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 AB0101 THE IMPACT OF TIME SPAN TO ACHIEVE BOOLEAN REMISSION FOR MAINTAINING DISEASE ACTIVITY AFTER ACQUISITION IN RHEUMATOID ARTHRITIS PATIENT

2021 ◽  
Vol 80 (Suppl 1) ◽  
pp. 1079.1-1079
Author(s):  
I. Yoshii
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Disease Activity ◽  
Disease Duration ◽  
Remission Rate ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Time Span ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
The Mean ◽  
The Relationship

Background:Boolean remission criteria is one most popular and stringent criteria in treating patient with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), because it may guarantees a stable clinical course after attaining remission.Objectives:Impact of time span from initiation to achieving Boolean remission on maintaining disease activity, daily activities, and quality of life after attaining Boolean remission was investigated from daily clinical practice data.Methods:685 patients with RA since August 2010 under the T2T strategy were treated. They were monitored for their TJC, SJC, PGA, EGA, CRP, and disease activity indices such as CDAI, SDAI, DAS28, and Boolean criteria at every visit. HAQ-DI score, pain score using visual analog scale (PS-VAS), and EQ-5D were also monitored, and the quality of life score (QOLS) calculated from EQ-5D was determined at every visit from the time of diagnosis (baseline).Of 685 patients, 465 patients had achieved Boolean remission >1 times, and were consecutively followed up for >3 years. These patients were enrolled in the study. Time span from the first visit to first Boolean remission was calculated. The relationship between the time span and each of background parameters, and the relationship between the time span and each of the mean values of the SDAI score, HAQ score, PS-VAS, SHS, and QOLS at the first Boolean remission and thereafter was evaluated statistically.Patients were subsequently divided into the G ≤ 6 and G > 6 groups based on the achievement of first Boolean remission within two groups: time span G ≤ 6 months and G > 6 months. The two groups were compared with regard to the SDAI score, HAQ score, PS-VAS, SHS, and QOLS at first visit and at the time of first Boolean remission, and the mean values of these parameters after remission were evaluated statistically. Moreover, changes of these parameters and the mean Boolean remission rate after the first remission, and SDAI remission rate at the first Boolean remission to thereafter were compared between the two groups statistically.Results:Out of 465 patients, females comprised 343 (73.7%), and the mean age was 67.8 years (range, from 21–95 years). The mean disease duration at first visit was 6.1 years (range, from 1 months–45 years). The mean follow up length was 88.1 months (range: 36–122 months; median: 85 months) and mean time span from the first visit to the first Boolean remission was 8.1 months. The mean SDAI score, HAQ score, PS-VAS, and the QOLS at first visit were 13.3, 0.467, 33.2, and 0.834, respectively. Among the study parameters, PS-VAS and QOLS were significantly correlated with the time span. For parameters at the first Boolean remission, HAQ-DI score, PS-VAS, and QOLS demonstrated significant correlation with the time span, whereas SDAI, HAQ-DI score, PS-VAS, SHS, and QOLS after the Boolean remission demonstrated significant correlation with the time span.The comparison between the G ≤ 6 and the G > 6 groups revealed that the disease duration, HAQ score, and PS-VAS at baseline in the G > 6 were significantly higher than that in the G ≤ 6 group, and QOLS in the G ≤ 6 group was significantly higher than that in the G > 6 group at baseline. Similarly, the HAQ score and PS-VAS at the first Boolean remission in the G > 6 group were significantly higher than that in the G ≤ 6 group, whereas QOLS in the G ≤ 6 group demonstrated no significant difference compared with that in the G > 6 group.The mean value of the SDAI score after the first Boolean remission in the G > 6 group was significantly higher than that in the G ≤ 6 group. Similarly, the SDAI score, HAQ score, and PS-VAS after the first Boolean remission in the G > 6 group were also significantly higher than those in the G ≤ 6 group, and the mean value of the QOLS in the G ≤ 6 group were significantly higher than that in the G > 6 group. The Boolean remission rate and SDAI remission rate after the first Boolean remission were significantly higher in the G ≤ 6 group than those in the G > 6 group.Conclusion:Attaining Boolean remission ≤ 6 months for RA has significant benefit for more stable disease control, that leads good maintenance of ADL.Disclosure of Interests:None declared

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.

scholarly journals Relationship between cognition and frailty in elderly: A systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 110-119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allan Gustavo Brigola ◽  
Estefani Serafim Rossetti ◽  
Bruna Rodrigues dos Santos ◽  
Anita Liberalesso Neri ◽  
Marisa Silvana Zazzetta ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cognitive Impairment ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Web Of Science ◽  
The Elderly ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cognitive Domains ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the relationship between cognition and frailty in the elderly. METHODS: A systematic review on the currently existing literature concerning the subject was carried out. The search strategy included LILACS, SCOPUS, SciELO, PsycINFO, PubMed and Web of Science databases. RESULTS: A total of 19 studies were selected for review, from which 10 (52.6%) were cross-sectional and 9 (47.4%) longitudinal, and the majority Brazilian. All of the studies established a link between cognition and frailty. There was a relationship between components of frailty and the cognitive domains. Risk of Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI), dementia and mortality were all evidenced in the relationship between frailty and cognitive impairment. CONCLUSION: The theory remains limited, but results show the variables that appear to be linked to cognition and frailty in elderly. This data can help in implementing actions to improve the quality of life among elderly.

scholarly journals 2050

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

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

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 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 Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews

2017 ◽  
Vol 104 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Deborah Meert, MLIS ◽  
Nazi Torabi, MLIS ◽  
John Costella, DDS, MSc, MLIS
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Team Member ◽  
Critical Element ◽  
Literature Searching ◽  
Checklist Score ◽  
Information Professional ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Or Team

Objective: A critical element in conducting a systematic review is the identification of studies. To date, very little empirical evidence has been reported on whether the presence of a librarian or information professional can contribute to the quality of the final product. The goal of this study was to compare the reporting rigor of the literature searching component of systematic reviews with and without the help of a librarian.Method: Systematic reviews published from 2002 to 2011 in the twenty highest impact factor pediatrics journals were collected from MEDLINE. Corresponding authors were contacted via an email survey to determine if a librarian was involved, the role that the librarian played, and functions that the librarian performed. The reviews were scored independently by two reviewers using a fifteen-item checklist.Results: There were 186 reviews that met the inclusion criteria, and 44% of the authors indicated the involvement of a librarian in conducting the systematic review. With the presence of a librarian as coauthor or team member, the mean checklist score was 8.40, compared to 6.61 (p<0.001) for reviews without a librarian.Conclusions: Findings indicate that having a librarian as a coauthor or team member correlates with a higher score in the literature searching component of systematic reviews.

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

scholarly journals HUBUNGAN KECERDASAN EMOSIONAL DENGAN HASIL BELAJAR BIOLOGI SISWA KELAS X MIA MAN 3 MEDAN T.P. 2017/2018

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Nur Aisyah Putri Rambe ◽  
Uswatun Hasanah ◽  
Neneng Chairunnisa
Keyword(s):  
Emotional Intelligence ◽  
Learning Outcomes ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Biology Students ◽  
Meaningful Relationship ◽  
Biology Learning ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Data Requirements

This study aims to determine the relationship of emotional intelligence with learning outcomes Biology X class students MIA MAN 3 Medan Year Learning 2017/2018. The population in this study is all students of class X MIA MAN 3 Medan consisting of 5 classes. Sample used 2 classes from 5 classes with total 81 students. To obtain the data of emotional intelligence used questionnaire that has been validated by a validator lecturer. While the results of biology learning taken from the value of daily student ulagan obtained from teachers of Biology study. The data obtained are searched for the mean value, standard deviation, and test the data requirements. Emotional intelligence of students has ± SD of 91.30 ± 9.26, while the student's biology learning outcome is 78.37 ± 8.73. From the results of statistical analysis known the relationship of emotional intelligence with the results of biology students have a linear regression equation and have a meaningful relationship, this we can see from the high correlation coefficient of 0.871 and the amount of emotional intelligence contribution to student biology learning results of equal 75.69%. This means that emotional intelligence has a positive relationship with learning outcomes Biology X class student MIA MAN 3 Medan Year Learning 2017/2018.Keywords: Emotional intelligence, learning outcomes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document