of systematic reviews (SRs) in library and information science (LIS) field and determine how information scientists can advance the SRs as a methodology. The literature shows that there is an increasing number of SRs in LIS although there are still knowledge gaps about the use of SRs as a methodology. The quality of reporting in primary studies in LIS is still poor, and hence, it becomes difficult to appraise the value of the study undertaken. In order to advance the use of SRs in LIS domain, it is important to introduce SRs in LIS education curricular, integrate SRs as part of the continuing scientist development programmes (CPD), use automated SR software to minimize workload, introduce SRs a formal role and service in the libraries, collaborate with research teams as co-authors to conduct SRs not only in the topics defined by research teams, but also in LIS topics, and create SR databases and tools in LIS.

scholarly journals Adverse Events Following Cervical Disc Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 178-189 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jordan C. Xu ◽  
Chandni Goel ◽  
Michael F. Shriver ◽  
Joseph E. Tanenbaum ◽  
Michael P. Steinmetz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Cervical Disc ◽  
Cervical Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Cervical Arthroplasty ◽  
Disc Arthroplasty ◽  
Vascular Compromise

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: Cervical arthroplasty is an increasingly popular treatment of cervical radiculopathy and myelopathy. An understanding of the potential adverse events (AEs) is important to help both clinicians and patients. We sought to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the AEs reported in all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cervical disc arthroplasty in an attempt to characterize the quality of reporting. Methods: We conducted a systematic review of MEDLINE and Web of Science for RCTs of cervical disc arthroplasty reporting AEs. We reported the most frequently mentioned AEs, including dysphagia/dysphonia, vascular compromise, dural injury, and infections. We recorded the presence of industry funding and scored the quality of collection methods and reporting of AEs. Results: Of the 3734 identified articles, 29 articles met full inclusion criteria. The quality of AE reporting varied significantly between studies, and a combined meta-analysis was not feasible. The 29 articles covered separate 19 RCTs. Eight studies were US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) investigational device exemption (IDE) trials. Rates were recorded for the following AEs: dysphagia/dysphonia (range = 1.3% to 27.2%), vascular compromise (range = 1.1% to 2.4%), cervical wound infection (range = 1.2% to 22.5%), and cerebrospinal fluid leak (range = 0.8% to 7.1%). Conclusions: There is a lack of consistency in reporting of AEs among RCTs of cervical arthroplasty. FDA IDE trials scored better in AE event reporting compared to other studies. Standardized definitions for AEs and standardized data collection methodology are needed to improve future studies.

scholarly journals Improving peer review of systematic reviews by involving librarians and information specialists: protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Rethlefsen ◽  
Sara Schroter ◽  
Lex Bouter ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Ana Patricia Ayala ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Background: Problems continue to exist with the reporting of and risk of bias in search methods and strategies in systematic reviews and related review types. Peer reviewers who are not familiar with what is required to transparently and fully report a search may not be prepared to review the search components of systematic reviews, nor may they know what is likely to introduce bias into a search. Librarians and information specialists, who have expertise in searching, may offer specialized knowledge that would help improve systematic review search reporting and lessen risk of bias, but they are underutilized as methodological peer reviewers.Methods: This study will evaluate the effect of adding librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers on the quality of search reporting and risk of bias in systematic review searches. The study will be a pragmatic randomized controlled trial using 150 systematic review manuscripts submitted to BMJ and BMJ Open as the unit of randomization. Manuscripts that report on completed systematic reviews and related review types and have been sent for peer review are eligible. For each manuscript randomized to the intervention, a librarian/information specialist will be invited as an additional peer reviewer using standard practices for each journal. First revision manuscripts will be assessed in duplicate for reporting quality and risk of bias, using adherence to 4 items from PRISMA-S and assessors’ judgements on 4 signaling questions from ROBIS Domain 2, respectively. Identifying information from the manuscripts will be removed prior to assessment.Discussion: The primary outcomes for this study are quality of reporting as indicated by differences in the proportion of adequately reported searches in first revision manuscripts between intervention and control groups and risk of bias as indicated by differences in the proportions of first revision manuscripts with high, low, and unclear bias. If the intervention demonstrates an effect on search reporting or bias, this may indicate a need for journal editors to work with librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers.Trial registration: This trial was registered on the Open Science Framework on June 17, 2021 at https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/W4CK2.

scholarly journals Evidence-Based Medicine, Systematic Reviews, and Guidelines in Interventional Pain Management: Part 3: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Randomized Trials

2009 ◽  
Vol 1;12 (1;1) ◽  
pp. 35-42
Author(s):  
Laxmaiah Manchikanti
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pain Management ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Randomized Trials ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Interventional Pain Management ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Based Medicine

In recent years, progress and innovations in healthcare are measured by evidencebased medicine (EBM), systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. A systematic review is defined as, “the application of scientific strategies that limit bias by the systematic assembly, critical appraisal, and synthesis of all relevant studies on a specific topic.” In contrast, meta-analysis is the statistical pooling of data across studies to generate pooled estimates of effects. Meta-analysis usually is the final step in a systematic review. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are labor intensive, requiring expertise in both the subject matter and review methodology, and also must follow the rules of EBM which suggest that a formal set of rules must complement medical training and common sense for clinicians to interpret the results of clinical research effectively. While expertise in the subject matter is crucial, expertise in review methods is also particularly important. Despite an explosion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the empiric research on the quality of systematic reviews has shown that not all systematic reviews are truly systematic, having highly variable quality, deficiencies in methodologic assessment of the quality of the included manuscripts, and bias. Even then, systematic review of the literature is currently the best, least biased, and most rational way to organize, cull, evaluate, and integrate the research evidence from among the expanding medical and healthcare literature. However, a dangerous discrepancy between the experts and the evidence continues to persist in part because multiple instruments are available to assess the quality of systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Steps in conducting systematic reviews include planning, conducting, reporting, and disseminating the results. The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM) statement provides a checklist and a flow diagram. The checklist describes the preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of the report of an analysis. This review describes various aspects of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials with a special focus on interventional pain management. Key words: Randomized trials, pragmatic trials, evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, meta-analyses, guidelines, bias, interventional pain management, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analysis (QUOROM), Cochrane reviews

scholarly journals Librarians’ Participation in the Systematic Reviews Published by Iranian Researchers and Its Impact on the Quality of Reporting Search Strategy

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-84
Author(s):  
Rogheyeh Eskrootchi ◽  
Azita Shahraki Mohammadi ◽  
Sirous Panahi ◽  
Razieh Zahedi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Institute Of Medicine ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Meaningful Relationship ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Objective – The validity of the results from systematic review studies depends largely on the implementation and the reporting of the search strategy. Using an experienced librarian can greatly enhance the quality of results. Thus, the present study aimed to investigate the relationship between the librarian’s participation and the quality of reporting search strategy in systematic reviews published by Iranian researchers in medical fields. Methods – Three databases were searched to identify the systematic review studies conducted by Iranian researchers from 2008 to 2018. A total of 310 studies were selected using systematic random sampling, and the quality of their search strategy reports was reviewed by the Institute of Medicine checklist. A short questionnaire about the librarians’ participation in the search strategy of these studies was sent to the corresponding authors of the selected studies. A total of 229 questionnaires was returned. The data obtained from the questionnaire about the librarians’ participation in reporting search strategy in systematic review studies and also from the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies were analyzed by descriptive and inferential statistics. Results – The mean value of the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies was low. The librarians’ participation rate for these studies was 13.6%. No meaningful relationship was found between the librarians’ participation and the mean value of the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy of systematic review studies. However, an investigation of the relationship between each of the items in the evaluation checklist for reporting search strategy in systematic review studies and librarians’ participation as the corresponding author or a member of the research team showed a meaningful relationship in five items. Conclusion – The results showed that the quality of reporting the search strategies in systematic reviews was low and the librarians’ participation in designing and reporting the search strategy in systematic reviews was limited. The authors of the systematic review studies, as well as the journals’ editors and referees, need to pay more careful attention to reporting the search strategy exactly and comprehensively. Employing librarians in this area can have a major impact on this part of systematic review studies.

scholarly journals The quality of intervention reporting in trials of therapeutic exercise for hip osteoarthritis: a secondary analysis of a systematic review

Trials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Louise C. Burgess ◽  
Thomas W. Wainwright ◽  
Khara A. James ◽  
Johan von Heideken ◽  
Maura D. Iversen
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Internal Validity ◽  
Hip Osteoarthritis ◽  
Therapeutic Exercise ◽  
Quality Of Reporting ◽  
Effective Interventions ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Intervention Reporting

Abstract Background Therapeutic exercise is recommended as a core treatment for hip osteoarthritis (HOA). Whilst it is widely accepted that exercise can improve pain and disability, optimal type and dose of exercise are yet to be agreed upon. This may, in part, be attributed to the wide variation and inadequate reporting of interventions within the literature. This study evaluates the quality of intervention reporting among trials of therapeutic exercise in HOA. Methods Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were sourced in a systematic review, completed in August 2020. Two raters independently used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) and Consensus on Exercise Reporting Template (CERT) to evaluate intervention reporting. Correlations between quality assessment scores and CERT and TIDieR scores evaluated the relationship between internal validity and external applicability. The year of publication was compared to the quality of reporting scores. Results Fourteen RCTs were included in the analysis. On average, studies were awarded 9.43 ± 1.95 out of 12 points for the TIDieR checklist (range 4–12) and 13.57 ± 4.01 out of 19 points for the CERT (range 5–19). Pearson’s correlation coefficient suggested that the quality of reporting had improved over time and that there was a fair, positive relationship between internal validity and external applicability. Discussion Whilst the quality of intervention reporting is improving, many RCTs of therapeutic exercise in HOA lack the detail necessary to allow accurate evaluation and replication. Researchers are encouraged to utilise the standardised reporting guidelines to increase the translation of effective interventions into clinical practice.

scholarly journals Communication in decision aids for stage I–III colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. e044472
Author(s):  
Saar Hommes ◽  
Ruben Vromans ◽  
Felix Clouth ◽  
Xander Verbeek ◽  
Ignace de Hingh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Decision Aids ◽  
Specific Treatment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Plain Language ◽  
Patient Decision

ObjectivesTo assess the communicative quality of colorectal cancer patient decision aids (DAs) about treatment options, the current systematic review was conducted.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesDAs (published between 2006 and 2019) were identified through academic literature (MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO) and online sources.Eligibility criteriaDAs were only included if they supported the decision-making process of patients with colon, rectal or colorectal cancer in stages I–III.Data extraction and synthesisAfter the search strategy was adapted from similar systematic reviews and checked by a colorectal cancer surgeon, two independent reviewers screened and selected the articles. After initial screening, disagreements were resolved with a third reviewer. The review was conducted in concordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. DAs were assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) and Communicative Aspects (CA) checklist.ResultsIn total, 18 DAs were selected. Both the IPDAS and CA checklist revealed that there was a lot of variation in the (communicative) quality of DAs. The findings highlight that (1) personalisation of treatment information in DAs is lacking, (2) outcome probability information is mostly communicated verbally and (3) information in DAs is generally biased towards a specific treatment. Additionally, (4) DAs about colorectal cancer are lengthy and (5) many DAs are not written in plain language.ConclusionsBoth instruments (IPDAS and CA) revealed great variation in the (communicative) quality of colorectal cancer DAs. Developers of patient DAs should focus on personalisation techniques and could use both the IPDAS and CA checklist in the developmental process to ensure personalised health communication and facilitate shared decision making in clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document