scholarly journals Evaluating Approaches to Quality Assessment in Library and Information Science LIS Systematic Reviews: A Methodology Review

2016 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Maden ◽  
Eleanor Kotas
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Information Science ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Assessment Process ◽  
Library And Information Science ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective – Systematic reviews are becoming increasingly popular within the Library and Information Science (LIS) domain. This paper has three aims: to review approaches to quality assessment in published LIS systematic reviews in order to assess whether and how LIS reviewers report on quality assessment a priori in systematic reviews, to model the different quality assessment aids used by LIS reviewers, and to explore if and how LIS reviewers report on and incorporate the quality of included studies into the systematic review analysis and conclusions. Methods – The authors undertook a methodological study of published LIS systematic reviews using a known cohort of published systematic reviews of LIS-related research. Studies were included if they were reported as a “systematic review” in the title, abstract, or methods section. Meta-analyses that did not incorporate a systematic review and studies in which the systematic review was not a main objective were excluded. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies. Data were extracted on the type of synthesis, whether quality assessment was planned and undertaken, the number of reviewers involved in assessing quality, the types of tools or criteria used to assess the quality of the included studies, how quality assessment was assessed and reported in the systematic review, and whether the quality of the included studies was considered in the analysis and conclusions of the review. In order to determine the quality of the reporting and incorporation of quality assessment in LIS systematic reviews, each study was assessed against criteria relating to quality assessment in the PRISMA reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & The PRISMA Group, 2009) and the AMSTAR tool (Shea et al., 2007). Results – Forty studies met the inclusion criteria. The results demonstrate great variation on the breadth, depth, and transparency of the quality assessment process in LIS systematic reviews. Nearly one third of the LIS systematic reviews included in this study did not report on quality assessment in the methods, and less than one quarter adequately incorporated quality assessment in the analysis, conclusions, and recommendations. Only nine of the 26 systematic reviews that undertook some form of quality assessment incorporated considerations of how the quality of the included studies impacted on the validity of the review findings in the analysis, conclusion, and recommendations. The large number of different quality assessment tools identified reflects not only the disparate nature of the LIS evidence base (Brettle, 2009) but also a lack of consensus around criteria on which to assess the quality of LIS research. Conclusion – Greater clarity, definition, and understanding of the methodology and concept of “quality” in the systematic review process are required not only by LIS reviewers but also by editors of journals in accepting such studies for publication. Further research and guidance is needed on identifying the best tools and approaches to incorporate considerations of quality in LIS systematic reviews. LIS reviewers need to improve the robustness and transparency with which quality assessment is undertaken and reported in systematic reviews. Above all, LIS reviewers need to be explicit in coming to a conclusion on how the quality of the included studies may impact on their review findings.

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.

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 Quality assessment tools used in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: A systematic review

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Linh Tran ◽  
Dao Ngoc Hien Tam ◽  
Abdelrahman Elshafay ◽  
Thao Dang ◽  
Kenji Hirayama ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
In Vitro Studies ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Increasing Trend ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Critical Aspects

Abstract Background Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) are commonly conducted to evaluate and summarize medical literature. This is especially useful in assessing in vitro studies for consistency. Our study aims to systematically review all available quality assessment (QA) tools employed on in vitro SRs/MAs. Method A search on four databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Virtual Health Library and Web of Science, was conducted from 2006 to 2020. The available SRs/MAs of in vitro studies were evaluated. DARE tool was applied to assess the risk of bias of included articles. Our protocol was developed and uploaded to ResearchGate in June 2016. Results Our findings reported an increasing trend in publication of in vitro SRs/MAs from 2007 to 2020. Among the 244 included SRs/MAs, 126 articles (51.6%) had conducted the QA procedure. Overall, 51 QA tools were identified; 26 of them (51%) were developed by the authors specifically, whereas 25 (49%) were pre-constructed tools. SRs/MAs in dentistry frequently had their own QA tool developed by the authors, while SRs/MAs in other topics applied various QA tools. Many pre-structured tools in these in vitro SRs/MAs were modified from QA tools of in vivo or clinical trials, therefore, they had various criteria. Conclusion Many different QA tools currently exist in the literature; however, none cover all critical aspects of in vitro SRs/MAs. There is a need for a comprehensive guideline to ensure the quality of SR/MA due to their precise nature.

scholarly journals Systematic review protocol exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wellbeing of general practitioners

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Jefferson ◽  
Su Golder ◽  
Veronica Dale ◽  
Holly Essex ◽  
Elizabeth McHugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Impact

Background Over recent years chronic stress and burnout have been reported by doctors working in general practice in the UK NHS and internationally. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed general practitioners working lives; adding potential pressures from avoiding infection and addressing pent-up demand for care, but also changing processes such as rapidly taking up remote consultations. To date, there has been a focus on exploring the impact of the pandemic on the wellbeing of hospital clinicians. No registered systematic reviews currently focus on exploring the impact of the pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of general practitioners. Aims and objectives To synthesise the current international evidence base exploring the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health and wellbeing of general practitioners, and which factors are associated with their reported mental health and wellbeing during the pandemic. Methods In this paper we report a systematic review protocol, following PRISMA guidance. In our search strategy we will identify primary research studies or systematic reviews exploring the mental health and wellbeing of general practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic in four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo and Medrxiv) and Google Scholar. We will hand-search reference lists and grey literature. Two reviewers will undertake all stages including study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, with arbitration by a third reviewer where necessary. We will use standardised quality assessment tools to ensure transparency and reduce bias in quality assessment. Depending on the quality of included studies, we may undertake a sensitivity analysis by excluding studies from narrative synthesis that are rated as low quality using the checklists. We will describe the findings across studies using narrative thematic data synthesis, and if sufficiently homogenous data are identified, we will pool quantitative findings through meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Association of Functional Dyspepsia with Depression and Anxiety: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tasia Esterita ◽  
Sheilla Dewi ◽  
Felicia Grizelda Suryatenggara ◽  
Glenardi Glenardi
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Functional Dyspepsia ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Depression And Anxiety ◽  
Questionnaire Assessment ◽  
Prevalence Of Depression ◽  
Choice Of Treatment ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Almost All

Background and Aims: Functional dyspepsia (FD) symptoms may lead to depression or anxiety in affected individuals and vice versa. These individuals often have more serious somatic symptoms, longer disease recovery time, and tend to consume more medical resources and health care costs. Therefore, recognition of depression and anxiety is crucial to improve clinical outcome in FD patients. The aim of this study is to systematically review the association of functional dyspepsia with depression and anxiety. Methods: This systematic review was reported following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria. A Literature search was carried out with PubMed and ProQuest databases from 1 January 2010 to 5 October 2020. The outcomes of interest were association of functional dyspepsia with depression and anxiety. The quality of each study was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) tool. Results: A total of 13 studies involving 14,076 subjects were included in this review. Almost all of the studies showed that prevalence of depression or anxiety is higher in patients with FD compared to controls. This is implied by a higher mean score on the depression and anxiety questionnaire assessment tools or a positive correlation in the odds ratio. FD is known to affect more females than males, but psychological links were stronger in males. Moreover, prevalence of depression and anxiety symptoms in patients with refractory FD (63.3% and 61.5%) was higher compared to non-refractory FD (20.9% and 23.3%) and healthy patients (10% and 10%). Conclusion: There is a significant association of FD with depression and anxiety. Thus, identifying psychological factors in FD patients is essential to help clinicians determine the best choice of treatment and improve the prognosis and quality of life of the patients.

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.

scholarly journals A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses on Acupuncture for Poststroke Insomnia

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Jinke Huang ◽  
Manli Wu ◽  
Simin Liang ◽  
Xiaohui Qin ◽  
Min Shen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Acupuncture Treatment ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Evidence Quality ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Quality Evidence

Objectives. Acupuncture has increasingly been used for insomnia relief after stroke. We aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and summarize the evidence regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture for poststroke insomnia (PSI) from systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs). Methods. Eight databases were searched from inception through August 23, 2020. SRs/MAs on acupuncture treatment for PSI were included. Methodological quality assessment was performed using Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), and evidence quality assessment was performed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). Results. Six SRs/MAs on acupuncture treatment for PSI were included. The AMSTAR-2 showed that the methodological quality of all included SRs/MAs was rated as critically low. According to the evaluation results of GRADE, 38.9% (7/18) of outcomes were rated as very low-quality evidence, 22.2% (4/18) were low-quality evidence, and 8.9% (7/18) were moderate-quality evidence. Descriptive analysis results showed that acupuncture was an effective treatment modality for PSI. Conclusions. All included reviews indicated that acupuncture was more effective than the control group for the treatment of PSI, but the credibility of the results is limited owing to the generally low methodological and evidence quality of the included SRs/MAs. More high-quality evidence is needed to determine whether acupuncture is more effective than other treatments.

scholarly journals Quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that examine preventive antibiotic uses and management practices designed to prevent disease in livestock

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-318
Author(s):  
Rachael Vriezen ◽  
Jan M. Sargeant ◽  
Ellen Vriezen ◽  
Charlotte B. Winder ◽  
Annette M. O'Connor
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Management Practices ◽  
Disease Risk ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Antibiotic Use ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractTo implement effective stewardship in food animal production, it is essential that producers and veterinarians are aware of preventive interventions to reduce illness in livestock. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR/MA) provide transparent, replicable, and quality-assessed overviews. At present, it is unknown how many SR/MA evaluate preventive antibiotic use or management practices aimed at reducing disease risk in animal agriculture. Further, the quality of existing reviews is unknown. Our aim was to identify reviews investigating these topics and to provide an assessment of their quality. Thirty-eight relevant reviews were identified. Quality assessment was based on the AMSTAR 2 framework for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews. The quality of most of the reviews captured was classified as critically low (84.2%, n = 32/38), and only a small percentage of the evaluated reviews did not contain critical weaknesses (7.9%, n = 3/38). Particularly, a small number of reviews reported the development of an a priori protocol (15.8%, n = 6/38), and few reviews stated that key review steps were conducted in duplicate (study selection/screening: 26.3%, n = 10/38; data extraction: 15.8%, n = 6/38). The development of high-quality reviews summarizing evidence on approaches to antibiotic reduction is essential, and thus greater adherence to quality conduct guidelines for synthesis research is crucial.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document