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 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 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.

Criteria for Return to Play After Hip Arthroscopy in the Treatment of Femoroacetabular Impingement: A Systematic Review

2021 ◽  
pp. 036354652110389
Author(s):  
Martin S. Davey ◽  
Eoghan T. Hurley ◽  
Matthew G. Davey ◽  
Jordan W. Fried ◽  
Andrew J. Hughes ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Femoroacetabular Impingement ◽  
Hip Arthroscopy ◽  
Operative Management ◽  
Return To Play ◽  
Return To Sports ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
The Mean

Background: Femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) is a common pathology in athletes that often requires operative management in the form of hip arthroscopy. Purpose: To systematically review the rates and level of return to play (RTP) and the criteria used for RTP after hip arthroscopy for FAI in athletes. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of the literature, based on the PRISMA guidelines, was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Scopus databases. Studies reporting outcomes after the use of hip arthroscopy for FAI were included. Outcomes analyzed were RTP rate, RTP level, and criteria used for RTP. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS software. Results: Our review found 130 studies, which included 14,069 patients (14,517 hips) and had a mean methodological quality of evidence (MQOE) of 40.4 (range, 5-67). The majority of patients were female (53.7%), the mean patient age was 30.4 years (range, 15-47 years), and the mean follow-up was 29.7 months (range, 6-75 months). A total of 81 studies reported RTP rates, with an overall RTP rate of 85.4% over a mean period of 6.6 months. Additionally, 49 studies reported the rate of RTP at preinjury level as 72.6%. Specific RTP criteria were reported in 97 studies (77.2%), with time being the most commonly reported item, which was reported in 80 studies (69.2%). A total of 45 studies (57.9%) advised RTP at 3 to 6 months after hip arthroscopy. Conclusion: The overall rate of reported RTP was high after hip arthroscopy for FAI. However, more than one-fourth of athletes who returned to sports did not return at their preinjury level. Development of validated rehabilitation criteria for safe return to sports after hip arthroscopy for FAI could potentially improve clinical outcomes while also increasing rates of RTP at preinjury levels.

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 Reporting of Quality of Life in Clinical Trials of Biologics for Plaque Psoriasis: A Systematic Review

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
Author(s):  
Giselle Prado ◽  
Anna J Nichols ◽  
Mercedes Florez-White ◽  
Francisco Kerdel
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Plaque Psoriasis ◽  
Dermatology Life Quality Index ◽  
Quality Index ◽  
Life Quality ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
The Mean

Background: Psoriasis is a chronic remitting and relapsing skin disease. For many patients, improved quality of life (QoL) is as important as clinical improvement of lesions.Objective: To review reporting of Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of biologics for adult patients with plaque psoriasis.Methods: A systematic review was conducted in 4 databases for RCTs that measured DLQI at baseline and endpoint. A data collection form was created for collecting study variables. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.Results: Thirty-four RCTs enrolling 16,784 patients were included. Complete baseline and final mean DLQI data was retrieved for 24 studies (70.6%). The mean DLQI at baseline was reported in 79.4% of RCTs. The median at baseline was reported in 14.7% of RCTs. The mean DLQI at endpoint was reported in 23.5% of RCTs and the median DLQI at endpoint was reported in 5.9% of RCTs. The mean change in DLQI was reported in 64.7% of RCTs.Conclusions: DLQI was measured in most clinical trials assessing the efficacy of biologics for psoriasis. Studies did not adhere to uniform standards in publishing results, making analysis of the impact on DLQI challenging.Key Words: plaque psoriasis, quality of life, Dermatology Life Quality Index, Systematic Review, biologic therapy

scholarly journals Evaluating measures of quality of life in adult scoliosis: a protocol for a systematic review and narrative synthesis

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
James E. Archer ◽  
Charles Baird ◽  
Adrian Gardner ◽  
Alison B. Rushton ◽  
Nicola R. Heneghan
Keyword(s):  
Quality Of Life ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Adult Scoliosis ◽  
Measurement Properties ◽  
Narrative Synthesis

Abstract Background Adult scoliosis represents a distinct subgroup of scoliosis patients for whom the diagnosis can have a large impact on their health-related quality of life (HR-QOL). Therefore, HR-QOL patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are essential to assess disease progression and the impact of interventions. The objective of this systematic review is to evaluate the measurement properties of HR-QOL PROMs in adult scoliosis patients. Methods We will conduct a literature search, from their inception onwards, of multiple electronic databases including AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PsychINFO and PubMed. The searches will be performed in two stages. For both stages of the search, participants will be aged 18 and over with a diagnosis of scoliosis. The primary outcome of interest in the stage one searches will be studies which use PROMs to investigate HR-QOL as defined by the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) taxonomy, the secondary outcome will be to assess the frequency of use of the various PROMs. In stage two, the primary outcome of interest will be studies which assess the measurement properties of the HR-QOL PROMs identified in stage one. No specific measurement property will be given priority. No planned secondary outcomes have been identified but will be reported if discovered. In stage one, the only restriction on study design will be the exclusion of systematic reviews. In Stage two the only restriction on study design will be the exclusion of full-text articles not available in the English language. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations and abstract data. Potential conflicts will be resolved through discussion. The study methodological quality (or risk of bias) will be appraised using the Consensus-based Standards for the selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist. The overall strength of the body of evidence will then be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. A narrative synthesis will be provided with information presented in the main text and tables to summarise and explain the characteristics and findings of the included studies. The narrative synthesis will explore the evidence for currently used PROMs in adult scoliosis patients and any areas that require further study. Discussion The review will help clinicians and researchers identify a HR-QOL PROM for use in patients with adult scoliosis. Findings from the review will be published and disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conference presentations. Systematic review registration This systematic review has been registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), reference number: CRD42020219437

Can Exergaming Promote Physical Fitness and Physical Activity?

Gamification ◽  
2015 ◽  
pp. 2022-2039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuomas Kari
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Fitness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Significant Health

This systematic review of systematic reviews evaluates the effectiveness of exergaming on physical fitness and physical activity. A systematic literature search was conducted on 10 databases, and 1040 articles were identified. Sixty-eight articles were found potentially relevant and were selected for closer screening. Cross-referencing was conducted to find other potentially relevant articles. The quality of all relevant articles was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool. After all the duplicates were removed and inclusion, exclusion, and quality criteria were implemented, six articles remained for review. The results indicate that exergaming is generally enjoyed and can evoke some benefits for physical fitness and physical activity, but the current evidence does not support the ability of exergaming to increase physical fitness or physical activity levels sufficiently for significant health benefits. This systematic review also revealed several gaps in previous research. Additional high-quality research and systematic reviews concerning exergaming are needed.

Promoting Physical Activity and Fitness with Exergames

2016 ◽  
pp. 225-245 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tuomas Kari
Keyword(s):  
Physical Activity ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Physical Fitness ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Quality Criteria ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Activity Levels ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Significant Health

This updated systematic review of systematic reviews evaluates the effectiveness of exergaming on physical fitness and physical activity. A systematic literature search was conducted on 10 databases, first in 2014 and then repeated in 2016. In total, 1040 and 287 articles were identified. 68 and 31 articles were found potentially relevant and selected for closer screening. The quality of all relevant articles was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool. After the duplicates were removed and inclusion, exclusion, and quality criteria were implemented, six and three articles remained for review. The results indicate that exergaming is generally enjoyed and can evoke some benefits for physical fitness and physical activity, but the current evidence does not support the ability of exergaming to increase physical fitness or physical activity levels sufficiently for significant health benefits. This systematic review also revealed gaps in previous research. Additional high-quality research and systematic reviews concerning exergaming are needed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document