scholarly journals Review of "One Database at at Time: PubMed for Expert Searchers and Systematic Reviews” Webinar

Hypothesis ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexandria Quesenberry Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
Technology In Education ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
First Session

As the interest in systematic review expertise grows, the Medical Library Association Technology in Education and the Systematic Review Caucuses came together to co-sponsor a series called “One Database at a Time” that examines and discusses how to use a different database for systematic searches. The first session, focused on the PubMed database, was offered on March 23. Moderated by Margaret Foster and led by panelists Alyssa Grimshaw, Liz Suelzer, and LaTeesa James, the session covered a variety of topics, from building your systematic search in PubMed to systematic review software.

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 Learning while doing: program evaluation of the Medical Library Association Systematic Review Project

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine Boden ◽  
Marie T. Ascher ◽  
Jonathan D. Eldredge
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Program Evaluation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Professional Growth ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Short Answer ◽  
Medical Library ◽  
Review Team ◽  
Short Answer Questions

Objectives: The Medical Library Association (MLA) Systematic Review Project aims to conduct systematic reviews to identify the state of knowledge and research gaps for fifteen top-ranked questions in the profession. In 2013, fifteen volunteer-driven teams were recruited to conduct the systematic reviews. The authors investigated the experiences of participants in this large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to answering priority research questions and fostering professional growth among health sciences librarians.Methods: A program evaluation was conducted by inviting MLA Systematic Review Project team members to complete an eleven-item online survey. Multiple-choice and short-answer questions elicited experiences about outputs, successes and challenges, lessons learned, and future directions. Participants were recruited by email, and responses were collected over a two-week period beginning at the end of January 2016.Results: Eighty (8 team leaders, 72 team members) of 198 potential respondents completed the survey. Eighty-four percent of respondents indicated that the MLA Systematic Review Project should be repeated in the future and were interested in participating in another systematic review. Team outputs included journal articles, conference presentations or posters, and sharing via social media. Thematic analysis of the short-answer questions yielded five broad themes: learning and experience, interpersonal (networking), teamwork, outcomes, and barriers.Discussion: A large-scale, volunteer-driven approach to performing systematic reviews shows promise as a model for answering key questions in the profession and demonstrates the value of experiential learning for acquiring synthesis review skills and knowledge. Our project evaluation provides recommendations to optimize this approach.

Methodological issues in reporting of systematic reviews of mobile applications: A scoping review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca Grainger ◽  
Hemakumar Devan ◽  
Bahram Sangelaji ◽  
Jean Hay-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Mobile Applications ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Health Condition ◽  
Systematic Search ◽  
Health Conditions ◽  
App Store

BACKGROUND An emerging literature describes systematic reviews of the app stores to identify mobile applications (apps) to support diagnosis, assessment or management of health conditions. There are currently no guidelines for the conduct and reporting of methods of these studies. The first step in developing guidelines is to evaluate current reporting of methods of systematic reviews of health apps. OBJECTIVE The aims of this scoping review were: 1. To identify what parts of the ‘usual’ methods of systematic review are used and adapted in app-focused systematic reviews; 2. To describe how methods of critical appraisal are adapted and done; and 3. To assess what clinical recommendations are made and the ‘strength’ of those recommendations. METHODS A systematic search of seven databases was undertaken to identify app-focused systematic reviews meeting the inclusion criteria: (1) the article was “systematic” defined by “systematic review” in the title OR an a priori systematic search procedure described in the article methods OR the app search process described based on PRISMA standard flow diagram; (2) the article described a systematic search for apps in at least one app store; (3) the article focused on a named health condition; and (4) the focus of the article was apps for people with any diagnosed acute or chronic health condition or for clinicians in direct clinical care. Articles were excluded if not in English, focused on general or psychological health or nutrition. A data extraction template was created based on standard data elements in PRISMA guidelines. The extracted data from the included articles were summarised by frequencies. RESULTS From 2798 records, 26 of the 177 potentially eligible full text articles were included. In the 26 included app-focused systematic reviews, many of the typical procedures of a systematic review as operationalized for app-focused reviews were not reported at all, or not clearly reported. Absences, lack of clarity or completeness of reporting occured in: a priori review protocol registration or following a reporting guideline; the processes of screening apps in the app stores; the data extracted from app store description or the device the app was downloaded to for data extraction; and appraisal tools for assessing the app quality, usability or clinical content. Further, there was no explicit reporting of clinical efficacy of apps or recommendations for use in the majority of reviews. CONCLUSIONS The reporting of methods used in app-focused systematic reviews is variable and could be substantially improved. Development and publication of consensus reporting guidelines would increase transparency and quality of published studies. A repository for registration of reviews would ensure reviews are easy to find and not duplicated. These steps would also enable clinicians and people with health conditions to more easily find high quality apps.

scholarly journals Autologous matrix-induced chondrogenesis for the treatment of osteochondral lesions of the talus: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael-Alexander Malahias ◽  
Lazaros Kostretzis ◽  
Panayiotis D. Megaloikonomos ◽  
Erwin-Brian Cantiller ◽  
Dimitrios Chytas ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Postoperative Outcome ◽  
Osteochondral Lesions ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Functional Scores ◽  
Significant Clinical Improvement ◽  
Meta Analyses

This study was performed to determine whether Autologous Matrix-Induced Chondrogenesis (AMIC) is an effective and safe treatment option for patients with symptomatic Osteochondral defects of the Talus (OCTs) and to identify factors that influence the clinical outcome. A systematic review of the literature was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Three reviewers independently conducted the literature search using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The databases were queried using the terms “autologous” AND “matrix” AND “induced” AND “chondrogenesis.” Thirteen studies were eligible for review. All studies that compared the preoperative and postoperative mean values of different clinical/functional scores showed significant clinical improvement. The final postoperative mean Magnetic Resonance Observation of Cartilage Repair Tissue (MOCART) score ranged from 50.9 to 74.5. The included studies indicated that age and body mass index may have a detrimental impact on the postoperative outcome. A higher re-intervention rate is expected with the open technique, mainly because of hardware removal after malleolar osteotomy. This data analysis demonstrated that both arthroscopic and open AMIC procedures are effective and safe for the treatment of OCTs. Level IV, systematic review of therapeutic studies.

Non-rigid fixation of the glenoid bone block for patients with recurrent anterior instability and major glenoid bone loss: A systematic review

2019 ◽  
pp. 175857321987251
Author(s):  
Michael-Alexander Malahias ◽  
Leonidas Mitrogiannis ◽  
Dimitrios Gerogiannis ◽  
Efstathios Chronopoulos ◽  
Maria-Kyriaki Kaseta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Anterior Shoulder Instability ◽  
Bone Block ◽  
Rigid Fixation ◽  
Anterior Instability ◽  
Non Union ◽  
Bone Deficiency ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Fixation Techniques

Background New types of glenoid bone block fixation, involving suture buttons, suture anchors or even implant-free impaction of the graft, have been recently introduced. In contrast to screws which allow for a rigid fixation of the bone block, these alternative procedures provide a non-rigid type of fixation. Methods Two reviewers independently conducted the search in a systematic way (according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. These databases were queried with the terms “Latarjet” OR “Eden-Hybbinette” OR “bone block” AND “anterior” AND “shoulder” AND “instability.” Results Eight out of the 325 initial studies were finally chosen according to our inclusion–exclusion criteria. In total, 750 patients were included in this review. The overall anterior instability recurrence rate for patients treated with non-rigid fixation was 2.6%, while the overall rate of non-union or graft osteolysis was 5.4%. Conclusions Regardless of the graft type, bone block non-rigid fixation showed satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes for the treatment of anterior shoulder instability with substantial glenoid bone deficiency. Furthermore, non-rigid fixation resulted in adequate bone graft healing and osseous incorporation. Lastly, given the relative lack of data, further prospective controlled studies are required to assess bone block non-rigid fixation procedures in comparison with the traditional rigid (with screws) fixation techniques. Level Systematic review, IV.

scholarly journals The Association of Periodontitis and Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease—A Systematic Review

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (12) ◽  
pp. 2936 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Kaschwich ◽  
Christian-Alexander Behrendt ◽  
Guido Heydecke ◽  
Andreas Bayer ◽  
Eike Sebastian Debus ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Peripheral Arterial Occlusive Disease ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Arterial Occlusive Disease ◽  
Occlusive Disease ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Peripheral Arterial ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Degrees Of Severity

Background: Observational studies support an association between periodontitis (PD) and atherosclerotic vascular disease, but little is known specifically about peripheral arterial occlusive disease (PAOD). Objectives: To systematically review the evidence for an association between PD and PAOD. Data Sources: Medline via PubMed. Review Methods: We searched the Pubmed database for original studies, case reports, case series, meta-analyses and systematic reviews that assessed whether there is an association between PD (all degrees of severity) and PAOD (all degrees of severity). The reporting of this systematic review was in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement following the Population, Intervention, Control, and Outcome (PICO) format. Results: 17 out of 755 detected studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. Nine studies demonstrated associations between PD and PAOD, and two studies reported associations between tooth loss and PAOD. Six studies addressed the pathomechanism regarding PD as a possible trigger for PAOD. No study that dismissed an association could be detected. Odds ratios or hazard ratios ranged from 1.3 to 3.9 in four large cohort studies after adjusting for established cardiovascular risk factors. Conclusions: The presented evidence supports a link between PD and PAOD. Further studies which address the temporality of PD and PAOD and randomized controlled intervention trials examining the causal impact of PD on PAOD are needed. Although our results cannot confirm a causal role of PD in the development of PAOD, it is likely that PD is associated with PAOD and plays a contributing role.

scholarly journals Identifying Relevant Controlled Clinical Trials for Systematic Reviews Requires Searching Multiple Resources – and, Even Then, Comprehensiveness is Questionable

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 54
Author(s):  
Gale Gabrielle Hannigan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Standard Form ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Reference Standard ◽  
Publication Type ◽  
Reference Services ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Medical Library

A review of: Crumley, Ellen T., Wiebe, Natasha, Cramer, Kristie, Klassen, Terry P., Hartling, Lisa. “Which resources should be used to identify RCT/CCTs for systematic reviews: a systematic review.” BMC Medical Research Methodology 5:24 (2005) doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-24 (available from: http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2288/5/24. Objective – To determine the value of searching different resources to identify relevant controlled clinical trial reports for systematic reviews. Design – Systematic review. Methods – Seven electronic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, ERIC, PsycINFO, Web of Science, Cochrane Library) were searched to April 2004;four journals (Health Information & Libraries Journal - formerly Health Libraries Review, Hypothesis, Journal of the Medical Library Association - formerly Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, Medical Reference Services Quarterly were handsearched from 1990 to 2004; all abstracts of the Cochrane Colloquia (1993-2003) were handsearched; key authors were contacted and relevant article references screened. Two reviewers independently screened results for studies that compared two or more resources to find RCTs or CCTs using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed studies for quality using four criteria: adequate descriptions of what the search was attempting to identify, the methods used to search, the reference standard; and, evidence that bias was avoided in selection of relevant studies. Screening and assessment differences between reviewers were resolved through discussion. Using a standard form, one investigator extracted data for each study, such as study design, results (e.g., recall, precision); a second investigator checked these data. Authors were contacted to provide missing data. Results were grouped by resources compared and these comparisons were summarized using medians and ranges. Search strategies were categorized as Complex (using a combination of types of search terms), Cochrane (the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy or HSSS), Simple (using five or fewer search terms which may include a combination of MeSH, Publication Type, keywords), and Index (using one or two terms to check/verify if the study is in the database).1 Main results – Sixty-four studies met criteria for inclusion in the analysis. Four major comparisons were: MEDLINE vs. handsearch (n=22), MEDLINE vs. MEDLINE + handsearch (n=12), MEDLINE vs. other reference standard (n=18), and EMBASE vs. reference standard (n=13). Thirteen other comparisons had only one or two studies each. The most common comparison was between MEDLINE vs. Handsearching. Data analyzed from 23 studies and 22 unique topic comparisons showed a 58% median for search recall (range=7-97%). Data for search precision based on 12 studies and 11 unique topic comparisons indicated a median of 31% (range=0.03-78%). Data based on more than four comparisons, shows no median recall more than 75% (range=18-90%) and no median precision more than 40% (range=13-83%). Recall was higher for Trial Registries vs. Reference Standard (89%, range=84-95%) but these numbers were based on two studies and four comparisons; one study with two comparisons measured precision (range=96-97%) for Trial Registries vs Reference Standard. Subgroup analyses indicate that Complex and Cochrane searches each achieve better recall and precision compared to Simple searches. Forty-two studies reported reasons why searches miss relevant studies. The reason cited most often for electronic databases was inadequate or inappropriate indexing. Conclusion – The results of this systematic review indicate that no one resource results in particularly high recall or precision when searchers look for RCTs and CCTs.

scholarly journals Functional Outcomes of Bilateral Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty: A Systematic Review

Joints ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael-Alexander Malahias ◽  
Emmanouil Brilakis ◽  
Dimitrios Chytas ◽  
Dimitrios Gerogiannis ◽  
Grigorios Avramidis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Functional Outcomes ◽  
Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Reverse Total Shoulder Arthroplasty ◽  
Pubmed Database ◽  
Functional Scores ◽  
Reverse Total Shoulder

Abstract Purpose To answer the question whether bilateral reverse total shoulder arthroplasty (RTSA) is a safe and effective treatment which results in satisfactory clinical and functional outcomes with low complications rates. A second question to be answered was: what is the quality of the evidence of the already published studies which investigate the use of bilateral RTSA? Methods Two reviewers independently conducted a systematic search according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses using the MEDLINE/PubMed database and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. These databases were queried with the terms “reverse” AND “total” AND “shoulder” AND “arthroplasty” AND “clinical.” Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. Results From the 394 initial studies we finally selected and assessed 6 clinical studies which were eligible to our inclusion–exclusion criteria. The aforementioned studies included in total 203 patients (69% females; mean age range: 67.1–75 years; mean follow-up range: 12–61 months). From those, 168 patients underwent staged bilateral RTSA (mean duration between first and second operation range: 8–21.6 months) and the rest of them a unilateral RTSA as controlled treatment. Almost all mean clinical and functional scores, which were used to assess the therapeutic value of bilateral RTSA, depicted significant postoperative improvement in comparison with the mean preoperative values. The modified Coleman methodology score, which was used to assess the quality of the studies, ranged from a minimum of 36/100 to a maximum of 55/100. Conclusion Despite the lack of high-quality evidence, staged bilateral RTSA seems to be a safe and effective procedure for patients with cuff tear arthropathy, which results in significantly improved clinical and functional outcomes and low reoperations' rates. Level of Evidence Systematic review of level III-IV therapeutic studies.

The Clinical Utility and Assessment of Renal Biomarkers in Acute Kidney Injury After Abdominal Endovascular Aneurysm Repair. A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (44) ◽  
pp. 4695-4701 ◽  
Author(s):  
Georgios Karaolanis ◽  
Zachary F. Williams ◽  
Chris Bakoyiannis ◽  
Dimitrios Hadjis ◽  
Mitchell W. Cox ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Acute Kidney Injury ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Binding Protein ◽  
Endovascular Aneurysm Repair ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Aortic Aneurysms ◽  
Renal Biomarkers ◽  
Aneurysm Repair

: The widespread adoption of endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) for abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) is due to the obvious advantages of the procedure compared to the traditional open repair. However, these advantages have to be weighed against the increased risk of renal dysfunction with EVAR. The evaluation of the perioperative renal function after EVAR has been hampered by the lack of sensitive and specific biochemical markers of acute kidney injury (AKI). The purpose of this study was to summarize all novel renal biomarkers and to evaluate their clinical utility for the assessment of the kidney function after EVAR. A systematic review of the current literature, as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines, was performed to identify relevant studies with novel renal biomarkers and EVAR. Pubmed and Scopus databases were systemically searched. Studies reporting on thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR), case reports, case series, letters to the editor, and systematic reviews were excluded. Neutrophil-Gelatinase-Associated Lipocalin, Cystatin C, Liver-type fatty-acid-binding protein were the most common among the eligible studies while Interleukin-18, Retinol binding protein, N-acetyle-b-D-glucosaminidase and microalbumin have a sparse appearance in the literature. These biomarkers have been assessed in plasma as well as urine samples with each sample material having its own advantages and drawbacks. Which of these biomarkers has the most potential for assessing postoperative renal failure after EVAR, remains to be proved. The few studies presented in the literature show the potential clinical utility of these biomarkers, but larger studies with longer follow-up are required to determine the precise relationship between these biomarkers and postoperative acute kidney injury.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document