Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

PubMed Central

Lindsley, Kristina; Li, Tianjing; Ssemanda, Elizabeth; Virgili, Gianni; Dickersin, Kay

2016-01-01

Topic Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines? Clinical relevance High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We have examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines. Methods Eligible publications are systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision and employed no language or date restrictions; the database is up-to-date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as “reliable” when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, appraisal of methodological quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology Preferred Practice Patterns (AAO PPP) for AMD to the identified systematic reviews and assessed whether any reliable systematic review was cited or could have been cited to support each treatment recommendation. Results Of 1,570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met our inclusion criteria. Most of the systematic reviews targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements or photodynamic therapy. We classified over two-thirds (33/47) of the reports as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often for Cochrane reviews and for reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Although most systematic reviews were reliable, anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the AAO PPP, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only one recommendation had an accompanying intervention systematic review citation, which we assessed as a reliable systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps. Conclusions For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPP and should be used to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed. PMID:26804762

32 CFR 2001.31 - Systematic declassification review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-07-01

... 32 National Defense 6 2010-07-01 2010-07-01 false Systematic declassification review. 2001.31... Declassification § 2001.31 Systematic declassification review. (a) General. Agencies shall establish systematic review programs for those records containing information exempted from automatic declassification. This...

22 CFR 9.11 - Systematic declassification review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-04-01

... 22 Foreign Relations 1 2010-04-01 2010-04-01 false Systematic declassification review. 9.11... Systematic declassification review. The Information and Privacy Coordinator shall be responsible for conducting a program for systematic declassification review of historically valuable records that were...

32 CFR 2001.31 - Systematic declassification review.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-07-01

... 32 National Defense 6 2011-07-01 2011-07-01 false Systematic declassification review. 2001.31... Declassification § 2001.31 Systematic declassification review. (a) General. Agencies shall establish systematic review programs for those records containing information exempted from automatic declassification. This...

Systematic reviews addressing microsurgical head and neck reconstruction.

PubMed

Momeni, Arash; Jacobson, Joshua Y; Lee, Gordon K

2015-01-01

Systematic reviews frequently form the basis for clinical decision making and guideline development. Yet, the quality of systematic reviews has been variable, thus raising concerns about the validity of their conclusions. In the current study, a quality analysis of systematic reviews was performed, addressing microsurgical head and neck reconstruction. A PubMed search was performed to identify all systematic reviews published up to and including December 2012 in 12 surgical journals. Two authors independently reviewed the literature and extracted data from the included reviews. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus. Quality assessment was performed using AMSTAR. The initial search retrieved 1020 articles. After screening titles and abstracts, 987 articles were excluded. Full-text review of the remaining 33 articles resulted in further exclusion of 18 articles, leaving 15 systematic reviews for final analysis. A marked increase in the number of published systematic reviews over time was noted (P = 0.07). The median AMSTAR score was 5, thus reflecting a "fair" quality. No evidence for improvement in methodological quality over time was noted. The trend to publish more systematic reviews in microsurgical head and neck reconstruction is encouraging. However, efforts are indicated to improve the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Familiarity with criteria of methodological quality is critical to ensure future improvements in the quality of systematic reviews conducted in microsurgery.

Overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges: methodologies and recommendations for practice.

PubMed

Cooney, Lewis; Loke, Yoon K; Golder, Su; Kirkham, Jamie; Jorgensen, Andrea; Sinha, Ian; Hawcutt, Daniel

2017-06-02

Many medicines are dosed to achieve a particular therapeutic range, and monitored using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). The evidence base for a therapeutic range can be evaluated using systematic reviews, to ensure it continues to reflect current indications, doses, routes and formulations, as well as updated adverse effect data. There is no consensus on the optimal methodology for systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges. An overview of systematic reviews of therapeutic ranges was undertaken. The following databases were used: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effects (DARE) and MEDLINE. The published methodologies used when systematically reviewing the therapeutic range of a drug were analyzed. Step by step recommendations to optimize such systematic reviews are proposed. Ten systematic reviews that investigated the correlation between serum concentrations and clinical outcomes encompassing a variety of medicines and indications were assessed. There were significant variations in the methodologies used (including the search terms used, data extraction methods, assessment of bias, and statistical analyses undertaken). Therapeutic ranges should be population and indication specific and based on clinically relevant outcomes. Recommendations for future systematic reviews based on these findings have been developed. Evidence based therapeutic ranges have the potential to improve TDM practice. Current systematic reviews investigating therapeutic ranges have highly variable methodologies and there is no consensus of best practice when undertaking systematic reviews in this field. These recommendations meet a need not addressed by standard protocols.

NOAA Office of Exploration and Research > Exploration > Systematic

Science.gov Websites

Exploration Systematic Exploration Marine Archaeology Ocean and Coastal Mapping Advancing Technology Overview Exploration Marine Archaeology Ocean and Coastal Mapping Exploration Systematic Exploration Home About OER Systematic Exploration Marine Archaeology Ocean and Coastal Mapping Advancing Technology Overview Technology

Interventions for postoperative pain in children: An overview of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Boric, Krste; Dosenovic, Svjetlana; Jelicic Kadic, Antonia; Batinic, Marijan; Cavar, Marija; Urlic, Marjan; Markovina, Nikolina; Puljak, Livia

2017-09-01

The aim of this study was to conduct an overview of systematic reviews that summarizes the results about efficacy and safety from randomized controlled trials involving the various strategies used for postoperative pain management in children. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, CINAHL, Database of Reviews of Effect, Embase, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO from the earliest date to January 24, 2016. This overview included 45 systematic reviews that evaluated interventions for postoperative pain in children. Out of 45 systematic reviews that investigated various interventions for postoperative pain in children, 19 systematic reviews (42%) presented conclusive evidence of efficacy. Positive conclusive evidence was reported in 18 systematic reviews (40%) for the efficacy of diclofenac, ketamine, caudal analgesia, dexmedetomidine, music therapy, corticosteroid, epidural analgesia, paracetamol, and/or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and transversus abdominis plane block. Only one systematic review reported conclusive evidence of equal efficacy that involved a comparison of dexmedetomidine vs morphine and fentanyl. Safety of interventions was reported as conclusive in 14 systematic reviews (31%), with positive conclusive evidence for dexmedetomidine, corticosteroid, epidural analgesia, transversus abdominis plane block, and clonidine. Seven systematic reviews reported equal conclusive safety for epidural infusion, diclofenac intravenous vs ketamine added to opioid analgesia, bupivacaine, ketamine, paracetamol, and dexmedetomidine vs intravenous infusions of various opioid analgesics, oral suspension and suppository of diclofenac, only opioid, normal saline, no treatment, placebo, and midazolam. Negative conclusive statement for safety was reported in one systematic review for caudal analgesia vs noncaudal regional analgesia. More than half of systematic reviews included in this overview were rated as having medium methodological quality. Of 45 included systematic reviews, 10 were Cochrane reviews and they had higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. As evidence concerning efficacy and safety is inconclusive for most of the analyzed interventions, our review points out the need for more rigorous trials concerning pain management in children. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

12 CFR 403.6 - Systematic review for declassification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 12 Banks and Banking 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Systematic review for declassification. 403.6..., AND SAFEGUARDING OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION § 403.6 Systematic review for declassification... permanent retention will be subject to systematic declassification review by the Archivist in accordance...

Systematic Dissemination of Research and Development Program Improvement Efforts.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sanders, Carol S.

A systematic approach to disseminaton of vocational education research and development program improvement efforts is comprehensive, effective, and efficient. Systematic dissemination is a prerequisite link to assessing impact of research and development--for program improvement to occur, successful dissemination is crucial. A systematic approach…

12 CFR 403.6 - Systematic review for declassification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 12 Banks and Banking 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Systematic review for declassification. 403.6..., AND SAFEGUARDING OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION § 403.6 Systematic review for declassification... permanent retention will be subject to systematic declassification review by the Archivist in accordance...

The Emergence of Systematic Review in Toxicology.

PubMed

Stephens, Martin L; Betts, Kellyn; Beck, Nancy B; Cogliano, Vincent; Dickersin, Kay; Fitzpatrick, Suzanne; Freeman, James; Gray, George; Hartung, Thomas; McPartland, Jennifer; Rooney, Andrew A; Scherer, Roberta W; Verloo, Didier; Hoffmann, Sebastian

2016-07-01

The Evidence-based Toxicology Collaboration hosted a workshop on "The Emergence of Systematic Review and Related Evidence-based Approaches in Toxicology," on November 21, 2014 in Baltimore, Maryland. The workshop featured speakers from agencies and organizations applying systematic review approaches to questions in toxicology, speakers with experience in conducting systematic reviews in medicine and healthcare, and stakeholders in industry, government, academia, and non-governmental organizations. Based on the workshop presentations and discussion, here we address the state of systematic review methods in toxicology, historical antecedents in both medicine and toxicology, challenges to the translation of systematic review from medicine to toxicology, and thoughts on the way forward. We conclude with a recommendation that as various agencies and organizations adapt systematic review methods, they continue to work together to ensure that there is a harmonized process for how the basic elements of systematic review methods are applied in toxicology. © The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Toxicology.

Intervention quality is not routinely assessed in Cochrane systematic reviews of radiation therapy interventions.

PubMed

Abdul Rahim, Mohamad R; James, Melissa L; Hickey, Brigid E

2017-10-01

The aim of this study was to maximise the benefits from clinical trials involving technological interventions such as radiation therapy. High compliance to the quality assurance protocols is crucial. We assessed whether the quality of radiation therapy intervention was evaluated in Cochrane systematic reviews. We searched 416 published Cochrane systematic reviews and identified 67 Cochrane systematic reviews that investigated radiation therapy or radiotherapy as an intervention. For each systematic review, either quality assurance or quality control for the intervention was identified by a description of such processes in the published systematic reviews. Of the 67 Cochrane systematic reviews studied, only two mentioned quality assurance or quality control. Our findings revealed that 65 of 67 (97%) Cochrane systematic reviews of radiation therapy interventions failed to consider the quality of the intervention. We suggest that advice about the evaluation of intervention quality be added to author support materials. © 2017 The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists.

Effectiveness of Pilates exercise in treating people with chronic low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background Systematic reviews provide clinical practice recommendations that are based on evaluation of primary evidence. When systematic reviews with the same aims have different conclusions, it is difficult to ascertain which review reported the most credible and robust findings. Methods This study examined five systematic reviews that have investigated the effectiveness of Pilates exercise in people with chronic low back pain. A four-stage process was used to interpret findings of the reviews. This process included comparison of research questions, included primary studies, and the level and quality of evidence of systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence and the methodological quality of systematic reviews, using the National Health and Medical Research Council hierarchy of evidence, and the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews respectively. Any disagreements were resolved by a third researcher. Results A high level of consensus was achieved between the reviewers. Conflicting findings were reported by the five systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of Pilates in reducing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. Authors of the systematic reviews included primary studies that did not match their questions in relation to treatment or population characteristics. A total of ten primary studies were identified across five systematic reviews. Only two of the primary studies were included in all of the reviews due to different inclusion criteria relating to publication date and status, definition of Pilates, and methodological quality. The level of evidence of reviews was low due to the methodological design of the primary studies. The methodological quality of reviews varied. Those which conducted a meta-analysis obtained higher scores. Conclusion There is inconclusive evidence that Pilates is effective in reducing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. This is due to the small number and poor methodological quality of primary studies. The Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews provides a useful method of appraising the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Individual item scores, however, should be examined in addition to total scores, so that significant methodological flaws of systematic reviews are not missed, and results are interpreted appropriately. (348 words) PMID:23331384

Effectiveness of Pilates exercise in treating people with chronic low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Wells, Cherie; Kolt, Gregory S; Marshall, Paul; Hill, Bridget; Bialocerkowski, Andrea

2013-01-19

Systematic reviews provide clinical practice recommendations that are based on evaluation of primary evidence. When systematic reviews with the same aims have different conclusions, it is difficult to ascertain which review reported the most credible and robust findings. This study examined five systematic reviews that have investigated the effectiveness of Pilates exercise in people with chronic low back pain. A four-stage process was used to interpret findings of the reviews. This process included comparison of research questions, included primary studies, and the level and quality of evidence of systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers assessed the level of evidence and the methodological quality of systematic reviews, using the National Health and Medical Research Council hierarchy of evidence, and the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews respectively. Any disagreements were resolved by a third researcher. A high level of consensus was achieved between the reviewers. Conflicting findings were reported by the five systematic reviews regarding the effectiveness of Pilates in reducing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. Authors of the systematic reviews included primary studies that did not match their questions in relation to treatment or population characteristics. A total of ten primary studies were identified across five systematic reviews. Only two of the primary studies were included in all of the reviews due to different inclusion criteria relating to publication date and status, definition of Pilates, and methodological quality. The level of evidence of reviews was low due to the methodological design of the primary studies. The methodological quality of reviews varied. Those which conducted a meta-analysis obtained higher scores. There is inconclusive evidence that Pilates is effective in reducing pain and disability in people with chronic low back pain. This is due to the small number and poor methodological quality of primary studies. The Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews provides a useful method of appraising the methodological quality of systematic reviews. Individual item scores, however, should be examined in addition to total scores, so that significant methodological flaws of systematic reviews are not missed, and results are interpreted appropriately. (348 words).

Time to consider sharing data extracted from trials included in systematic reviews.

PubMed

Wolfenden, Luke; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Williams, Christopher M; Yoong, Sze Lin

2016-11-03

While the debate regarding shared clinical trial data has shifted from whether such data should be shared to how this is best achieved, the sharing of data collected as part of systematic reviews has received little attention. In this commentary, we discuss the potential benefits of coordinated efforts to share data collected as part of systematic reviews. There are a number of potential benefits of systematic review data sharing. Shared information and data obtained as part of the systematic review process may reduce unnecessary duplication, reduce demand on trialist to service repeated requests from reviewers for data, and improve the quality and efficiency of future reviews. Sharing also facilitates research to improve clinical trial and systematic review methods and supports additional analyses to address secondary research questions. While concerns regarding appropriate use of data, costs, or the academic return for original review authors may impede more open access to information extracted as part of systematic reviews, many of these issues are being addressed, and infrastructure to enable greater access to such information is being developed. Embracing systems to enable more open access to systematic review data has considerable potential to maximise the benefits of research investment in undertaking systematic reviews.

Reporting and handling missing outcome data in mental health: a systematic review of Cochrane systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

PubMed

Spineli, Loukia M; Pandis, Nikolaos; Salanti, Georgia

2015-06-01

The purpose of the study was to provide empirical evidence about the reporting of methodology to address missing outcome data and the acknowledgement of their impact in Cochrane systematic reviews in the mental health field. Systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews after January 1, 2009 by three Cochrane Review Groups relating to mental health were included. One hundred ninety systematic reviews were considered. Missing outcome data were present in at least one included study in 175 systematic reviews. Of these 175 systematic reviews, 147 (84%) accounted for missing outcome data by considering a relevant primary or secondary outcome (e.g., dropout). Missing outcome data implications were reported only in 61 (35%) systematic reviews and primarily in the discussion section by commenting on the amount of the missing outcome data. One hundred forty eligible meta-analyses with missing data were scrutinized. Seventy-nine (56%) of them had studies with total dropout rate between 10 and 30%. One hundred nine (78%) meta-analyses reported to have performed intention-to-treat analysis by including trials with imputed outcome data. Sensitivity analysis for incomplete outcome data was implemented in less than 20% of the meta-analyses. Reporting of the techniques for handling missing outcome data and their implications in the findings of the systematic reviews are suboptimal. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Local systematic differences in 2MASS positions

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Bustos Fierro, I. H.; Calderón, J. H.

2018-01-01

We have found that positions in the 2MASS All-sky Catalog of Point Sources show local systematic differences with characteristic length-scales of ˜ 5 to ˜ 8 arcminutes when compared with several catalogs. We have observed that when 2MASS positions are used in the computation of proper motions, the mentioned systematic differences cause systematic errors in the resulting proper motions. We have developed a method to locally rectify 2MASS with respect to UCAC4 in order to diminish the systematic differences between these catalogs. The rectified 2MASS catalog with the proposed method can be regarded as an extension of UCAC4 for astrometry with accuracy ˜ 90 mas in its positions, with negligible systematic errors. Also we show that the use of these rectified positions removes the observed systematic pattern in proper motions derived from original 2MASS positions.

Using systematic review in occupational safety and health.

PubMed

Howard, John; Piacentino, John; MacMahon, Kathleen; Schulte, Paul

2017-11-01

Evaluation of scientific evidence is critical in developing recommendations to reduce risk. Healthcare was the first scientific field to employ a systematic review approach for synthesizing research findings to support evidence-based decision-making and it is still the largest producer and consumer of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews in the field of occupational safety and health are being conducted, but more widespread use and adoption would strengthen assessments. In 2016, NIOSH asked RAND to develop a framework for applying the traditional systematic review elements to the field of occupational safety and health. This paper describes how essential systematic review elements can be adapted for use in occupational systematic reviews to enhance their scientific quality, objectivity, transparency, reliability, utility, and acceptability. Published 2017. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

How to write a systematic review.

PubMed

Harris, Joshua D; Quatman, Carmen E; Manring, M M; Siston, Robert A; Flanigan, David C

2014-11-01

The role of evidence-based medicine in sports medicine and orthopaedic surgery is rapidly growing. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are also proliferating in the medical literature. To provide the outline necessary for a practitioner to properly understand and/or conduct a systematic review for publication in a sports medicine journal. Review. The steps of a successful systematic review include the following: identification of an unanswered answerable question; explicit definitions of the investigation's participant(s), intervention(s), comparison(s), and outcome(s); utilization of PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines and PROSPERO registration; thorough systematic data extraction; and appropriate grading of the evidence and strength of the recommendations. An outline to understand and conduct a systematic review is provided, and the difference between meta-analyses and systematic reviews is described. The steps necessary to perform a systematic review are fully explained, including the study purpose, search methodology, data extraction, reporting of results, identification of bias, and reporting of the study's main findings. Systematic reviews or meta-analyses critically appraise and formally synthesize the best existing evidence to provide a statement of conclusion that answers specific clinical questions. Readers and reviewers, however, must recognize that the quality and strength of recommendations in a review are only as strong as the quality of studies that it analyzes. Thus, great care must be used in the interpretation of bias and extrapolation of the review's findings to translation to clinical practice. Without advanced education on the topic, the reader may follow the steps discussed herein to perform a systematic review. © 2013 The Author(s).

Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development. Methods We searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions. Results There was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews. Conclusions There remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges. PMID:24956937

Rational decision-making in mental health: the role of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Gilbody, Simon M.; Petticrew, Mark

1999-09-01

BACKGROUND: "Systematic reviews" have come to be recognized as the most rigorous method of summarizing confusing and often contradictory primary research in a transparent and reproducible manner. Their greatest impact has been in the summarization of epidemiological literature - particularly that relating to clinical effectiveness. Systematic reviews also have a potential to inform rational decision-making in healthcare policy and to form a component of economic evaluation. AIMS OF THE STUDY: This article aims to introduce the rationale behind systematic reviews and, using examples from mental health, to introduce the strengths and limitations of systematic reviews, particularly in informing mental health policy and economic evaluation. METHODS: Examples are selected from recent controversies surrounding the introduction of new psychiatric drugs (anti-depressants and anti-schizophrenia drugs) and methods of delivering psychiatric care in the community (case management and assertive community treatment). The potential for systematic reviews to (i) produce best estimates of clinical efficacy and effectiveness, (ii) aid economic evaluation and policy decision-making and (iii) highlight gaps in the primary research knowledge base are discussed. Lastly examples are selected from outside mental health to show how systematic reviews have a potential to be explicitly used in economic and health policy evaluation. RESULTS: Systematic reviews produce the best estimates of clinical efficacy, which can form an important component of economic evaluation. Importantly, serious methodological flaws and areas of uncertainty in the primary research literature are identified within an explicit framework. Summary indices of clinical effectiveness can be produced, but it is difficult to produce such summary indices of cost effectiveness by pooling economic data from primary studies. Modelling is commonly used in economic and policy evaluation. Here, systematic reviews can provide the best estimates of effectiveness and, importantly, highlight areas of uncertainty that can be used in "sensitivity analysis". DISCUSSION: Systematic reviews are an important recent methodological advance, the potential for which has only begun to be realized in mental health. This use of systematic reviews is probably most advanced in producing critical summaries of clinical effectiveness data. Systematic reviews cannot produce valid and believable conclusions when the primary research literature is of poor quality. An important function of systematic reviews will be in highlighting this poor quality research which is of little use in mental health decision making. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH PROVISION: Health care provision should be both clinically and cost effective. Systematic reviews are a key component in ensuring that this goal is achieved. IMPLICATIONS FOR HEALTH POLICIES: Systematic reviews have potential to inform health policy. Examples presented show that health policy is often made without due consideration of the research evidence. Systematic reviews can provide robust and believable answers, which can help inform rational decision-making. Importantly, systematic reviews can highlight the need for important primary research and can inform the design of this research such that it provides answers that will help in forming healthcare policy. IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH: Systematic reviews should precede costly (and often unnecessary) primary research. Many areas of health policy and practice have yet to be evaluated using systematic review methodology. Methods for the summarization of economic data are methodologically complex and deserve further research

Policy-Relevant Systematic Reviews to Strengthen Health Systems: Models and Mechanisms to Support Their Production

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Oliver, Sandra; Dickson, Kelly

2016-01-01

Support for producing systematic reviews about health systems is less well developed than for those about clinical practice. From interviewing policy makers and systematic reviewers we identified institutional mechanisms which bring systematic reviews and policy priorities closer by harnessing organisational and individual motivations, emphasising…

Systematic Experimental Designs For Mixed-species Plantings

Treesearch

Jeffery C. Goelz

2001-01-01

Systematic experimental designs provide splendid demonstration areas for scientists and land managers to observe the effects of a gradient of species composition. Systematic designs are based on large plots where species composition varies gradually. Systematic designs save considerable space and require many fewer seedlings than conventional mixture designs. One basic...

Corporate Entrepreneurship Assessment Instrument (CEAI): Systematic Validation of a Measure

DTIC Science & Technology

2006-03-01

CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (CEAI): SYSTEMATIC VALIDATION OF A MEASURE THESIS...the United States Government. AFIT/GIR/ENV/06M-05 CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (CEAI): SYSTEMATIC VALIDATION...DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED. AFIT/GIR/ENV/06M-05 CORPORATE ENTREPRENEURSHIP ASSESSMENT INSTRUMENT (CEAI): SYSTEMATIC VALIDATION OF A MEASURE

Systematic Quality Work in Preschool

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Sheridan, Sonja; Williams, Pia; Sandberg, Anette

2013-01-01

The purpose of this study was to investigate the meaning that Swedish preschool teachers ascribe to systematic quality work. In Sweden, all preschools are required to work systematically with quality issues. This involves several interdependent steps that follow each other in a specific order. Although the concept of systematic quality work might…

Additional considerations are required when preparing a protocol for a systematic review with multiple interventions.

PubMed

Chaimani, Anna; Caldwell, Deborah M; Li, Tianjing; Higgins, Julian P T; Salanti, Georgia

2017-03-01

The number of systematic reviews that aim to compare multiple interventions using network meta-analysis is increasing. In this study, we highlight aspects of a standard systematic review protocol that may need modification when multiple interventions are to be compared. We take the protocol format suggested by Cochrane for a standard systematic review as our reference and compare the considerations for a pairwise review with those required for a valid comparison of multiple interventions. We suggest new sections for protocols of systematic reviews including network meta-analyses with a focus on how to evaluate their assumptions. We provide example text from published protocols to exemplify the considerations. Standard systematic review protocols for pairwise meta-analyses need extensions to accommodate the increased complexity of network meta-analysis. Our suggested modifications are widely applicable to both Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews involving network meta-analyses. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

10 CFR 1045.43 - Systematic review for declassification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 10 Energy 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Systematic review for declassification. 1045.43 Section... Systematic review for declassification. (a) The Secretary shall ensure that RD documents, and the DoD shall... Classification (and with the DoD for FRD) to ensure the systematic review of RD and FRD documents. (c) Review of...

10 CFR 1045.43 - Systematic review for declassification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 10 Energy 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Systematic review for declassification. 1045.43 Section... Systematic review for declassification. (a) The Secretary shall ensure that RD documents, and the DoD shall... Classification (and with the DoD for FRD) to ensure the systematic review of RD and FRD documents. (c) Review of...

Comparison of Three Methods of Reducing Test Anxiety: Systematic Desensitization, Implosive Therapy, and Study Counseling

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cornish, Richard D.; Dilley, Josiah S.

1973-01-01

Systematic desensitization, implosive therapy, and study counseling have all been effective in reducing test anxiety. In addition, systematic desensitization has been compared to study counseling for effectiveness. This study compares all three methods and suggests that systematic desentization is more effective than the others, and that implosive…

Reducing Bias Due to Systematic Attrition in Longitudinal Studies: The Benefits of Multiple Imputation

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Asendorpf, Jens B.; van de Schoot, Rens; Denissen, Jaap J. A.; Hutteman, Roos

2014-01-01

Most longitudinal studies are plagued by drop-out related to variables at earlier assessments (systematic attrition). Although systematic attrition is often analysed in longitudinal studies, surprisingly few researchers attempt to reduce biases due to systematic attrition, even though this is possible and nowadays technically easy. This is…

A Systematic Summary of Systematic Reviews on the Topic of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament

PubMed Central

Anderson, Michael J.; Browning, William M.; Urband, Christopher E.; Kluczynski, Melissa A.; Bisson, Leslie J.

2016-01-01

Background: There has been a substantial increase in the amount of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published on the anterior cruciate ligament (ACL). Purpose: To quantify the number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published on the ACL in the past decade and to provide an overall summary of this literature. Study Design: Systematic review; Level of evidence, 4. Methods: A systematic review of all ACL-related systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between January 2004 and September 2014 was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Database. Narrative reviews and non-English articles were excluded. Results: A total of 1031 articles were found, of which 240 met the inclusion criteria. Included articles were summarized and divided into 17 topics: anatomy, epidemiology, prevention, associated injuries, diagnosis, operative versus nonoperative management, graft choice, surgical technique, fixation methods, computer-assisted surgery, platelet-rich plasma, rehabilitation, return to play, outcomes assessment, arthritis, complications, and miscellaneous. Conclusion: A summary of systematic reviews on the ACL can supply the surgeon with a single source for the most up-to-date synthesis of the literature. PMID:27047983

Guidelines for performing systematic reviews in the development of toxicity factors.

PubMed

Schaefer, Heather R; Myers, Jessica L

2017-12-01

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) developed guidance on conducting systematic reviews during the development of chemical-specific toxicity factors. Using elements from publicly available frameworks, the TCEQ systematic review process was developed in order to supplement the existing TCEQ Guidelines for developing toxicity factors (TCEQ Regulatory Guidance 442). The TCEQ systematic review process includes six steps: 1) Problem Formulation; 2) Systematic Literature Review and Study Selection; 3) Data Extraction; 4) Study Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment; 5) Evidence Integration and Endpoint Determination; and 6) Confidence Rating. This document provides guidance on conducting a systematic literature review and integrating evidence from different data streams when developing chemical-specific reference values (ReVs) and unit risk factors (URFs). However, this process can also be modified or expanded to address other questions that would benefit from systematic review practices. The systematic review and evidence integration framework can improve regulatory decision-making processes, increase transparency, minimize bias, improve consistency between different risk assessments, and further improve confidence in toxicity factor development. Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Systematic reviews of animal studies; missing link in translational research?

PubMed

van Luijk, Judith; Bakker, Brenda; Rovers, Maroeska M; Ritskes-Hoitinga, Merel; de Vries, Rob B M; Leenaars, Marlies

2014-01-01

The methodological quality of animal studies is an important factor hampering the translation of results from animal studies to a clinical setting. Systematic reviews of animal studies may provide a suitable method to assess and thereby improve their methodological quality. The aims of this study were: 1) to evaluate the risk of bias assessment in animal-based systematic reviews, and 2) to study the internal validity of the primary animal studies included in these systematic reviews. We systematically searched Pubmed and Embase for SRs of preclinical animal studies published between 2005 and 2012. A total of 91 systematic reviews met our inclusion criteria. The risk of bias was assessed in 48 (52.7%) of these 91 systematic reviews. Thirty-three (36.3%) SRs provided sufficient information to evaluate the internal validity of the included studies. Of the evaluated primary studies, 24.6% was randomized, 14.6% reported blinding of the investigator/caretaker, 23.9% blinded the outcome assessment, and 23.1% reported drop-outs. To improve the translation of animal data to clinical practice, systematic reviews of animal studies are worthwhile, but the internal validity of primary animal studies needs to be improved. Furthermore, risk of bias should be assessed by systematic reviews of animal studies to provide insight into the reliability of the available evidence.

Systematic Reviews Published in Emergency Medicine Journals Do Not Routinely Search Clinical Trials Registries: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

PubMed

Keil, Lukas G; Platts-Mills, Timothy F; Jones, Christopher W

2015-10-01

Publication bias compromises the validity of systematic reviews. This problem can be addressed in part through searching clinical trials registries to identify unpublished studies. This study aims to determine how often systematic reviews published in emergency medicine journals include clinical trials registry searches. We identified all systematic reviews published in the 6 highest-impact emergency medicine journals between January 1 and December 31, 2013. Systematic reviews that assessed the effects of an intervention were further examined to determine whether the authors described searching a clinical trials registry and whether this search identified relevant unpublished studies. Of 191 articles identified through PubMed search, 80 were confirmed to be systematic reviews. Our sample consisted of 41 systematic reviews that assessed a specific intervention. Eight of these 41 (20%) searched a clinical trials registry. For 4 of these 8 reviews, the registry search identified at least 1 relevant unpublished study. Systematic reviews published in emergency medicine journals do not routinely include searches of clinical trials registries. By helping authors identify unpublished trial data, the addition of registry searches may improve the validity of systematic reviews. Copyright © 2014 American College of Emergency Physicians. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Cost-Utility Analysis of Screening Strategies for Diabetic Retinopathy in Korea.

PubMed

Kim, Sang-Won; Kang, Gil-Won

2015-12-01

This study involved a cost-utility analysis of early diagnosis and treatment of diabetic retinopathy depending on the screening strategy used. The four screening strategies evaluated were no screening, opportunistic examination, systematic fundus photography, and systematic examination by an ophthalmologists. Each strategy was evaluated in 10,000 adults aged 40 yr with newly diagnosed diabetes mellitus (hypothetical cohort). The cost of each strategy was estimated in the perspective of both payer and health care system. The utility was estimated using quality-adjusted life years (QALY). Incremental Cost Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) for the different screening strategies was analyzed. After exclusion of the weakly dominating opportunistic strategy, the ICER of systematic photography was 57,716,867 and that of systematic examination by ophthalmologists was 419,989,046 from the perspective of the healthcare system. According to the results, the systematic strategy is preferable to the opportunistic strategy from the perspective of both a payer and a healthcare system. Although systematic examination by ophthalmologists may have higher utility than systematic photography, it is associated with higher cost. The systematic photography is the best strategy in terms of cost-utility. However systematic examination by ophthalmologists can also be a suitable policy alternative, if the incremental cost is socially acceptable.

Systematic information processing style and perseverative worry.

PubMed

Dash, Suzanne R; Meeten, Frances; Davey, Graham C L

2013-12-01

This review examines the theoretical rationale for conceiving of systematic information processing as a proximal mechanism for perseverative worry. Systematic processing is characterised by detailed, analytical thought about issue-relevant information, and in this way, is similar to the persistent, detailed processing of information that typifies perseverative worry. We review the key features and determinants of systematic processing, and examine the application of systematic processing to perseverative worry. We argue that systematic processing is a mechanism involved in perseverative worry because (1) systematic processing is more likely to be deployed when individuals feel that they have not reached a satisfactory level of confidence in their judgement and this is similar to the worrier's striving to feel adequately prepared, to have considered every possible negative outcome/detect all potential danger, and to be sure that they will successfully cope with perceived future problems; (2) systematic processing and worry are influenced by similar psychological cognitive states and appraisals; and (3) the functional neuroanatomy underlying systematic processing is located in the same brain regions that are activated during worrying. This proposed mechanism is derived from core psychological processes and offers a number of clinical implications, including the identification of psychological states and appraisals that may benefit from therapeutic interventions for worry-based problems. © 2013.

The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible.

PubMed

Faggion, Clovis Mariano; Huivin, Raquel; Aranda, Luisiana; Pandis, Nikolaos; Alarcon, Marco

2018-06-01

To evaluate whether the reporting of search strategies and the primary study selection process in dental systematic reviews is reproducible. A survey of systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals from June 2015 to June 2016 was conducted. Study selection was performed independently by two authors, and the reproducibility of the selection process was assessed using a tool consisting of 12 criteria. Regression analyses were implemented to evaluate any associations between degrees of reporting (measured by the number of items positively answered) and journal impact factor (IF), presence of meta-analysis, and number of citations of the systematic review in Google Scholar. Five hundred and thirty systematic reviews were identified. Following our 12 criteria, none of the systematic reviews had complete reporting of the search strategies and selection process. Eight (1.5%) systematic reviews reported the list of excluded articles (with reasons for exclusion) after title and abstract assessment. Systematic reviews with more positive answers to the criteria were significantly associated with higher journal IF, number of citations, and inclusion of meta-analysis. Search strategies and primary study selection process in systematic reviews published in MEDLINE-indexed dental journals may not be fully reproducible. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews from China and the USA are similar.

PubMed

Tian, Jinhui; Zhang, Jun; Ge, Long; Yang, Kehu; Song, Fujian

2017-05-01

To compare the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China and those from the United States (USA). From systematic reviews of randomized trials published in 2014 in English, we randomly selected 100 from China and 100 from the USA. The methodological quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool, and reporting quality assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) tool. Compared with systematic reviews from the USA, those from China were more likely to be a meta-analysis, published in low-impact journals, and a non-Cochrane review. The mean summary Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews score was 6.7 (95% confidence interval: 6.5, 7.0) for reviews from China and 6.6 (6.1, 7.1) for reviews from the USA, and the mean summary Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses score was 21.2 (20.7, 21.6) for reviews from China and 20.6 (19.9, 21.3) for reviews from the USA. The differences in summary quality scores between China and the USA were statistically nonsignificant after adjusting for multiple review factors. The overall methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews by authors from China are similar to those from the USA, although the quality of systematic reviews from both countries could be further improved. Copyright © 2017 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews by health policymakers and managers: A systematic review

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

Background Systematic reviews have the potential to inform decisions made by health policymakers and managers, yet little is known about the impact of interventions to increase the use of systematic reviews by these groups in decision making. Methods We systematically reviewed the evidence on the impact of interventions for seeking, appraising, and applying evidence from systematic reviews in decision making by health policymakers or managers. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, and LISA were searched from the earliest date available until April 2010. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion if the intervention intended to increase seeking, appraising, or applying evidence from systematic reviews by a health policymaker or manager. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the study population and availability of extractable data. Results 11,297 titles and abstracts were reviewed, leading to retrieval of 37 full-text articles for assessment; four of these articles met all inclusion criteria. Three articles described one study where five systematic reviews were mailed to public health officials and followed up with surveys at three months and two years. The articles reported from 23% to 63% of respondents declaring they had used systematic reviews in policymaking decisions. One randomised trial indicated that tailored messages combined with access to a registry of systematic reviews had a significant effect on policies made in the area of healthy body weight promotion in health departments. Conclusions The limited empirical data renders the strength of evidence weak for the effectiveness and the types of interventions that encourage health policymakers and managers to use systematic reviews in decision making. PMID:21524292

Interventions encouraging the use of systematic reviews by health policymakers and managers: a systematic review.

PubMed

Perrier, Laure; Mrklas, Kelly; Lavis, John N; Straus, Sharon E

2011-04-27

Systematic reviews have the potential to inform decisions made by health policymakers and managers, yet little is known about the impact of interventions to increase the use of systematic reviews by these groups in decision making. We systematically reviewed the evidence on the impact of interventions for seeking, appraising, and applying evidence from systematic reviews in decision making by health policymakers or managers. Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Methodology Register, Health Technology Assessment Database, and LISA were searched from the earliest date available until April 2010. Two independent reviewers selected studies for inclusion if the intervention intended to increase seeking, appraising, or applying evidence from systematic reviews by a health policymaker or manager. Minimum inclusion criteria were a description of the study population and availability of extractable data. 11,297 titles and abstracts were reviewed, leading to retrieval of 37 full-text articles for assessment; four of these articles met all inclusion criteria. Three articles described one study where five systematic reviews were mailed to public health officials and followed up with surveys at three months and two years. The articles reported from 23% to 63% of respondents declaring they had used systematic reviews in policymaking decisions. One randomised trial indicated that tailored messages combined with access to a registry of systematic reviews had a significant effect on policies made in the area of healthy body weight promotion in health departments. The limited empirical data renders the strength of evidence weak for the effectiveness and the types of interventions that encourage health policymakers and managers to use systematic reviews in decision making.

Nonbleeding adenomas: Evidence of systematic false-negative fecal immunochemical test results and their implications for screening effectiveness-A modeling study.

PubMed

van der Meulen, Miriam P; Lansdorp-Vogelaar, Iris; van Heijningen, Else-Mariëtte B; Kuipers, Ernst J; van Ballegooijen, Marjolein

2016-06-01

If some adenomas do not bleed over several years, they will cause systematic false-negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) results. The long-term effectiveness of FIT screening has been estimated without accounting for such systematic false-negativity. There are now data with which to evaluate this issue. The authors developed one microsimulation model (MISCAN [MIcrosimulation SCreening ANalysis]-Colon) without systematic false-negative FIT results and one model that allowed a percentage of adenomas to be systematically missed in successive FIT screening rounds. Both variants were adjusted to reproduce the first-round findings of the Dutch CORERO FIT screening trial. The authors then compared simulated detection rates in the second screening round with those observed, and adjusted the simulated percentage of systematically missed adenomas to those data. Finally, the authors calculated the impact of systematic false-negative FIT results on the effectiveness of repeated FIT screening. The model without systematic false-negativity simulated higher detection rates in the second screening round than observed. These observed rates could be reproduced when assuming that FIT systematically missed 26% of advanced and 73% of nonadvanced adenomas. To reduce the false-positive rate in the second round to the observed level, the authors also had to assume that 30% of false-positive findings were systematically false-positive. Systematic false-negative FIT testing limits the long-term reduction of biennial FIT screening in the incidence of colorectal cancer (35.6% vs 40.9%) and its mortality (55.2% vs 59.0%) in participants. The results of the current study provide convincing evidence based on the combination of real-life and modeling data that a percentage of adenomas are systematically missed by repeat FIT screening. This impairs the efficacy of FIT screening. Cancer 2016;122:1680-8. © 2016 American Cancer Society. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Interventions for Age-Related Macular Degeneration: Are Practice Guidelines Based on Systematic Reviews?

PubMed

Lindsley, Kristina; Li, Tianjing; Ssemanda, Elizabeth; Virgili, Gianni; Dickersin, Kay

2016-04-01

Are existing systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration incorporated into clinical practice guidelines? High-quality systematic reviews should be used to underpin evidence-based clinical practice guidelines and clinical care. We examined the reliability of systematic reviews of interventions for age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and described the main findings of reliable reviews in relation to clinical practice guidelines. Eligible publications were systematic reviews of the effectiveness of treatment interventions for AMD. We searched a database of systematic reviews in eyes and vision without language or date restrictions; the database was up to date as of May 6, 2014. Two authors independently screened records for eligibility and abstracted and assessed the characteristics and methods of each review. We classified reviews as reliable when they reported eligibility criteria, comprehensive searches, methodologic quality of included studies, appropriate statistical methods for meta-analysis, and conclusions based on results. We mapped treatment recommendations from the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Preferred Practice Patterns (PPPs) for AMD to systematic reviews and citations of reliable systematic reviews to support each treatment recommendation. Of 1570 systematic reviews in our database, 47 met inclusion criteria; most targeted neovascular AMD and investigated anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) interventions, dietary supplements, or photodynamic therapy. We classified 33 (70%) reviews as reliable. The quality of reporting varied, with criteria for reliable reporting met more often by Cochrane reviews and reviews whose authors disclosed conflicts of interest. Anti-VEGF agents and photodynamic therapy were the only interventions identified as effective by reliable reviews. Of 35 treatment recommendations extracted from the PPPs, 15 could have been supported with reliable systematic reviews; however, only 1 recommendation cited a reliable intervention systematic review. No reliable systematic review was identified for 20 treatment recommendations, highlighting areas of evidence gaps. For AMD, reliable systematic reviews exist for many treatment recommendations in the AAO PPPs and should be cited to support these recommendations. We also identified areas where no high-level evidence exists. Mapping clinical practice guidelines to existing systematic reviews is one way to highlight areas where evidence generation or evidence synthesis is either available or needed. Copyright © 2016 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Computerization of Synonymy Data from Biological Systematics. Museum Data Bank Research Report Number 9.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mello, James F.

An outline of biological systematics and the kind of data that comprise it is presented, together with a description of one data convention used in systematics and a method for computerizing synonymic and associated data. Systematics consist of descriptions of species, names applied to these species, and supportive field data such as geographic…

Collaborative Principal Preparation Programs: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Qualitative Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Parylo, Oksana

2013-01-01

The purpose of this systematic review was to (1) conduct the systematic search of the literature to identify the studies on partnerships in school leader preparation; and to (2) systematically review the findings of these studies and synthesize them into major themes reflecting the state of the art in collaborative leadership preparation in the…

A practical overview of how to conduct a systematic review.

PubMed

Davis, Dilla

2016-11-16

With an increasing focus on evidence-based practice in health care, it is important that nurses understand the principles underlying systematic reviews. Systematic reviews are used in healthcare to present a comprehensive, policy-neutral, transparent and reproducible synthesis of evidence. This article provides a practical overview of the process of undertaking systematic reviews, explaining the rationale for each stage. It provides guidance on the standard methods applicable to every systematic review: writing and registering a protocol; planning a review; searching and selecting studies; data collection; assessing the risk of bias; and interpreting results.

Summary of long-baseline systematics session at CETUP*2014

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Cherdack, Daniel; Worcester, Elizabeth

2015-10-15

A session studying systematics in long-baseline neutrino oscillation physics was held July 14-18, 2014 as part of CETUP* 2014. Systematic effects from flux normalization and modeling, modeling of cross sections and nuclear interactions, and far detector effects were addressed. Experts presented the capabilities of existing and planned tools. A program of study to determine estimates of and requirements for the size of these effects was designed. This document summarizes the results of the CETUP* systematics workshop and the current status of systematic uncertainty studies in long-baseline neutrino oscillation measurements.

Twelve recommendations for integrating existing systematic reviews into new reviews: EPC guidance.

PubMed

Robinson, Karen A; Chou, Roger; Berkman, Nancy D; Newberry, Sydne J; Fu, Rongwei; Hartling, Lisa; Dryden, Donna; Butler, Mary; Foisy, Michelle; Anderson, Johanna; Motu'apuaka, Makalapua; Relevo, Rose; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Chang, Stephanie

2016-02-01

As time and cost constraints in the conduct of systematic reviews increase, the need to consider the use of existing systematic reviews also increases. We developed guidance on the integration of systematic reviews into new reviews. A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers developed consensus-based recommendations. Discussions were informed by a literature scan and by interviews with organizations that conduct systematic reviews. Twelve recommendations were developed addressing selecting reviews, assessing risk of bias, qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and summarizing and assessing body of evidence. We provide preliminary guidance for an efficient and unbiased approach to integrating existing systematic reviews with primary studies in a new review. Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews addressing femoroacetabular impingement.

PubMed

Kowalczuk, Marcin; Adamich, John; Simunovic, Nicole; Farrokhyar, Forough; Ayeni, Olufemi R

2015-09-01

As the body of literature on femoroacetabular impingement (FAI) continues to grow, clinicians turn to systematic reviews to remain current with the best available evidence. The quality of systematic reviews in the FAI literature is currently unknown. The goal of this study was to assess the quality of the reporting of systematic reviews addressing FAI over the last 11 years (2003-2014) and to identify the specific methodological shortcomings and strengths. A search of the electronic databases, MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed, was performed to identify relevant systematic reviews. Methodological quality was assessed by two reviewers using the revised assessment of multiple systematic reviews (R-AMSTAR) scoring tool. An intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with 95 % confidence intervals (CI) was used to determine agreement between reviewers on R-AMSTAR quality scores. A total of 22 systematic reviews were assessed for methodological quality. The mean consensus R-AMSTAR score across all studies was 26.7 out of 40.0, indicating fair methodological quality. An ICC of 0.931, 95 % CI 0.843-0.971 indicated excellent agreement between reviewers during the scoring process. The systematic reviews addressing FAI are generally of fair methodological quality. Use of tools such as the R-AMSTAR score or PRISMA guidelines while designing future systematic reviews can assist in eliminating methodological shortcomings identified in this review. These shortcomings need to be kept in mind by clinicians when applying the current literature to their patient populations and making treatment decisions. Systematic reviews of highest methodological quality should be used by clinicians when possible to answer clinical questions.

Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: lessons from the Reuben case.

PubMed

Marret, Emmanuel; Elia, Nadia; Dahl, Jørgen B; McQuay, Henry J; Møiniche, Steen; Moore, R Andrew; Straube, Sebastian; Tramèr, Martin R

2009-12-01

Dr. Scott Reuben allegedly fabricated data. The authors of the current article examined the impact of Reuben reports on conclusions of systematic reviews. The authors searched in ISI Web of Knowledge systematic reviews citing Reuben reports. Systematic reviews were grouped into one of three categories: I, only cited but did not include Reuben reports; II, retrieved and considered, but eventually excluded Reuben reports; III, included Reuben reports. For quantitative systematic reviews (i.e., meta-analyses), a relevant difference was defined as a significant result becoming nonsignificant (or vice versa) by excluding Reuben reports. For qualitative systematic reviews, each author decided independently whether noninclusion of Reuben reports would have changed conclusions. Twenty-five systematic reviews (5 category I, 6 category II, 14 category III) cited 27 Reuben reports (published 1994-2007). Most tested analgesics in surgical patients. One of 6 quantitative category III reviews would have reached different conclusions without Reuben reports. In all 6 (30 subgroup analyses involving Reuben reports), exclusion of Reuben reports never made any difference when the number of patients from Reuben reports was less than 30% of all patients included in the analysis. Of 8 qualitative category III reviews, all authors agreed that one would certainly have reached different conclusions without Reuben reports. For another 4, the authors' judgment was not unanimous. Carefully performed systematic reviews proved robust against the impact of Reuben reports. Quantitative systematic reviews were vulnerable if the fraudulent data were more than 30% of the total. Qualitative systematic reviews seemed at greater risk than quantitative.

Systematicity and a Categorical Theory of Cognitive Architecture: Universal Construction in Context

PubMed Central

Phillips, Steven; Wilson, William H.

2016-01-01

Why does the capacity to think certain thoughts imply the capacity to think certain other, structurally related, thoughts? Despite decades of intensive debate, cognitive scientists have yet to reach a consensus on an explanation for this property of cognitive architecture—the basic processes and modes of composition that together afford cognitive capacity—called systematicity. Systematicity is generally considered to involve a capacity to represent/process common structural relations among the equivalently cognizable entities. However, the predominant theoretical approaches to the systematicity problem, i.e., classical (symbolic) and connectionist (subsymbolic), require arbitrary (ad hoc) assumptions to derive systematicity. That is, their core principles and assumptions do not provide the necessary and sufficient conditions from which systematicity follows, as required of a causal theory. Hence, these approaches fail to fully explain why systematicity is a (near) universal property of human cognition, albeit in restricted contexts. We review an alternative, category theory approach to the systematicity problem. As a mathematical theory of structure, category theory provides necessary and sufficient conditions for systematicity in the form of universal construction: each systematically related cognitive capacity is composed of a common component and a unique component. Moreover, every universal construction can be viewed as the optimal construction in the given context (category). From this view, universal constructions are derived from learning, as an optimization. The ultimate challenge, then, is to explain the determination of context. If context is a category, then a natural extension toward addressing this question is higher-order category theory, where categories themselves are the objects of construction. PMID:27524975

Systematicity and a Categorical Theory of Cognitive Architecture: Universal Construction in Context.

PubMed

Phillips, Steven; Wilson, William H

2016-01-01

Why does the capacity to think certain thoughts imply the capacity to think certain other, structurally related, thoughts? Despite decades of intensive debate, cognitive scientists have yet to reach a consensus on an explanation for this property of cognitive architecture-the basic processes and modes of composition that together afford cognitive capacity-called systematicity. Systematicity is generally considered to involve a capacity to represent/process common structural relations among the equivalently cognizable entities. However, the predominant theoretical approaches to the systematicity problem, i.e., classical (symbolic) and connectionist (subsymbolic), require arbitrary (ad hoc) assumptions to derive systematicity. That is, their core principles and assumptions do not provide the necessary and sufficient conditions from which systematicity follows, as required of a causal theory. Hence, these approaches fail to fully explain why systematicity is a (near) universal property of human cognition, albeit in restricted contexts. We review an alternative, category theory approach to the systematicity problem. As a mathematical theory of structure, category theory provides necessary and sufficient conditions for systematicity in the form of universal construction: each systematically related cognitive capacity is composed of a common component and a unique component. Moreover, every universal construction can be viewed as the optimal construction in the given context (category). From this view, universal constructions are derived from learning, as an optimization. The ultimate challenge, then, is to explain the determination of context. If context is a category, then a natural extension toward addressing this question is higher-order category theory, where categories themselves are the objects of construction.

Use of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines: case study of smoking cessation

PubMed Central

Silagy, C A; Stead, L F; Lancaster, T

2001-01-01

Objective To examine the extent to which recommendations in the national guidelines for the cessation of smoking are based on evidence from systematic reviews of controlled trials. Design Retrospective analysis of recommendations for the national guidelines for the cessation of smoking. Materials National guidelines in clinical practice on smoking cessation published in English. Main outcome measures The type of evidence (systematic review of controlled trials, individual trials, other studies, expert opinion) used to support each recommendation. We also assessed whether a Cochrane systematic review was available and could have been used in formulating the recommendation. Results Four national smoking cessation guidelines (from Canada, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, and the United States) covering 105 recommendations were identified. An explicit evidence base for 100%, 89%, 68%, and 98% of recommendations, respectively, was detected, of which 60%, 56%, 59%, and 47% were based on systematic reviews of controlled studies. Cochrane systematic reviews could have been used to develop between 39% and 73% of recommendations but were actually used in 0% to 36% of recommendations. The UK guidelines had the highest proportion of recommendations based on Cochrane systematic reviews. Conclusions Use of systematic reviews in guidelines is a measure of the “payback” on investment in research synthesis. Systematic reviews commonly underpinned recommendations in guidelines on smoking cessation. The extent to which they were used varied by country and there was evidence of duplication of effort in some areas. Greater international collaboration in developing and maintaining an evidence base of systematic reviews can improve the efficiency of use of research resources. PMID:11597966

[Characteristics of systematic reviews about the impact of pharmacists].

PubMed

Tanguay, C; Guérin, A; Bussières, J-F

2014-11-01

The pharmacists' role is varied and numerous articles evaluate the outcomes of pharmaceutical interventions. The main objectives of this study were to establish the characteristics of systematic reviews about pharmacists' interventions that were published in the last five years. A literature search was performed on Pubmed for French and English articles published between 01-01-2008 and 31-05-2013. Systematic reviews that presented the role, the interventions and the impact of pharmacists were selected by two research assistants. A total of 46 systematic reviews was identified, amongst which one third (n=15/46, 33 %) were meta-analyses. A quarter of systematic reviews did not evaluate the quality of included articles (n=13/46, 28 %). Twelve themes were identified. A median [min-max] of 16 [2-298] articles was included per systematic review. The most frequent pharmaceutical activities were patient counseling (n=41 systematic reviews), patient chart review (n=29), pharmacotherapy evaluation (n=27) and recommendations (n=26). The least frequent activities were teaching others than patients (n=12) and medical rounds participation (n=7). Many elements can influence the completion of pharmacy practice research projects; however, there exists no link between the presence of systematic reviews and the importance of pharmacists in a given healthcare program. This study presents the characteristics of 46 systematic reviews about pharmacists interventions published since 2008. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

Extent and quality of systematic review evidence related to minimum intervention in dentistry: essential oils, powered toothbrushes, triclosan, xylitol.

PubMed

Mickenautsch, Steffen; Yengopal, Veerasamy

2011-08-01

To investigate extent and quality of current systematic review evidence regarding: powered toothbrushes, triclosan toothpaste, essential oil mouthwashes, xylitol chewing gum. Five databases were searched for systematic reviews until 13 November 2010. relevant to topic, systematic review according to title and/or abstract, published in English. Article exclusion criteria were based on QUOROM recommendations for the reporting of systematic review methods. Systematic review quality was judged using the AMSTAR tool. All trials included by reviews were assessed for selection bias. 119 articles were found, of which 11 systematic reviews were included. Of these, six were excluded and five accepted: one for triclosan toothpaste; one for xylitol chewing gum; two for powered toothbrushes; one for essential oil mouthwashes. AMSTAR scores: triclosan toothpaste 7; powered toothbrushes 9 and 11; xylitol chewing gum 9; essential oil mouthwashes 8. In total, 75 (out of 76) reviewed trials were identified. In-depth assessment showed a high risk of selection bias for all trials. The extent of available systematic review evidence is low. Although the few identified systematic reviews could be rated as of medium and high quality, the validity of their conclusions needs to be treated with caution, owing to high risk of selection bias in the reviewed trials. High quality randomised control trials are needed in order to provide convincing evidence regarding true clinical efficacy. © 2011 FDI World Dental Federation.

Issues and Advances in the Systematic Review of Single-Case Research: A Commentary on the Exemplars

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Manolov, Rumen; Guilera, Georgina; Solanas, Antonio

2017-01-01

The current text comments on three systematic reviews published in the special section "Issues and Advances in the Systematic Review of Single-Case Research: An Update and Exemplars." The commentary is provided in relation to the need to combine the assessment of the methodological quality of the studies included in systematic reviews,…

The Internationalization of the Academic Library: A Systematic Review of 25 Years of Literature on International Students

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Click, Amanda B.; Wiley, Claire Walker; Houlihan, Meggan

2017-01-01

This study is a systematic review of the library and information science (LIS) literature related to international students and academic libraries. A systematic review involves the methodical collection and analysis of a body of literature and is growing in popularity in the LIS field. Three well-known LIS databases were systematically searched…

A Systematic Review of Research on Teaching English Language Skills for Saudi EFL Students

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Alsowat, Hamad H.

2017-01-01

This systematic review study sought to examine the teaching of English language skills in Saudi Arabia by systematically analyzing the previous studies on language skills which were published within the past ten years and identify the research areas to be bridged in the future. The study employed the systematic review approach. The search strategy…

A Systematic Approach to Error Free Telemetry

DTIC Science & Technology

2017-06-28

A SYSTEMATIC APPROACH TO ERROR FREE TELEMETRY 412TW-TIM-17-03 DISTRIBUTION A: Approved for public release. Distribution is...Systematic Approach to Error-Free Telemetry) was submitted by the Commander, 412th Test Wing, Edwards AFB, California 93524. Prepared by...Technical Information Memorandum 3. DATES COVERED (From - Through) February 2016 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE A Systematic Approach to Error-Free

Tactical Defenses Against Systematic Variation in Wind Tunnel Testing

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

DeLoach, Richard

2002-01-01

This paper examines the role of unexplained systematic variation on the reproducibility of wind tunnel test results. Sample means and variances estimated in the presence of systematic variations are shown to be susceptible to bias errors that are generally non-reproducible functions of those variations. Unless certain precautions are taken to defend against the effects of systematic variation, it is shown that experimental results can be difficult to duplicate and of dubious value for predicting system response with the highest precision or accuracy that could otherwise be achieved. Results are reported from an experiment designed to estimate how frequently systematic variations are in play in a representative wind tunnel experiment. These results suggest that significant systematic variation occurs frequently enough to cast doubts on the common assumption that sample observations can be reliably assumed to be independent. The consequences of ignoring correlation among observations induced by systematic variation are considered in some detail. Experimental tactics are described that defend against systematic variation. The effectiveness of these tactics is illustrated through computational experiments and real wind tunnel experimental results. Some tutorial information describes how to analyze experimental results that have been obtained using such quality assurance tactics.

Systematic reviews need systematic searchers

PubMed Central

McGowan, Jessie; Sampson, Margaret

2005-01-01

Purpose: This paper will provide a description of the methods, skills, and knowledge of expert searchers working on systematic review teams. Brief Description: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are very important to health care practitioners, who need to keep abreast of the medical literature and make informed decisions. Searching is a critical part of conducting these systematic reviews, as errors made in the search process potentially result in a biased or otherwise incomplete evidence base for the review. Searches for systematic reviews need to be constructed to maximize recall and deal effectively with a number of potentially biasing factors. Librarians who conduct the searches for systematic reviews must be experts. Discussion/Conclusion: Expert searchers need to understand the specifics about data structure and functions of bibliographic and specialized databases, as well as the technical and methodological issues of searching. Search methodology must be based on research about retrieval practices, and it is vital that expert searchers keep informed about, advocate for, and, moreover, conduct research in information retrieval. Expert searchers are an important part of the systematic review team, crucial throughout the review process—from the development of the proposal and research question to publication. PMID:15685278

Methodological quality and reporting of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology.

PubMed

Wasiak, J; Shen, A Y; Ware, R; O'Donohoe, T J; Faggion, C M

2017-10-01

The objective of this study was to assess methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in hand and wrist pathology. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to November 2016 for relevant studies. Reporting quality was evaluated using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and methodological quality using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews, the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Descriptive statistics and linear regression were used to identify features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 91 studies were included in the analysis. Most reviews inadequately reported PRISMA items regarding study protocol, search strategy and bias and AMSTAR items regarding protocol, publication bias and funding. Systematic reviews published in a plastics journal, or which included more authors, were associated with higher AMSTAR scores. A large proportion of systematic reviews within hand and wrist pathology literature score poorly with validated methodological assessment tools, which may affect the reliability of their conclusions. I.

Reliable inference of light curve parameters in the presence of systematics

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Gibson, Neale P.

2016-10-01

Time-series photometry and spectroscopy of transiting exoplanets allow us to study their atmospheres. Unfortunately, the required precision to extract atmospheric information surpasses the design specifications of most general purpose instrumentation. This results in instrumental systematics in the light curves that are typically larger than the target precision. Systematics must therefore be modelled, leaving the inference of light-curve parameters conditioned on the subjective choice of systematics models and model-selection criteria. Here, I briefly review the use of systematics models commonly used for transmission and emission spectroscopy, including model selection, marginalisation over models, and stochastic processes. These form a hierarchy of models with increasing degree of objectivity. I argue that marginalisation over many systematics models is a minimal requirement for robust inference. Stochastic models provide even more flexibility and objectivity, and therefore produce the most reliable results. However, no systematics models are perfect, and the best strategy is to compare multiple methods and repeat observations where possible.

Evidence and Health Policy: Using and Regulating Systematic Reviews.

PubMed

Fox, Daniel M

2017-01-01

Systematic reviews have, increasingly, informed policy for almost 3 decades. In many countries, systematic reviews have informed policy for public and population health, paying for health care, increasing the quality and efficiency of interventions, and improving the effectiveness of health sector professionals and the organizations in which they work. Systematic reviews also inform other policy areas: criminal justice, education, social welfare, and the regulation of toxins in the environment. Although the production and use of systematic reviews has steadily increased, many clinicians, public health officials, representatives of commercial organizations, and, consequently, policymakers who are responsive to them, have been reluctant to use these reviews to inform policy; others have actively opposed using them. Systematic reviews could inform policy more effectively with changes to current practices and the assumptions that sustain these practices-assumptions made by researchers and the organizations that employ them, by public and private funders of systematic reviews, and by organizations that finance, set priorities and standards for, and publish them.

Translating evidence from systematic reviews for policy makers.

PubMed

Nannini, Angela; Houde, Susan Crocker

2010-06-01

Gerontological nurses who have received education and have experience in conducting systematic reviews may assume a key role in interpreting systematic reviews for policy makers. Systematic reviews offer evidence to determine the best policy and program solutions to a problem. To be successful in translating evidence from systematic reviews, gerontological nurses need to (a) understand the steps of the policy making process and where different kinds of reviews may be used, (b) assess the "technical" literacy and level of interest in gerontological issues of the intended policy maker, and (c) develop and practice skills in policy writing that distill information in policy briefs as well as shorter formats. Gerontological nurses can be powerful advocates for older adults using the systematic review of the literature as an instrument to educate policy makers. Copyright 2010, SLACK Incorporated.

Fluoropyrimidine and platinum toxicity pharmacogenetics: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

PubMed

Campbell, Jared M; Bateman, Emma; Peters, Micah Dj; Bowen, Joanne M; Keefe, Dorothy M; Stephenson, Matthew D

2016-03-01

Fluoropyrimidine (FU) and platinum-based chemotherapies are greatly complicated by their associated toxicities. This umbrella systematic review synthesized all systematic reviews that investigated associations between germline variations and toxicity, with the aim of informing personalized medicine. Systematic reviews are important in pharmacogenetics where false positives are common. Four systematic reviews were identified for FU-induced toxicity and three for platinum. Polymorphisms of DPYD and TYMS, but not MTHFR, were statistically significantly associated with FU-induced toxicity (although only DPYD had clinical significance). For platinum, GSTP1 was found to not be associated with toxicity. This umbrella systematic review has synthesized the best available evidence on the pharmacogenetics of FU and platinum toxicity. It provides a useful reference for clinicians and identifies important research gaps.

The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews.

PubMed

Moher, D; Pham, B; Lawson, M L; Klassen, T P

2003-01-01

To assemble a large dataset of language restricted and language inclusive systematic reviews, including both conventional medicinal (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions. To then assess the quality of these reports by considering and comparing different types of systematic reviews and their associated RCTs; CM and CAM interventions; the effect of language restrictions compared with language inclusions, and whether these results are influenced by other issues, including statistical heterogeneity and publication bias, in the systematic review process. MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Centralised Information Service for Complementary Medicine. Three types of systematic reviews were included: language restricted; language inclusive/English language (EL) reviews that searched RCTs in languages other than English (LOE) but did not find any and, hence, could not include any, in the quantitative data synthesis; and systematic reviews that searched for RCTs in LOE and included them in the quantitative data synthesis. Fisher's exact test was applied to compare the three different types of systematic reviews with respect to their reporting characteristics and the systematic review quality assessment tool. The odds ratio of LOE trials versus EL trials was computed for each review and this information was pooled across the reviews to examine the influence that language of publication and type of intervention (CM, CAM) have on the estimates of intervention effect. Several sensitivity analyses were performed. The LOE RCTs were predominantly in French and German. Language inclusive/LOE systematic reviews were of the highest quality compared with the other types of reviews. The CAM reviews were of higher quality compared with the CM reviews. There were only minor differences in the quality of reports of EL RCTs compared with the eight other languages considered. However, there are inconsistent differences in the quality of LOE reports depending on the intervention type. The results, and those reported previously, suggest that excluding reports of RCTs in LOE from the analytical part of a systematic review is reasonable. Because the present research and previous efforts have not included every type of CM RCT and the resulting possibility of the uncertainty as to when bias will be present by excluding LOE, it is always prudent to perform a comprehensive search for all evidence. This result only applies to reviews investigating the benefits of CM interventions. This does not imply that systematic reviewers should neglect reports in LOE. We recommend that systematic reviewers search for reports regardless of the language. There may be merit in including them in some aspects of the review process although this decision is likely to depend on several factors, including fiscal and other resources being available. Language restrictions significantly shift the estimates of an intervention's effectiveness when the intervention is CAM. Here, excluding trials reported in LOE, compared with their inclusion, resulted in a reduced intervention effect. The present results do not appear to be influenced by statistical heterogeneity and publication bias. With the exception of CAM systematic reviews, the quality of recently published systematic reviews is less than optimal. Language inclusive/LOE systematic reviews appear to be a marker for a better quality systematic review. Language restrictions do not appear to bias the estimates of a conventional intervention's effectiveness. However, there is substantial bias in the results of a CAM systematic review if LOE reports are excluded from it.

Perceiving the present: systematization of illusions or illusion of systematization?

PubMed

Briscoe, Robert E

2010-11-01

Mark Changizi et al. (2008) claim that it is possible systematically to organize more than 50 kinds of illusions in a 7 × 4 matrix of 28 classes. This systematization, they further maintain, can be explained by the operation of a single visual processing latency correction mechanism that they call "perceiving the present" (PTP). This brief report raises some concerns about the way a number of illusions are classified by the proposed systematization. It also poses two general problems-one empirical and one conceptual-for the PTP approach. Copyright © 2010 Cognitive Science Society, Inc.

Impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews of pharmaceutical treatments: methodological systematic review and reanalysis of meta-analyses.

PubMed

Baudard, Marie; Yavchitz, Amélie; Ravaud, Philippe; Perrodeau, Elodie; Boutron, Isabelle

2017-02-17

Objective  To evaluate the impact of searching clinical trial registries in systematic reviews. Design  Methodological systematic review and reanalyses of meta-analyses. Data sources  Medline was searched to identify systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing pharmaceutical treatments published between June 2014 and January 2015. For all systematic reviews that did not report a trial registry search but reported the information to perform it, the World Health Organization International Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP search portal) was searched for completed or terminated RCTs not originally included in the systematic review. Data extraction  For each systematic review, two researchers independently extracted the outcomes analysed, the number of patients included, and the treatment effect estimated. For each RCT identified, two researchers independently determined whether the results were available (ie, posted, published, or available on the sponsor website) and extracted the data. When additional data were retrieved, we reanalysed meta-analyses and calculated the weight of the additional RCTs and the change in summary statistics by comparison with the original meta-analysis. Results  Among 223 selected systematic reviews, 116 (52%) did not report a search of trial registries; 21 of these did not report the information to perform the search (key words, search date). A search was performed for 95 systematic reviews; for 54 (57%), no additional RCTs were found and for 41 (43%) 122 additional RCTs were identified. The search allowed for increasing the number of patients by more than 10% in 19 systematic reviews, 20% in 10, 30% in seven, and 50% in four. Moreover, 63 RCTs had results available; the results for 45 could be included in a meta-analysis. 14 systematic reviews including 45 RCTs were reanalysed. The weight of the additional RCTs in the recalculated meta-analyses ranged from 0% to 58% and was greater than 10% in five of 14 systematic reviews, 20% in three, and 50% in one. The change in summary statistics ranged from 0% to 29% and was greater than 10% for five of 14 systematic reviews and greater than 20% for two. However, none of the changes to summary effect estimates led to a qualitative change in the interpretation of the results once the new trials were added. Conclusions  Trial registries are an important source for identifying additional RCTs. The additional number of RCTs and patients included if a search were performed varied across systematic reviews. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Poor methodological quality and reporting standards of systematic reviews in burn care management.

PubMed

Wasiak, Jason; Tyack, Zephanie; Ware, Robert; Goodwin, Nicholas; Faggion, Clovis M

2017-10-01

The methodological and reporting quality of burn-specific systematic reviews has not been established. The aim of this study was to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews in burn care management. Computerised searches were performed in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE and The Cochrane Library through to February 2016 for systematic reviews relevant to burn care using medical subject and free-text terms such as 'burn', 'systematic review' or 'meta-analysis'. Additional studies were identified by hand-searching five discipline-specific journals. Two authors independently screened papers, extracted and evaluated methodological quality using the 11-item A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and reporting quality using the 27-item Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist. Characteristics of systematic reviews associated with methodological and reporting quality were identified. Descriptive statistics and linear regression identified features associated with improved methodological quality. A total of 60 systematic reviews met the inclusion criteria. Six of the 11 AMSTAR items reporting on 'a priori' design, duplicate study selection, grey literature, included/excluded studies, publication bias and conflict of interest were reported in less than 50% of the systematic reviews. Of the 27 items listed for PRISMA, 13 items reporting on introduction, methods, results and the discussion were addressed in less than 50% of systematic reviews. Multivariable analyses showed that systematic reviews associated with higher methodological or reporting quality incorporated a meta-analysis (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2.1; 95% CI: 1.1, 3.1; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·3; 95% CI: 3·8, 8·7) were published in the Cochrane library (AMSTAR regression coefficient 2·9; 95% CI: 1·6, 4·2; PRISMA regression coefficient 6·1; 95% CI: 3·1, 9·2) and included a randomised control trial (AMSTAR regression coefficient 1·4; 95%CI: 0·4, 2·4; PRISMA regression coefficient 3·4; 95% CI: 0·9, 5·8). The methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews in burn care requires further improvement with stricter adherence by authors to the PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR tool. © 2016 Medicalhelplines.com Inc and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: a comparison of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews in assisted reproductive technologies.

PubMed

Windsor, B; Popovich, I; Jordan, V; Showell, M; Shea, B; Farquhar, C

2012-12-01

Are there differences in the methodological quality of Cochrane systematic reviews (CRs) and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (NCRs) of assisted reproductive technologies? CRs on assisted reproduction are of higher methodological quality than similar reviews published in other journals. The quality of systematic reviews varies. This was a cross-sectional study of 30 CR and 30 NCR systematic reviews that were randomly selected from the eligible reviews identified from a literature search for the years 2007-2011. We extracted data on the reporting and methodological characteristics of the included systematic reviews. We assessed the methodological quality of the reviews using the 11-domain Measurement Tool to Assess the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and subsequently compared CR and NCR systematic reviews. The AMSTAR quality assessment found that CRs were superior to NCRs. For 10 of 11 AMSTAR domains, the requirements were met in >50% of CRs, but only 4 of 11 domains showed requirements being met in >50% of NCRs. The strengths of CRs are the a priori study design, comprehensive literature search, explicit lists of included and excluded studies and assessments of internal validity. Significant failings in the CRs were found in duplicate study selection and data extraction (67% meeting requirements), assessment for publication bias (53% meeting requirements) and reporting of conflicts of interest (47% meeting requirements). NCRs were more likely to contain methodological weaknesses as the majority of the domains showed <40% of reviews meeting requirements, e.g. a priori study design (17%), duplicate study selection and data extraction (17%), assessment of study quality (27%), study quality in the formulation of conclusions (23%) and reporting of conflict of interests (10%). The AMSTAR assessment can only judge what is reported by authors. Although two of the five authors are involved in the production of CRs, the risk of bias was reduced by not involving these authors in the assessment of the systematic review quality. Not all systematic reviews are equal. The reader needs to consider the quality of the systematic review when they consider the results and the conclusions of a systematic review. There are no conflicts with any commercial organization. Funding was provided for the students by the summer studentship programme of the Faculty of Medical and Health Sciences of the University of Auckland.

Mission Drift in Qualitative Research, or Moving Toward a Systematic Review of Qualitative Studies, Moving Back to a More Systematic Narrative Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Jones, Kip

2004-01-01

The paper argues that the systematic review of qualitative research is best served by reliance upon qualitative methods themselves. A case is made for strengthening the narrative literature review and using narrative itself as a method of review. A technique is proposed that builds upon recent developments in qualitative systematic review by the…

Reporting Quality of Search Methods in Systematic Reviews of HIV Behavioral Interventions (2000-2010): Are the Searches Clearly Explained, Systematic and Reproducible?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mullins, Mary M.; DeLuca, Julia B.; Crepaz, Nicole; Lyles, Cynthia M.

2014-01-01

Systematic reviews are an essential tool for researchers, prevention providers and policy makers who want to remain current with the evidence in the field. Systematic review must adhere to strict standards, as the results can provide a more objective appraisal of evidence for making scientific decisions than traditional narrative reviews. An…

The Quality of Systematic Reviews in Head and Neck Microsurgery: A Perspective from Plastic Surgery and Otolaryngology.

PubMed

Sun, Beatrice J; Tijerina, Jonathan; Nazerali, Rahim S; Lee, Gordon K

2018-05-01

In recent years, there has been a push to publish higher level of evidence studies in medicine, particularly in plastic surgery. Well-conducted systematic reviews are considered the strongest level of evidence in medicine, recently becoming the key process indicators for quality delivery. A varying quality of systematic reviews, however, has led to concerns of their validity in clinical decision-making. We perform a quality analysis of systematic reviews published in head and neck microsurgery by the surgical specialties of plastic surgery and otolaryngology. An evaluation of systematic reviews published on microsurgery in 13 high-impact surgical journals was conducted by searching PubMed and Scopus. Two authors independently performed searches, screened for eligibility, and extracted data from included articles. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion and consensus. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria were used to assess methodological quality. The initial database search retrieved 166 articles. After removing duplicates, screening titles and abstracts, 26 articles remained for full text review. Seven did not focus on head and neck microsurgery and were further excluded, leaving 19 systematic reviews for final analysis. Of those, 10 systematic reviews were published by otolaryngology, and 9 were published by plastic surgery. Median AMSTAR score was 8 for otolaryngology, 7 for plastic surgery, and 8 overall, reflecting "fair to good" quality. The number of systematic reviews on head and neck microsurgery markedly increased over time. Of note, both the AMSTAR score and the number of systematic reviews published by plastic surgery have steadily increased from 2014 to 2016, whereas those published by otolaryngology have remained relatively stable since 2010. Our review shows a trend toward publishing more systematic reviews. The increasing quantity and quality of systematic reviews published by plastic surgeons indicates recognition in the need for higher levels of evidence in plastic surgery, as well as growing interest and advances in microsurgery. Given these trends, familiarity with quality assessment guidelines, such as AMSTAR, will remain important in providing a basis for building relevant value-based quality measures.

Systematic Review Methodology for the Fatigue in Emergency Medical Services Project.

PubMed

Patterson, P Daniel; Higgins, J Stephen; Weiss, Patricia M; Lang, Eddy; Martin-Gill, Christian

2018-02-15

Guidance for managing fatigue in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) setting is limited. The Fatigue in EMS Project sought to complete multiple systematic reviews guided by seven explicit research questions, assemble the best available evidence, and rate the quality of that evidence for purposes of producing an Evidence Based Guideline (EBG) for fatigue risk management in EMS operations. We completed seven systematic reviews that involved searches of six databases for literature relevant to seven research questions. These questions were developed a priori by an expert panel and framed in the Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome (PICO) format and pre-registered with PROSPERO. Our target population was defined as persons 18 years of age and older classified as EMS personnel or similar shift worker groups. A panel of experts selected outcomes for each PICO question as prescribed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We pooled findings, stratified by study design (experimental vs. observational) and presented results of each systematic review in narrative and quantitative form. We used meta-analyses of select outcomes to generate pooled effects. We used the GRADE methodology and the GRADEpro software to designate a quality of evidence rating for each outcome. We present the results for each systematic review in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). More than 38,000 records were screened across seven systematic reviews. The median, minimum, and maximum inter-rater agreements (Kappa) between screeners for our seven systematic reviews were 0.66, 0.49, and 0.88, respectively. The median, minimum, and maximum number of records retained for the seven systematic reviews was 13, 1, and 100, respectively. We present key findings in GRADE Evidence Profile Tables in separate publications for each systematic review. We describe a protocol for conducting multiple, simultaneous systematic reviews connected to fatigue with the goal of creating an EBG for fatigue risk management in the EMS setting. Our approach may be informative to others challenged with the creation of EBGs that address multiple, inter-related systematic reviews with overlapping outcomes.

Nature and reporting characteristics of UK health technology assessment systematic reviews.

PubMed

Carroll, Christopher; Kaltenthaler, Eva

2018-05-08

A recent study by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028) claimed that increasing numbers of reviews are being published and many are poorly-conducted and reported. The aim of the present study was to assess how well reporting standards of systematic reviews produced in a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) context compare with reporting in Cochrane and other 'non-Cochrane' systematic reviews from the same years (2004 and 2014), as reported by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). All relevant UK HTA programme systematic reviews published in 2004 and 2014 were identified. After piloting of the form, two reviewers each extracted relevant data on conduct and reporting from these reviews. These data were compared with data for Cochrane and "non-Cochrane" systematic reviews, as published by Page et al. (PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028). All data were tabulated and summarized. There were 30 UK HTA programme systematic reviews and 300 other systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews (n = 45). The percentage of HTA reviews with required elements of conduct and reporting was frequently very similar to Cochrane and much higher than all other systematic reviews, e.g. availability of protocols (90, 98 and 16% respectively); the specification of study design criteria (100, 100, 79%); the reporting of outcomes (100, 100, 78%), quality assessment (100, 100, 70%); the searching of trial registries for unpublished data (70, 62, 19%); reporting of reasons for excluding studies (91, 91 and 70%) and reporting of authors' conflicts of interests (100, 100, 87%). HTA reviews only compared less favourably with Cochrane and other reviews in assessments of publication bias. UK HTA systematic reviews are often produced within a specific policy-making context. This context has implications for timelines, tools and resources. However, UK HTA systematic reviews still tend to present standards of conduct and reporting equivalent to "gold standard" Cochrane reviews and superior to systematic reviews more generally.

A bibliometric analysis of systematic reviews on vaccines and immunisation.

PubMed

Fernandes, Silke; Jit, Mark; Bozzani, Fiammetta; Griffiths, Ulla K; Scott, J Anthony G; Burchett, Helen E D

2018-04-19

SYSVAC is an online bibliographic database of systematic reviews and systematic review protocols on vaccines and immunisation compiled by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and hosted by the World Health Organization (WHO) through their National Immunization Technical Advisory Groups (NITAG) resource centre (www.nitag-resource.org). Here the development of the database and a bibliometric review of its content is presented, describing trends in the publication of policy-relevant systematic reviews on vaccines and immunisation from 2008 to 2016. Searches were conducted in seven scientific databases according to a standardized search protocol, initially in 2014 with the most recent update in January 2017. Abstracts and titles were screened according to specific inclusion criteria. All included publications were coded into relevant categories based on a standardized protocol and subsequently analysed to look at trends in time, topic, area of focus, population and geographic location. After screening for inclusion criteria, 1285 systematic reviews were included in the database. While in 2008 there were only 34 systematic reviews on a vaccine-related topic, this increased to 322 in 2016. The most frequent pathogens/diseases studied were influenza, human papillomavirus and pneumococcus. There were several areas of duplication and overlap. As more systematic reviews are published it becomes increasingly time-consuming for decision-makers to identify relevant information among the ever-increasing volume available. The risk of duplication also increases, particularly given the current lack of coordination of systematic reviews on vaccine-related questions, both in terms of their commissioning and their execution. The SYSVAC database offers an accessible catalogue of vaccine-relevant systematic reviews with, where possible access or a link to the full-text. SYSVAC provides a freely searchable platform to identify existing vaccine-policy-relevant systematic reviews. Systematic reviews will need to be assessed adequately for each specific question and quality. Copyright © 2018. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer.

PubMed

Créquit, Perrine; Trinquart, Ludovic; Yavchitz, Amélie; Ravaud, Philippe

2016-01-20

Multiple treatments are frequently available for a given condition, and clinicians and patients need a comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of evidence for all competing treatments. We aimed to quantify the waste of research related to the failure of systematic reviews to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis over time. We performed a series of systematic overviews and networks of randomized trials assessing the gap between evidence covered by systematic reviews and available trials of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and other resources sequentially by year from 2009 to March 2, 2015. We sequentially compared the amount of evidence missing from systematic reviews to the randomized evidence available for inclusion each year. We constructed cumulative networks of randomized evidence over time and evaluated the proportion of trials, patients, treatments, and treatment comparisons not covered by systematic reviews on December 31 each year from 2009 to 2015. We identified 77 trials (28,636 patients) assessing 47 treatments with 54 comparisons and 29 systematic reviews (13 published after 2013). From 2009 to 2015, the evidence covered by existing systematic reviews was consistently incomplete: 45 % to 70 % of trials; 30 % to 58 % of patients; 40 % to 66 % of treatments; and 38 % to 71 % of comparisons were missing. In the cumulative networks of randomized evidence, 10 % to 17 % of treatment comparisons were partially covered by systematic reviews and 55 % to 85 % were partially or not covered. We illustrate how systematic reviews of a given condition provide a fragmented, out-of-date panorama of the evidence for all treatments. This waste of research might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses.

Compliance of systematic reviews articles in brain arteriovenous malformation with PRISMA statement guidelines: Review of literature.

PubMed

Akhigbe, T; Zolnourian, A; Bulters, D

2017-05-01

The knowledge of reporting compliance of systematic reviews with PRISMA guidelines may assist in improving the quality of secondary research in brain AVM management and subsequently application to patient population and clinical practice. This may allow researchers and clinicians to be equipped to appraise existing literatures based on known deficit to look for or expect. The objective of this study was to assess the compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in the management of brain AVM. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses articles published in medical journals between 1st of May 2011 and 30th April 2016 (five-year period) were examined. Exclusion criteria were articles that were not systematic reviews and not meta-analyses, narrative literature reviews, historical literature reviews, animal studies, unpublished articles, commentaries and letter to the editor. Electronic database search performed through Medline PubMed on 20th September 2016. This systematic review examined seven systematic review articles on intracranial arteriovenous malformation compliance with PRISMA statement guidelines. The mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items across all studies was 74% (range 67-93%). Protocol registration and declaration, risk of bias and funding sources were the most poorly reported of the PRISMA items (14% each). A significant variance in the total percentages was evident between studies (67-93%). Systematic review reporting in medical literature is excessively variable and overall poor. As these papers are being published with increasing frequency, need to fully adhere to PRISMA statement guide for systematic review to ensure high-quality publications. Complete reporting of PRISMA items within systematic reviews in cerebral arteriovenous malformation enhance quality assessment, robust critical appraisal, better judgement and ultimately sound application to practice thereby improving research standards and patients care. Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children: quantity, coverage and quality.

PubMed

McGee, Richard G; Craig, Jonathan C; Rogerson, Thomas E; Webster, Angela C

2013-04-01

Systematic reviews have the potential to map those areas where children are under-represented in surgical research. We aimed to describe and evaluate the quantity, coverage and the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children. We searched four biomedical databases, a systematic review register, reference lists and conducted hand searching to identify relevant reviews. Two reviewers worked independently to critically appraise included studies and abstract data. We assessed reporting quality using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis statement and methodological quality using the Assessment of Multiple SysTemAtic Reviews tool. Fifteen systematic reviews were identified, representing 0.01% of all paediatric surgical citations in MEDLINE and Embase. Thirteen of the reviews were Cochrane reviews, and most reviews (12/15) addressed subspecialty interests such as otorhinolaryngology. The median number of included trials per systematic review was four (interquartile range 1 to 9.5), the median number of primary outcomes was 5.5 (interquartile range 3.5 to 7.5). In general, reporting and methodological quality was good although there were several omissions, particularly around completeness of reporting of statistical methods used, and utilisation of quality assessments in analyses. Outcomes were often not clearly defined and descriptions of procedures lacked sufficient detail to determine the similarities and differences among surgical procedures within the contributing trials. Systematic reviews of surgical procedures in children are rarely published. To improve the evidence base and guide research agendas, more systematic reviews should be conducted, using standard guidelines for conduct and reporting. © 2013 The Authors. Journal of Paediatrics and Child Health © 2013 Paediatrics and Child Health Division (Royal Australasian College of Physicians).

Does consideration and assessment of effects on health equity affect the conclusions of systematic reviews? A methodology study.

PubMed

Welch, Vivian; Petticrew, Mark; Ueffing, Erin; Benkhalti Jandu, Maria; Brand, Kevin; Dhaliwal, Bharbhoor; Kristjansson, Elizabeth; Smylie, Janet; Wells, George Anthony; Tugwell, Peter

2012-01-01

Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research. We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion. Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity. The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews.

Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized.

PubMed

Saleh, Ahlam A; Ratajeski, Melissa A; Bertolet, Marnie

To identify estimates of time taken to search grey literature in support of health sciences systematic reviews and to identify searcher or systematic review characteristics that may impact resource selection or time spent searching. A survey was electronically distributed to searchers embarking on a new systematic review. Characteristics of the searcher and systematic review were collected along with time spent searching and what resources were searched. Time and resources were tabulated and resources were categorized as grey or non-grey. Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Out of 81 original respondents, 21% followed through with completion of the surveys in their entirety. The median time spent searching all resources was 471 minutes, and of those a median of 85 minutes were spent searching grey literature. The median number of resources used in a systematic review search was four and the median number of grey literature sources searched was two. The amount of time spent searching was influenced by whether the systematic review was grant funded. Additionally, the number of resources searched was impacted by institution type and whether systematic review training was received. This study characterized the amount of time for conducting systematic review searches including searching the grey literature, in addition to the number and types of resources used. This may aid searchers in planning their time, along with providing benchmark information for future studies. This paper contributes by quantifying current grey literature search patterns and associating them with searcher and review characteristics. Further discussion and research into the search approach for grey literature in support of systematic reviews is encouraged.

Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized

PubMed Central

Saleh, Ahlam A.; Ratajeski, Melissa A.; Bertolet, Marnie

2015-01-01

Objective To identify estimates of time taken to search grey literature in support of health sciences systematic reviews and to identify searcher or systematic review characteristics that may impact resource selection or time spent searching. Methods A survey was electronically distributed to searchers embarking on a new systematic review. Characteristics of the searcher and systematic review were collected along with time spent searching and what resources were searched. Time and resources were tabulated and resources were categorized as grey or non-grey. Data was analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis tests. Results Out of 81 original respondents, 21% followed through with completion of the surveys in their entirety. The median time spent searching all resources was 471 minutes, and of those a median of 85 minutes were spent searching grey literature. The median number of resources used in a systematic review search was four and the median number of grey literature sources searched was two. The amount of time spent searching was influenced by whether the systematic review was grant funded. Additionally, the number of resources searched was impacted by institution type and whether systematic review training was received. Conclusions This study characterized the amount of time for conducting systematic review searches including searching the grey literature, in addition to the number and types of resources used. This may aid searchers in planning their time, along with providing benchmark information for future studies. This paper contributes by quantifying current grey literature search patterns and associating them with searcher and review characteristics. Further discussion and research into the search approach for grey literature in support of systematic reviews is encouraged. PMID:25914722

The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants for caries prevention

PubMed Central

MICKENAUTSCH, Steffen; YENGOPAL, Veerasamy

2013-01-01

Objective To demonstrate the application of the modified Ottawa method by establishing the update need of a systematic review with focus on the caries preventive effect of GIC versus resin pit and fissure sealants; to answer the question as to whether the existing conclusions of this systematic review are still current; to establish whether a new update of this systematic review was needed. Methods: Application of the Modified Ottawa method. Application date: April/May 2012. Results Four signals aligned with the criteria of the modified Ottawa method were identified. The content of these signals suggest that higher precision of the current systematic review results might be achieved if an update of the current review were conducted at this point in time. However, these signals further indicate that such systematic review update, despite its higher precision, would only confirm the existing review conclusion that no statistically significant difference exists in the caries-preventive effect of GIC and resin-based fissure sealants. Conclusion In conclusion, this study demonstrated the modified Ottawa method as an effective tool in establishing the update need of the systematic review. In addition, it was established that the conclusions of the systematic review in relation to the caries preventive effect of GIC versus resin based fissure sealants are still current, and that no update of this systematic review was warranted at date of application. PMID:24212996

Ambiguity of non-systematic chemical identifiers within and between small-molecule databases.

PubMed

Akhondi, Saber A; Muresan, Sorel; Williams, Antony J; Kors, Jan A

2015-01-01

A wide range of chemical compound databases are currently available for pharmaceutical research. To retrieve compound information, including structures, researchers can query these chemical databases using non-systematic identifiers. These are source-dependent identifiers (e.g., brand names, generic names), which are usually assigned to the compound at the point of registration. The correctness of non-systematic identifiers (i.e., whether an identifier matches the associated structure) can only be assessed manually, which is cumbersome, but it is possible to automatically check their ambiguity (i.e., whether an identifier matches more than one structure). In this study we have quantified the ambiguity of non-systematic identifiers within and between eight widely used chemical databases. We also studied the effect of chemical structure standardization on reducing the ambiguity of non-systematic identifiers. The ambiguity of non-systematic identifiers within databases varied from 0.1 to 15.2 % (median 2.5 %). Standardization reduced the ambiguity only to a small extent for most databases. A wide range of ambiguity existed for non-systematic identifiers that are shared between databases (17.7-60.2 %, median of 40.3 %). Removing stereochemistry information provided the largest reduction in ambiguity across databases (median reduction 13.7 percentage points). Ambiguity of non-systematic identifiers within chemical databases is generally low, but ambiguity of non-systematic identifiers that are shared between databases, is high. Chemical structure standardization reduces the ambiguity to a limited extent. Our findings can help to improve database integration, curation, and maintenance.

Making the Most of What We Already Know: A Three-Stage Approach to Systematic Reviewing.

PubMed

Rebelo Da Silva, Natalie; Zaranyika, Hazel; Langer, Laurenz; Randall, Nicola; Muchiri, Evans; Stewart, Ruth

2016-09-06

Conducting a systematic review in social policy is a resource-intensive process in terms of time and funds. It is thus important to understand the scope of the evidence base of a topic area prior to conducting a synthesis of primary research in order to maximize these resources. One approach to conserving resources is to map out the available evidence prior to undertaking a traditional synthesis. A few examples of this approach exist in the form of gap maps, overviews of reviews, and systematic maps supported by social policy and systematic review agencies alike. Despite this growing call for alternative approaches to systematic reviews, it is still common for systematic review teams to embark on a traditional in-depth review only. This article describes a three-stage approach to systematic reviewing that was applied to a systematic review focusing in interventions for smallholder farmers in Africa. We argue that this approach proved useful in helping us to understand the evidence base. By applying preliminary steps as part of a three-stage approach, we were able to maximize the resources needed to conduct a traditional systematic review on a more focused research question. This enabled us to identify and fill real knowledge gaps, build on work that had already been done, and avoid wasting resources on areas of work that would have no useful outcome. It also facilitated meaningful engagement between the review team and our key policy stakeholders. © The Author(s) 2016.

Systematic text condensation: a strategy for qualitative analysis.

PubMed

Malterud, Kirsti

2012-12-01

To present background, principles, and procedures for a strategy for qualitative analysis called systematic text condensation and discuss this approach compared with related strategies. Giorgi's psychological phenomenological analysis is the point of departure and inspiration for systematic text condensation. The basic elements of Giorgi's method and the elaboration of these in systematic text condensation are presented, followed by a detailed description of procedures for analysis according to systematic text condensation. Finally, similarities and differences compared with other frequently applied methods for qualitative analysis are identified, as the foundation of a discussion of strengths and limitations of systematic text condensation. Systematic text condensation is a descriptive and explorative method for thematic cross-case analysis of different types of qualitative data, such as interview studies, observational studies, and analysis of written texts. The method represents a pragmatic approach, although inspired by phenomenological ideas, and various theoretical frameworks can be applied. The procedure consists of the following steps: 1) total impression - from chaos to themes; 2) identifying and sorting meaning units - from themes to codes; 3) condensation - from code to meaning; 4) synthesizing - from condensation to descriptions and concepts. Similarities and differences comparing systematic text condensation with other frequently applied qualitative methods regarding thematic analysis, theoretical methodological framework, analysis procedures, and taxonomy are discussed. Systematic text condensation is a strategy for analysis developed from traditions shared by most of the methods for analysis of qualitative data. The method offers the novice researcher a process of intersubjectivity, reflexivity, and feasibility, while maintaining a responsible level of methodological rigour.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

PubMed Central

Liberati, Alessandro; Altman, Douglas G; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Mulrow, Cynthia; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Ioannidis, John P A; Clarke, Mike; Devereaux, P J; Kleijnen, Jos; Moher, David

2009-01-01

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PMID:19622552

Utilization of Clinical Trials Registries in Obstetrics and Gynecology Systematic Reviews.

PubMed

Bibens, Michael E; Chong, A Benjamin; Vassar, Matt

2016-02-01

To evaluate the use of clinical trials registries in published obstetrics and gynecologic systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We performed a metaepidemiologic study of systematic reviews between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2015, from six obstetric and gynecologic journals (Obstetrics & Gynecology, Obstetrical & Gynecological Survey, Human Reproduction Update, Gynecologic Oncology, British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, and American Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology). All systematic reviews included after exclusions were independently reviewed to determine whether clinical trials registries had been included as part of the search process. Studies that reported using a trials registry were further examined to determine whether trial data were included in the analysis of these systematic reviews. Our initial search resulted in 292 articles, which was narrowed to 256 after exclusions. Of the 256 systematic reviews meeting our selection criteria, 47 (18.4%) used a clinical trials registry. Eleven of the 47 (23.4%) systematic reviews found unpublished data and two included unpublished data in their results. A majority of systematic reviews in clinical obstetrics and gynecology journals do not conduct searches of clinical trials registries or do not make use of data obtained from these searches. Failure to make use of such data may lead to an inaccurate summary of available evidence and may contribute to an overrepresentation of published, statistically significant outcomes.

Systematic searching for theory to inform systematic reviews: is it feasible? Is it desirable?

PubMed

Booth, Andrew; Carroll, Christopher

2015-09-01

In recognising the potential value of theory in understanding how interventions work comes a challenge - how to make identification of theory less haphazard? To explore the feasibility of systematic identification of theory. We searched PubMed for published reviews (1998-2012) that had explicitly sought to identify theory. Systematic searching may be characterised by a structured question, methodological filters and an itemised search procedure. We constructed a template (BeHEMoTh - Behaviour of interest; Health context; Exclusions; Models or Theories) for use when systematically identifying theory. The authors tested the template within two systematic reviews. Of 34 systematic reviews, only 12 reviews (35%) reported a method for identifying theory. Nineteen did not specify how they identified studies containing theory. Data were unavailable for three reviews. Candidate terms include concept(s)/conceptual, framework(s), model(s), and theory/theories/theoretical. Information professionals must overcome inadequate reporting and the use of theory out of context. The review team faces an additional concern in lack of 'theory fidelity'. Based on experience with two systematic reviews, the BeHEMoTh template and procedure offers a feasible and useful approach for identification of theory. Applications include realist synthesis, framework synthesis or review of complex interventions. The procedure requires rigorous evaluation. © 2015 Health Libraries Group.

Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis.

PubMed

Moher, David

2015-11-02

Systematic reviews are popular. A recent estimate indicates that 11 new systematic reviews are published daily. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that the quality of reporting of systematic reviews is not optimal. One likely reason is that the authors' reports have received inadequate peer review. There are now many different types of systematic reviews and peer reviewing them can be enhanced by using a reporting guideline to supplement whatever template the journal editors have asked you, as a peer reviewer, to use. Additionally, keeping up with the current literature, whether as a content expert or being aware of advances in systematic review methods is likely be make for a more comprehensive and effective peer review. Providing a brief summary of what the systematic review has reported is an important first step in the peer review process (and not performed frequently enough). At its core, it provides the authors with some sense of what the peer reviewer believes was performed (Methods) and found (Results). Importantly, it also provides clarity regarding any potential problems in the methods, including statistical approaches for meta-analysis, results, and interpretation of the systematic review, for which the peer reviewer can seek explanations from the authors; these clarifications are best presented as questions to the authors.

Epidemiology characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine nursing interventions published in Chinese journals.

PubMed

Yang, Min; Jiang, Li; Wang, Aihong; Xu, Guihua

2017-02-01

To evaluate the epidemiological characteristics, reporting characteristics, and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the traditional Chinese medicine nursing field published in Chinese journals. The number of systematic reviews in the traditional Chinese medicine nursing field has increased, but their epidemiology, quality, and reporting characteristics have not been assessed completely. We generated an overview of reviews using a narrative approach. Four Chinese databases were searched for systematic reviews from inception to December 2015. The Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews checklists were adopted to evaluate reporting and methodological quality, respectively. A total of 73 eligible systematic reviews, published from 2005 to 2015, were included. The deficiencies in reporting characteristics mainly lay in the lack of structured abstract or protocol, incomplete reporting of search strategies, study selection, and risk of bias. The deficiencies in methodological quality were reflected in the lack of a priori design and conflict of interest, incomplete literature searches, and assessment of publication bias. The quality of the evaluated reviews was unsatisfactory; attention should be paid to the improvement of reporting and methodological quality in the conduct of systematic reviews. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

Is the coverage of google scholar enough to be used alone for systematic reviews

PubMed Central

2013-01-01

Background In searches for clinical trials and systematic reviews, it is said that Google Scholar (GS) should never be used in isolation, but in addition to PubMed, Cochrane, and other trusted sources of information. We therefore performed a study to assess the coverage of GS specifically for the studies included in systematic reviews and evaluate if GS was sensitive enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Methods All the original studies included in 29 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database Syst Rev or in the JAMA in 2009 were gathered in a gold standard database. GS was searched for all these studies one by one to assess the percentage of studies which could have been identified by searching only GS. Results All the 738 original studies included in the gold standard database were retrieved in GS (100%). Conclusion The coverage of GS for the studies included in the systematic reviews is 100%. If the authors of the 29 systematic reviews had used only GS, no reference would have been missed. With some improvement in the research options, to increase its precision, GS could become the leading bibliographic database in medicine and could be used alone for systematic reviews. PMID:23302542

Consistency and accuracy of indexing systematic review articles and meta-analyses in medline.

PubMed

Wilczynski, Nancy L; Haynes, R Brian

2009-09-01

Systematic review articles support the advance of science and translation of research evidence into healthcare practice. Inaccurate retrieval from medline could limit access to reviews. To determine the quality of indexing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in medline. The Clinical Hedges Database, containing the results of a hand search of 161 journals, was used to test medline indexing terms for their ability to retrieve systematic reviews that met predefined methodologic criteria (labelled as 'pass' review articles) and reviews that reported a meta-analysis. The Clinical Hedges Database contained 49 028 articles; 753 were 'pass' review articles (552 with a meta-analysis). In total 758 review articles (independent of whether they passed) reported a meta-analysis. The search strategy that retrieved the highest number of 'pass' systematic reviews achieved a sensitivity of 97.1%. The publication type 'meta analysis' had a false positive rate of 5.6% (95% CI 3.9 to 7.6), and false negative rate of 0.31% (95% CI 0.26 to 0.36) for retrieving systematic reviews that reported a meta-analysis. Inaccuracies in indexing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in medline can be partly overcome by a 5-term search strategy. Introducing a publication type for systematic reviews of the literature could improve retrieval performance.

[Reevaluation for systematic reviews for traditional Chinese medicine injections for coronary disease].

PubMed

Yin, Xiu-Ping; Xie, Yan-Ming; Liao, Xing; Luo, Man

2016-11-01

To reevaluate the systematic reviews for traditional Chinese medicine(TCM) injections for treating coronary disease, data in four Chinese databases and PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Wed of Science OVID from inception until May 2016 were searched. We extracted data according to the AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of included literatures. A total of 69 systematic reviews were included, involving 24 TCM injections, which showed certain efficacy in treating coronary disease, and whose main outcome indexes included alleviation of symptoms of angina pectoris and electrocardiogram. In all of the systematic reviews, the duration of follow-up were not reported. Six systematic reviews reported TCM typing. In the 44 system reviews, 1 335 reports mentioned 4 137 adverse events. According to the results of AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists, the quality assessment scores about included studies were not high, and most of the systematic reviews suffered heterogeneity and irrational processing of forest plots. In conclusion, TCM injections in the treatment of coronary disease have a wide range and positive effects. However, affected by the low quality of systematic reviews and the production of reevaluation, the study had some limitations. Therefore, the systematic reviews shall be further improved, in order to provide more advanced clinical evidences to clinicians. Copyright© by the Chinese Pharmaceutical Association.

Systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions frequently consider patient-important outcomes.

PubMed

Ameur, Hayet; Ravaud, Philippe; Fayard, Florence; Riveros, Carolina; Dechartres, Agnes

2017-04-01

To determine whether recently published and ongoing systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions assess patient-important outcomes. For this methodological review, we searched MEDLINE via PubMed for recently published systematic reviews and online registry of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) for ongoing systematic reviews. We selected systematic reviews with meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. We extracted all outcomes defined in the methods section and categorized them. Mortality, other clinical events, pain, quality of life, function, and therapeutic decisions were considered patient-important outcomes. We included 420 systematic reviews: 90 Cochrane reviews, 200 other published reviews, and 130 registered ongoing reviews. Primary outcomes were defined in 85 Cochrane reviews (95%), 98 (49%) other published reviews and all ongoing reviews. At least one patient-important outcome was defined as a primary outcome in 81/85 Cochrane reviews (95%), 78/98 other published reviews (80%), and 117/130 ongoing reviews (90%). Considering all outcomes assessed, at least one patient-important outcome was evaluated in 90/90 Cochrane reviews (100%), 189/200 other published reviews (95%), and 121/130 ongoing reviews (93%). Most recent systematic reviews aim to assess patient-important outcomes, which contrasts with RCTs. These results suggest some important gaps between primary and secondary research. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Tutorial for writing systematic reviews for the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (BJPT)

PubMed Central

Mancini, Marisa C.; Cardoso, Jefferson R.; Sampaio, Rosana F.; Costa, Lucíola C. M.; Cabral, Cristina M. N.; Costa, Leonardo O. P.

2014-01-01

Systematic reviews aim to summarize all evidence using very rigorous methods in order to address a specific research question with less bias as possible. Systematic reviews are widely used in the field of physical therapy, however not all reviews have good quality. This tutorial aims to guide authors of the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy on how systematic reviews should be conducted and reported in order to be accepted for publication. It is expected that this tutorial will help authors of systematic reviews as well as journal editors and reviewers on how to conduct, report, critically appraise and interpret this type of study design. PMID:25590440

Tutorial for writing systematic reviews for the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy (BJPT).

PubMed

Mancini, Marisa C; Cardoso, Jefferson R; Sampaio, Rosana F; Costa, Lucíola C M; Cabral, Cristina M N; Costa, Leonardo O P

2014-01-01

Systematic reviews aim to summarize all evidence using very rigorous methods in order to address a specific research question with less bias as possible. Systematic reviews are widely used in the field of physical therapy, however not all reviews have good quality. This tutorial aims to guide authors of the Brazilian Journal of Physical Therapy on how systematic reviews should be conducted and reported in order to be accepted for publication. It is expected that this tutorial will help authors of systematic reviews as well as journal editors and reviewers on how to conduct, report, critically appraise and interpret this type of study design.

43 CFR 11.72 - Quantification phase-baseline services determination.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-10-01

... taxonomist or systematic biologist, who has access to a major systematic biology collection for that taxon... time it should be transferred to a major systematic biology collection; or (iii) In the case of a...

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 7: PRISMA-CI elaboration and explanation.

PubMed

Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Butler, Mary; Chang, Christine; Viswanathan, Meera; Pigott, Terri; Tugwell, Peter

2017-10-01

Complex interventions are widely used in health care, public health, education, criminology, social work, business, and welfare. They have increasingly become the subject of systematic reviews and are challenging to effectively report. The Complex Interventions Methods Workgroup developed an extension to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Complex Interventions (PRISMA-CI). Following the EQUATOR Network guidance for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extensions, this Explanation and Elaboration (EE) document accompanies the PRISMA-CI checklist to promote consistency in reporting of systematic reviews of complex interventions. The EE document explains the meaning and rationale for each unique PRISMA-CI checklist item and provides examples to assist systematic review authors in operationalizing PRISMA-CI guidance. The Complex Interventions Workgroup developed PRISMA-CI as an important start toward increased consistency in reporting of systematic reviews of complex interventions. Because the field is rapidly expanding, the Complex Interventions Methods Workgroup plans to re-evaluate periodically for the need to add increasing specificity and examples as the field matures. Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004).

PubMed

Flores-Mir, Carlos; Major, Michael P; Major, Paul W

2006-08-01

More systematic reviews related to orthodontic topics are published each year, although little has been done to evaluate their search and selection methodologies. Systematic reviews related to orthodontics published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2004, were searched for their use of multiple electronic databases and secondary searches. The search and selection methods of identified systematic reviews were evaluated against the Cochrane Handbook's guidelines. Sixteen orthodontic systematic reviews were identified in this period. The percentage of reviews documenting and using each criterion of article searching has changed over the last 5 years, with no recognizable directional trend. On average, most systematic reviews documented their electronic search terms (88%) and inclusion-exclusion criteria (100%), and used secondary searching (75%). Many still failed to search more than MEDLINE (56%), failed to document the database names and search dates (37%), failed to document the search strategy (62%), did not use several reviewers for selecting studies (75%), and did not include all languages (81%). The methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics is still limited, with key methodological components frequently absent or not appropriately described.

Introduction to systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine.

PubMed

Sargeant, J M; O'Connor, A M

2014-06-01

This article is the first in a series of six articles related to systematic reviews in animal agriculture and veterinary medicine. In this article, we overview the methodology of systematic reviews and provide a discussion of their use. Systematic reviews differ qualitatively from traditional reviews by explicitly defining a specific review question, employing methods to reduce bias in the selection and inclusion of studies that address the review question (including a systematic and specified search strategy, and selection of studies based on explicit eligibility criteria), an assessment of the risk of bias for included studies and objectively summarizing the results qualitatively or quantitatively (i.e. via meta-analysis). Systematic reviews have been widely used to address human healthcare questions and are increasingly being used in veterinary medicine. Systematic reviews can provide veterinarians and other decision-makers with a scientifically defensible summary of the current state of knowledge on a topic without the need for the end-user to read the vast amount of primary research related to that topic. © 2014 Blackwell Verlag GmbH.

Re-writing Popper's philosophy of science for systematics.

PubMed

Rieppel, Olivier

2008-01-01

This paper explores the use of Popper's philosophy of science by cladists in their battle against evolutionary and numerical taxonomy. Three schools of biological systematics fiercely debated each other from the late 1960s: evolutionary taxonomy, phenetics or numerical taxonomy, and phylogenetic systematics or cladistics. The outcome of that debate was the victory of phylogenetic systematics/cladistics over the competing schools of thought. To bring about this "cladistic turn" in systematics, the cladists drew heavily on the philosopher K.R. Popper in order to dress up phylogenetic systematics as a hypothetico-deductivist, indeed falsificationist, research program that would put an end to authoritarianism. As the case of the "cladistic revolution" demonstrates, scientists who turn to philosophy in defense of a research program read philosophers with an agenda in mind. That agenda is likely to distort the philosophical picture, as happened to Popper's philosophy of science at the hands of cladists.

The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses.

PubMed

Ioannidis, John P A

2016-09-01

Currently, there is massive production of unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Instead of promoting evidence-based medicine and health care, these instruments often serve mostly as easily produced publishable units or marketing tools. Suboptimal systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be harmful given the major prestige and influence these types of studies have acquired. The publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be realigned to remove biases and vested interests and to integrate them better with the primary production of evidence. Currently, most systematic reviews and meta-analyses are done retrospectively with fragmented published information. This article aims to explore the growth of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses and to estimate how often they are redundant, misleading, or serving conflicted interests. Data included information from PubMed surveys and from empirical evaluations of meta-analyses. Publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has increased rapidly. In the period January 1, 1986, to December 4, 2015, PubMed tags 266,782 items as "systematic reviews" and 58,611 as "meta-analyses." Annual publications between 1991 and 2014 increased 2,728% for systematic reviews and 2,635% for meta-analyses versus only 153% for all PubMed-indexed items. Currently, probably more systematic reviews of trials than new randomized trials are published annually. Most topics addressed by meta-analyses of randomized trials have overlapping, redundant meta-analyses; same-topic meta-analyses may exceed 20 sometimes. Some fields produce massive numbers of meta-analyses; for example, 185 meta-analyses of antidepressants for depression were published between 2007 and 2014. These meta-analyses are often produced either by industry employees or by authors with industry ties and results are aligned with sponsor interests. China has rapidly become the most prolific producer of English-language, PubMed-indexed meta-analyses. The most massive presence of Chinese meta-analyses is on genetic associations (63% of global production in 2014), where almost all results are misleading since they combine fragmented information from mostly abandoned era of candidate genes. Furthermore, many contracting companies working on evidence synthesis receive industry contracts to produce meta-analyses, many of which probably remain unpublished. Many other meta-analyses have serious flaws. Of the remaining, most have weak or insufficient evidence to inform decision making. Few systematic reviews and meta-analyses are both non-misleading and useful. The production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses has reached epidemic proportions. Possibly, the large majority of produced systematic reviews and meta-analyses are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted. © 2016 Milbank Memorial Fund.

Systematic Reviews in Sports Medicine.

PubMed

DiSilvestro, Kevin J; Tjoumakaris, Fotios P; Maltenfort, Mitchell G; Spindler, Kurt P; Freedman, Kevin B

2016-02-01

The number of systematic reviews published in the orthopaedic literature has increased, and these reviews can help guide clinical decision making. However, the quality of these reviews can affect the reader's ability to use the data to arrive at accurate conclusions and make clinical decisions. To evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the sports medicine literature to determine whether such reviews should be used to guide treatment decisions. The hypothesis was that many systematic reviews in the orthopaedic sports medicine literature may not follow the appropriate reporting guidelines or methodological criteria recommended for systematic reviews. Systematic review. All clinical sports medicine systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2009 to 2013 published in The American Journal of Sports Medicine (AJSM), The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS), Arthroscopy, Sports Health, and Knee Surgery, Sports Traumatology, Arthroscopy (KSSTA) were reviewed and evaluated for level of evidence according to the guidelines from the Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, for reporting quality according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, and for methodological quality according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Analysis was performed by year and journal of publication, and the levels of evidence included in the systematic reviews were also analyzed. A total of 200 systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified over the study period. Of these, 53% included evidence levels 4 and 5 in their analyses, with just 32% including evidence levels 1 and 2 only. There were significant differences in the proportion of articles with high levels of evidence (P < .001) and low levels of evidence (P = .005) by journal. The average PRISMA score was 87% and the average AMSTAR score was 73% among all journals. The average AMSTAR and PRISMA scores were significantly different by journal (P = .002 and .001, respectively) and by year (P = .046 and .019, respectively). Arthroscopy, AJSM, and JBJS all scored higher than Sports Health and KSSTA on the PRISMA and AMSTAR. The average PRISMA score by year varied from 85% to 89%, and the average AMSTAR score varied from 70% to 76%. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthopaedics sports medicine literature relied on evidence levels 4 and 5 in 53% of studies over the 5-year study period. Overall, PRISMA and AMSTAR scores are high and may be better than those in other disciplines. Readers need to be conscious of potential shortcomings when reading systematic reviews and using them in practice. © 2015 The Author(s).

The use of systematic reviews in the planning, design and conduct of randomised trials: a retrospective cohort of NIHR HTA funded trials.

PubMed

Jones, Ashley P; Conroy, Elizabeth; Williamson, Paula R; Clarke, Mike; Gamble, Carrol

2013-03-25

A systematic review, with or without a meta-analysis, should be undertaken to determine if the research question of interest has already been answered before a new trial begins. There has been limited research on how systematic reviews are used within the design of new trials, the aims of this study were to investigate how systematic reviews of earlier trials are used in the planning and design of new randomised trials. Documentation from the application process for all randomised trials funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) between 2006 and 2008 were obtained. This included the: commissioning brief (if appropriate), outline application, minutes of the Board meeting in which the outline application was discussed, full application, detailed project description, referee comments, investigator response to referee comments, Board minutes on the full application and the trial protocol. Data were extracted on references to systematic reviews and how any such reviews had been used in the planning and design of the trial. 50 randomised trials were funded by NIHR HTA during this period and documentation was available for 48 of these. The cohort was predominately individually randomised parallel trials aiming to detect superiority between two treatments for a single primary outcome. 37 trials (77.1%) referenced a systematic review within the application and 20 of these (i.e. 41.7% of the total) used information contained in the systematic review in the design or planning of the new trial. The main areas in which systematic reviews were used were in the selection or definition of an outcome to be measured in the trial (7 of 37, 18.9%), the sample size calculation (7, 18.9%), the duration of follow up (8, 21.6%) and the approach to describing adverse events (9, 24.3%). Boards did not comment on the presence/absence or use of systematic reviews in any application. Systematic reviews were referenced in most funded applications but just over half of these used the review to inform the design. There is an expectation from funders that applicants will use a systematic review to justify the need for a new trial but no expectation regarding further use of a systematic review to aid planning and design of the trial. Guidelines for applicants and funders should be developed to promote the use of systematic reviews in the design and planning of randomised trials, to optimise delivery of new studies informed by the most up-to-date evidence base and to minimise waste in research.

Moving toward the automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the second meeting of International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR).

PubMed

O'Connor, Annette M; Tsafnat, Guy; Gilbert, Stephen B; Thayer, Kristina A; Wolfe, Mary S

2018-01-09

The second meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 3-4 October 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose aim is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. Having automated tools for systematic review should enable more transparent and timely review, maximizing the potential for identifying and translating research findings to practical application. The meeting brought together multiple stakeholder groups including users of summarized research, methodologists who explore production processes and systematic review quality, and technologists such as software developers, statisticians, and vendors. This diversity of participants was intended to ensure effective communication with numerous stakeholders about progress toward automation of systematic reviews and stimulate discussion about potential solutions to identified challenges. The meeting highlighted challenges, both simple and complex, and raised awareness among participants about ongoing efforts by various stakeholders. An outcome of this forum was to identify several short-term projects that participants felt would advance the automation of tasks in the systematic review workflow including (1) fostering better understanding about available tools, (2) developing validated datasets for testing new tools, (3) determining a standard method to facilitate interoperability of tools such as through an application programming interface or API, and (4) establishing criteria to evaluate the quality of tools' output. ICASR 2016 provided a beneficial forum to foster focused discussion about tool development and resources and reconfirm ICASR members' commitment toward systematic reviews' automation.

Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews.

PubMed

Haddaway, N R; Woodcock, P; Macura, B; Collins, A

2015-12-01

Review articles can provide valuable summaries of the ever-increasing volume of primary research in conservation biology. Where findings may influence important resource-allocation decisions in policy or practice, there is a need for a high degree of reliability when reviewing evidence. However, traditional literature reviews are susceptible to a number of biases during the identification, selection, and synthesis of included studies (e.g., publication bias, selection bias, and vote counting). Systematic reviews, pioneered in medicine and translated into conservation in 2006, address these issues through a strict methodology that aims to maximize transparency, objectivity, and repeatability. Systematic reviews will always be the gold standard for reliable synthesis of evidence. However, traditional literature reviews remain popular and will continue to be valuable where systematic reviews are not feasible. Where traditional reviews are used, lessons can be taken from systematic reviews and applied to traditional reviews in order to increase their reliability. Certain key aspects of systematic review methods that can be used in a context-specific manner in traditional reviews include focusing on mitigating bias; increasing transparency, consistency, and objectivity, and critically appraising the evidence and avoiding vote counting. In situations where conducting a full systematic review is not feasible, the proposed approach to reviewing evidence in a more systematic way can substantially improve the reliability of review findings, providing a time- and resource-efficient means of maximizing the value of traditional reviews. These methods are aimed particularly at those conducting literature reviews where systematic review is not feasible, for example, for graduate students, single reviewers, or small organizations. © 2015 Society for Conservation Biology.

Systematic reviews, systematic error and the acquisition of clinical knowledge

PubMed Central

2010-01-01

Background Since its inception, evidence-based medicine and its application through systematic reviews, has been widely accepted. However, it has also been strongly criticised and resisted by some academic groups and clinicians. One of the main criticisms of evidence-based medicine is that it appears to claim to have unique access to absolute scientific truth and thus devalues and replaces other types of knowledge sources. Discussion The various types of clinical knowledge sources are categorised on the basis of Kant's categories of knowledge acquisition, as being either 'analytic' or 'synthetic'. It is shown that these categories do not act in opposition but rather, depend upon each other. The unity of analysis and synthesis in knowledge acquisition is demonstrated during the process of systematic reviewing of clinical trials. Systematic reviews constitute comprehensive synthesis of clinical knowledge but depend upon plausible, analytical hypothesis development for the trials reviewed. The dangers of systematic error regarding the internal validity of acquired knowledge are highlighted on the basis of empirical evidence. It has been shown that the systematic review process reduces systematic error, thus ensuring high internal validity. It is argued that this process does not exclude other types of knowledge sources. Instead, amongst these other types it functions as an integrated element during the acquisition of clinical knowledge. Conclusions The acquisition of clinical knowledge is based on interaction between analysis and synthesis. Systematic reviews provide the highest form of synthetic knowledge acquisition in terms of achieving internal validity of results. In that capacity it informs the analytic knowledge of the clinician but does not replace it. PMID:20537172

Systematic review of systematic reviews for the management of urinary incontinence and promotion of continence using conservative behavioural approaches in older people in care homes.

PubMed

Roe, Brenda; Flanagan, Lisa; Maden, Michelle

2015-07-01

To synthesize evidence from systematic reviews on the management of urinary incontinence and promotion of continence using conservative/behavioural approaches in older people in care homes to inform clinical practice, guidelines and research. Incontinence is highly prevalent in older people in care home populations. Systematic review of systematic reviews with narrative synthesis. Electronic searches of published systematic reviews in English using MEDLINE and CINAHL with no date restrictions up to September 2013. Searches supplemented by hand searching and electronic searching of Cochrane Library and PROSPERO. PRISMA statement was followed, as were established methods for systematic review of systematic reviews. Five systematic reviews of high quality were included, three specific to intervention studies and two reviewed descriptive studies. Urinary incontinence was the primary outcome in three reviews with factors associated with the management of urinary incontinence the primary outcome for the other reviews. Toileting programmes, in particular prompted voiding, with use of incontinence pads are the main conservative behavioural approach for the management of incontinence and promotion of continence in this population with evidence of effectiveness in the short term. Evidence from associated factors; exercise, mobility, comorbidities, hydration, skin care, staff perspectives, policies and older people's experiences and preference are limited. The majority of evidence of effectiveness are from studies from one country which may or may not be transferable to other care home populations. Future international studies are warranted of complex combined interventions using mixed methods to provide evidence of effectiveness, context of implementation and economic evaluation. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

PubMed Central

Liberati, Alessandro; Altman, Douglas G.; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Mulrow, Cynthia; Gøtzsche, Peter C.; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Clarke, Mike; Devereaux, P. J.; Kleijnen, Jos; Moher, David

2009-01-01

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PMID:19621070

Endogenous Opiate System and Systematic Desensitization.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Egan, Kelly J.; And Others

1988-01-01

Administered intravenous infusions to phobic patients prior to systematic desensitization. Saline-infused subjects significantly demonstrated the predicted symptom decrease in response to systematic desensitization, whereas naloxone-infused subjects showed no change. Subject reports and psychophysiological measures of arousal indicated no…

Precision of systematic and random sampling in clustered populations: habitat patches and aggregating organisms.

PubMed

McGarvey, Richard; Burch, Paul; Matthews, Janet M

2016-01-01

Natural populations of plants and animals spatially cluster because (1) suitable habitat is patchy, and (2) within suitable habitat, individuals aggregate further into clusters of higher density. We compare the precision of random and systematic field sampling survey designs under these two processes of species clustering. Second, we evaluate the performance of 13 estimators for the variance of the sample mean from a systematic survey. Replicated simulated surveys, as counts from 100 transects, allocated either randomly or systematically within the study region, were used to estimate population density in six spatial point populations including habitat patches and Matérn circular clustered aggregations of organisms, together and in combination. The standard one-start aligned systematic survey design, a uniform 10 x 10 grid of transects, was much more precise. Variances of the 10 000 replicated systematic survey mean densities were one-third to one-fifth of those from randomly allocated transects, implying transect sample sizes giving equivalent precision by random survey would need to be three to five times larger. Organisms being restricted to patches of habitat was alone sufficient to yield this precision advantage for the systematic design. But this improved precision for systematic sampling in clustered populations is underestimated by standard variance estimators used to compute confidence intervals. True variance for the survey sample mean was computed from the variance of 10 000 simulated survey mean estimates. Testing 10 published and three newly proposed variance estimators, the two variance estimators (v) that corrected for inter-transect correlation (ν₈ and ν(W)) were the most accurate and also the most precise in clustered populations. These greatly outperformed the two "post-stratification" variance estimators (ν₂ and ν₃) that are now more commonly applied in systematic surveys. Similar variance estimator performance rankings were found with a second differently generated set of spatial point populations, ν₈ and ν(W) again being the best performers in the longer-range autocorrelated populations. However, no systematic variance estimators tested were free from bias. On balance, systematic designs bring more narrow confidence intervals in clustered populations, while random designs permit unbiased estimates of (often wider) confidence interval. The search continues for better estimators of sampling variance for the systematic survey mean.

Living systematic review: 1. Introduction-the why, what, when, and how.

PubMed

Elliott, Julian H; Synnot, Anneliese; Turner, Tari; Simmonds, Mark; Akl, Elie A; McDonald, Steve; Salanti, Georgia; Meerpohl, Joerg; MacLehose, Harriet; Hilton, John; Tovey, David; Shemilt, Ian; Thomas, James

2017-11-01

Systematic reviews are difficult to keep up to date, but failure to do so leads to a decay in review currency, accuracy, and utility. We are developing a novel approach to systematic review updating termed "Living systematic review" (LSR): systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs may be particularly important in fields where research evidence is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain, and new research may change policy or practice decisions. We hypothesize that a continual approach to updating will achieve greater currency and validity, and increase the benefits to end users, with feasible resource requirements over time. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Physics of systematic frequency variations in hydrogen masers

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Mattison, Edward M.

1990-01-01

The frequency stability of hydrogen masers for intervals longer that 10(exp 4) seconds is limited at present by systematic processes. Researchers discuss the physics of frequency-determining mechanisms internal to the maser that are susceptible to systematic variations, and the connections between these internal mechanisms and external environmental factors. Based upon estimates of the magnitudes of systematic effects, they find that the primary internal mechanisms currently limiting long-term maser frequency stability are cavity pulling, at the level parts in 10(exp 15) per day, and wall shift variations, at the level of parts in 10(exp 16) to parts in 10(exp 15) per day. They discuss strategies for reducing systematic frequency variations.

Physics of systematic frequency variations in hydrogen masers

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Mattison, Edward M.

1992-01-01

The frequency stability of hydrogen masers for intervals longer than 10 exp 4 s is currently limited by systematic processes. The physics of frequency-determining mechanisms internal to the maser that are susceptible to systematic variations, and the connections between these internal mechanisms and external environmental factors are discussed. From estimates of the magnitudes of systematic effects, it is found that the primary internal mechanisms limiting long-term maser frequency stability are cavity pulling, at the level of parts in 1015 per day, and wall shift variations, at the level of parts in 10 exp 16 to parts in 10 exp 15 per day. Strategies for reducing systematic frequency variations are discussed.

[Profile of a systematic search. Search areas, databases and reports].

PubMed

Korsbek, Lisa; Bendix, Ane Friis; Kidholm, Kristian

2006-04-03

Systematic literature search is a fundamental in evidence-based medicine. But systematic literature search is not yet a very well used way of retrieving evidence-based information. This article profiles a systematic literature search for evidence-based literature. It goes through the most central databases and gives an example of how to document the literature search. The article also sums up the literature search in all reviews in Ugeskrift for Laeger in the year 2004.

An assessment of the compliance of systematic review articles published in craniofacial surgery with the PRISMA statement guidelines: A systematic review.

PubMed

Pidgeon, Thomas Edward; Wellstead, Georgina; Sagoo, Harkiran; Jafree, Daniyal J; Fowler, Alexander J; Agha, Riaz A

2016-10-01

Systematic review evidence is increasing within craniofacial surgery. Compliance with recognised reporting guidelines for systematic review evidence has not been assessed. To assess the compliance of systematic reviews published in craniofacial journals with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting criteria. Thomson Reuters impact factor was used to identify three top craniofacial journals. A search for all systematic review articles published in these journals from 1st May 2010 to 30th April 2015 was conducted using MEDLINE PubMed. Two independent researchers assessed each study for inclusion and performed the data extraction. Data included the article reference information; the pathology and interventions examined and compliance of each review article with the PRISMA checklist. 97 studies were returned by the search. 62 studies proceeded to data extraction. The mean percentage of applicable PRISMA items that were met across all studies was 72.5% (range 28.6-96.2%). The area of poorest compliance was with the declaration of a study protocol (19.4% of studies). Only 37.1% of studies declared their source of funding. Compliance of systematic review articles within craniofacial surgery with areas of the PRISMA checklist could be improved. Copyright © 2016 European Association for Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Surgery. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Factors influencing citations to systematic reviews in skin diseases: a cross-sectional study through Web of Sciences and Scopus.

PubMed

Manriquez, Juan; Cataldo, Karina; Harz, Isidora

2015-01-01

Disseminating information derived from systematic reviews is a fundamental step for translating evidence into practice. To determine which features of dermatological SR are associated with systematic review dissemination, using citation rates as an indicator. Dermatological systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2012 were obtained from Scopus, the ISI Web of Sciences and the Cochrane Skin Group. Bibliometric data of every systematic review were collected and analyzed. A total of 320 systematic reviews were analyzed. Univariable analysis showed that the journal impact factor, number of authors, and total references cited were positively associated with the number of citations. There was a significant difference in the median number of citations with regard to the corresponding author's country, type of skin disease, type of funding, and presence of international collaboration. Cochrane reviews were significantly associated with a lower number of citations. Multivariable analysis found that the number of authors, number of references cited and the corresponding author from United Kingdom were independently correlated with many citations. Cochrane systematic reviews tended to be independently associated with a lower number of citations. Citation number to systematic reviews may be improving by increasing the number of authors, especially collaborative authors, and the number of cited references. The reasons for the association of Cochrane SRs with fewer citations should be addressed in future studies.

Factors influencing citations to systematic reviews in skin diseases: a cross-sectional study through Web of Sciences and Scopus*

PubMed Central

Manriquez, Juan; Cataldo, Karina; Harz, Isidora

2015-01-01

BACKGROUND Disseminating information derived from systematic reviews is a fundamental step for translating evidence into practice. OBJECTIVE To determine which features of dermatological SR are associated with systematic review dissemination, using citation rates as an indicator. METHODS Dermatological systematic reviews published between 2008 and 2012 were obtained from Scopus, the ISI Web of Sciences and the Cochrane Skin Group. Bibliometric data of every systematic review were collected and analyzed. RESULTS A total of 320 systematic reviews were analyzed. Univariable analysis showed that the journal impact factor, number of authors, and total references cited were positively associated with the number of citations. There was a significant difference in the median number of citations with regard to the corresponding author's country, type of skin disease, type of funding, and presence of international collaboration. Cochrane reviews were significantly associated with a lower number of citations. Multivariable analysis found that the number of authors, number of references cited and the corresponding author from United Kingdom were independently correlated with many citations. Cochrane systematic reviews tended to be independently associated with a lower number of citations. CONCLUSIONS Citation number to systematic reviews may be improving by increasing the number of authors, especially collaborative authors, and the number of cited references. The reasons for the association of Cochrane SRs with fewer citations should be addressed in future studies. PMID:26560209

What determines the effects and costs of breast cancer screening? A protocol of a systematic review of reviews.

PubMed

Mandrik, O; Ekwunife, O I; Zielonke, N; Meheus, F; Severens, J L; Lhachimi, S K; Murillo, R

2017-06-28

Multiple reviews demonstrated high variability in effectiveness and cost-effectiveness outcomes among studies on breast cancer screening (BCS) programmes. No study to our knowledge has summarized the current evidence on determinants of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of the most used BCS approaches or tried to explain differences in conclusions of systematic reviews on this topic. Based on published reviews, this systematic review aims to assess the degree of variability of determinants for (a) effectiveness and (b) cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes using mammography, clinical breast examination, breast self-examination, ultrasonography, or their combinations among the general population. We will perform a comprehensive systematic literature search in Cochrane, Scopus, Embase, and Medline (via Pubmed). The search will be supplemented with hand searching of references of the included reviews, with hand searching in the specialized journals, and by contacting prominent experts in the field. Additional search for grey literature will be conducted on the websites of international cancer associations and networks. Two trained research assistants will screen titles and abstracts of publications independently, with at least random 10% of all abstracts being also screened by the principal researcher. The full texts of the systematic reviews will then be screened independently by two authors, and disagreements will be solved by consensus. The included reviews will be grouped by publication year, outcomes, designs of original studies, and quality. Additionally, for reviews published since 2011, transparency in reporting will be assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for the review on determinants of effectiveness and a modified PRISMA checklist for the review on determinants for cost-effectiveness. The study will apply the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews checklist to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. We will report the data extracted from the systematic reviews in a systematic format. Meta-meta-analysis of extracted data will be conducted when feasible. This systematic review of reviews will examine the degree of variability in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of BCS programmes. PROSPERO CRD42016050764 and CRD42016050765.

SU-E-J-257: A PCA Model to Predict Adaptive Changes for Head&neck Patients Based On Extraction of Geometric Features From Daily CBCT Datasets

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Chetvertkov, M; Henry Ford Health System, Detroit, MI; Siddiqui, F

2015-06-15

Purpose: Using daily cone beam CTs (CBCTs) to develop principal component analysis (PCA) models of anatomical changes in head and neck (H&N) patients and to assess the possibility of using these prospectively in adaptive radiation therapy (ART). Methods: Planning CT (pCT) images of 4 H&N patients were deformed to model several different systematic changes in patient anatomy during the course of the radiation therapy (RT). A Pinnacle plugin was used to linearly interpolate the systematic change in patient for the 35 fraction RT course and to generate a set of 35 synthetic CBCTs. Each synthetic CBCT represents the systematic changemore » in patient anatomy for each fraction. Deformation vector fields (DVFs) were acquired between the pCT and synthetic CBCTs with random fraction-to-fraction changes were superimposed on the DVFs. A patient-specific PCA model was built using these DVFs containing systematic plus random changes. It was hypothesized that resulting eigenDVFs (EDVFs) with largest eigenvalues represent the major anatomical deformations during the course of treatment. Results: For all 4 patients, the PCA model provided different results depending on the type and size of systematic change in patient’s body. PCA was more successful in capturing the systematic changes early in the treatment course when these were of a larger scale with respect to the random fraction-to-fraction changes in patient’s anatomy. For smaller scale systematic changes, random changes in patient could completely “hide” the systematic change. Conclusion: The leading EDVF from the patientspecific PCA models could tentatively be identified as a major systematic change during treatment if the systematic change is large enough with respect to random fraction-to-fraction changes. Otherwise, leading EDVF could not represent systematic changes reliably. This work is expected to facilitate development of population-based PCA models that can be used to prospectively identify significant anatomical changes early in treatment. This work is supported in part by a grant from Varian Medical Systems, Palo Alto, CA.« less

Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?

PubMed

Farid-Kapadia, Mufiza; Askie, Lisa; Hartling, Lisa; Contopoulos-Ioannidis, Despina; Bhutta, Zulfiqar A; Soll, Roger; Moher, David; Offringa, Martin

2017-03-06

Systematic reviews are key tools to enable decision making by healthcare providers and policymakers. Despite the availability of the evidence based Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA-2009 and PRISMA-P 2015) statements that were developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting of systematic reviews, uncertainty on how to deal with pediatric-specific methodological challenges of systematic reviews impairs decision-making in child health. In this paper, we identify methodological challenges specific to the design, conduct and reporting of pediatric systematic reviews, and propose a process to address these challenges. One fundamental decision at the outset of a systematic review is whether to focus on a pediatric population only, or to include both adult and pediatric populations. Both from the policy and patient care point of view, the appropriateness of interventions and comparators administered to pre-defined pediatric age subgroup is critical. Decisions need to be based on the biological plausibility of differences in treatment effects across the developmental trajectory in children. Synthesis of evidence from different trials is often impaired by the use of outcomes and measurement instruments that differ between trials and are neither relevant nor validated in the pediatric population. Other issues specific to pediatric systematic reviews include lack of pediatric-sensitive search strategies and inconsistent choices of pediatric age subgroups in meta-analyses. In addition to these methodological issues generic to all pediatric systematic reviews, special considerations are required for reviews of health care interventions' safety and efficacy in neonatology, global health, comparative effectiveness interventions and individual participant data meta-analyses. To date, there is no standard approach available to overcome this problem. We propose to develop a consensus-based checklist of essential items which researchers should consider when they are planning (PRISMA-PC-Protocol for Children) or reporting (PRISMA-C-reporting for Children) a pediatric systematic review. Available guidelines including PRISMA do not cover the complexity associated with the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in the pediatric population; they require additional and modified standards for reporting items. Such guidance will facilitate the translation of knowledge from the literature to bedside care and policy, thereby enhancing delivery of care and improving child health outcomes.

Impact of general practitioners' sex and age on systematic recommendation for cancer screening.

PubMed

Eisinger, François; Pivot, Xavier; Coscas, Yvan; Viguier, Jérôme; Calazel-Benque, Anne; Blay, Jean-Yves; Roussel, Claire; Morère, Jean-François

2011-01-01

Characteristics of primary-care providers have been associated with their patients' participation in breast cancer screening. A nationwide observational survey, 'EDIFICE', was conducted by telephone from December 2007 to January 2008 on a representative sample of 600 general practitioners (GPs) working in France, to investigate how a GP's characteristics may influence patient participation in screening for breast, colorectal and prostate cancer. For breast cancer screening, systematic recommendation was associated with female physicians [odds ratio (OR) =1.9; 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.2-3.1]. This systematic recommendation was also correlated with systematic referral for colorectal cancer (OR=1.5; 95% CI=1.0-2.5) and prostate cancer screening (OR=2.7; 95% CI=1.8-4.1). For colorectal cancer screening, the sex of the GP had no significant impact. However, systematic recommendation for both breast and prostate cancer screening was shown to be associated with systematic recommendation for colorectal cancer screening (OR=2.7; 95% CI=1.6-4.7 and OR=1.8; 95% CI=1.1-3.0, respectively). For prostate cancer screening, there was no significant sex specificity. However, systematic recommendation for both breast and colorectal cancer screening was associated with an advice on prostate cancer screening (OR=2.9; 95% CI=2.0-4.4 and OR=2.0; 95% CI=1.3-3.2, respectively). The age of the GP was not associated with a higher rate of systematic recommendation for screening for the three types of cancer. Male GPs were more likely than female GPs to perform digital rectal examinations on male patients (69 vs. 54%; OR=1.86; 95% CI=1.31-2.63). There is a global pattern of physicians being screening-prone (as suggested by the cross impact of recommendations from one cancer type to another). Although the frequency of systematic recommendation for breast cancer screening is higher with female GPs, systematic recommendation for prostate cancer is not higher among male GPs. The factors associated with systematic recommendation for screening are both a matter of concern and a target for action, to improve adherence of individuals through GP commitment.

Capacity for conducting systematic reviews in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid appraisal.

PubMed

Oliver, Sandy; Bangpan, Mukdarut; Stansfield, Claire; Stewart, Ruth

2015-04-26

Systematic reviews of research are increasingly recognised as important for informing decisions across policy sectors and for setting priorities for research. Although reviews draw on international research, the host institutions and countries can focus attention on their own priorities. The uneven capacity for conducting research around the world raises questions about the capacity for conducting systematic reviews. A rapid appraisal was conducted of current capacity and capacity strengthening activities for conducting systematic reviews in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). A systems approach to analysis considered the capacity of individuals nested within the larger units of research teams, institutions that fund, support, and/or conduct systematic reviews, and systems that support systematic reviewing internationally. International systematic review networks, and their support organisations, are dominated by members from high-income countries. The largest network comprising a skilled workforce and established centres is the Cochrane Collaboration. Other networks, although smaller, provide support for systematic reviews addressing questions beyond effective clinical practice which require a broader range of methods. Capacity constraints were apparent at the levels of individuals, review teams, organisations, and system wide. Constraints at each level limited the capacity at levels nested within them. Skills training for individuals had limited utility if not allied to opportunities for review teams to practice the skills. Skills development was further constrained by language barriers, lack of support from academic organisations, and the limitations of wider systems for communication and knowledge management. All networks hosted some activities for strengthening the capacities of individuals and teams, although these were usually independent of core academic programmes and traditional career progression. Even rarer were efforts to increase demand for systematic reviews and to strengthen links between producers and potential users of systematic reviews. Limited capacity for conducting systematic reviews within LMICs presents a major technical and social challenge to advancing their health systems. Effective capacity in LMICs can be spread through investing effort at multiple levels simultaneously, supported by countries (predominantly high-income countries) with established skills and experience.

Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a protocol for a systematic review of characteristics and methods applied.

PubMed

Luhnen, Miriam; Prediger, Barbara; Neugebauer, Edmund A M; Mathes, Tim

2017-12-02

The number of systematic reviews of economic evaluations is steadily increasing. This is probably related to the continuing pressure on health budgets worldwide which makes an efficient resource allocation increasingly crucial. In particular in recent years, the introduction of several high-cost interventions presents enormous challenges regarding universal accessibility and sustainability of health care systems. An increasing number of health authorities, inter alia, feel the need for analyzing economic evidence. Economic evidence might effectively be generated by means of systematic reviews. Nevertheless, no standard methods seem to exist for their preparation so far. The objective of this study was to analyze the methods applied for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations (SR-HE) with a focus on the identification of common challenges. The planned study is a systematic review of the characteristics and methods actually applied in SR-HE. We will combine validated search filters developed for the retrieval of economic evaluations and systematic reviews to identify relevant studies in MEDLINE (via Ovid, 2015-present). To be eligible for inclusion, studies have to conduct a systematic review of full economic evaluations. Articles focusing exclusively on methodological aspects and secondary publications of health technology assessment (HTA) reports will be excluded. Two reviewers will independently assess titles and abstracts and then full-texts of studies for eligibility. Methodological features will be extracted in a standardized, beforehand piloted data extraction form. Data will be summarized with descriptive statistical measures and systematically analyzed focusing on differences/similarities and methodological weaknesses. The systematic review will provide a detailed overview of characteristics of SR-HE and the applied methods. Differences and methodological shortcomings will be detected and their implications will be discussed. The findings of our study can improve the recommendations on the preparation of SR-HE. This can increase the acceptance and usefulness of systematic reviews in health economics for researchers and medical decision makers. The review will not be registered with PROSPERO as it does not meet the eligibility criterion of dealing with clinical outcomes.

Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Urological Literature from 1998 to 2012.

PubMed

Corbyons, Katherine; Han, Julia; Neuberger, Molly M; Dahm, Philipp

2015-11-01

Systematic reviews synthesize the current best evidence to address a clinical question. Given the growing emphasis on evidence-based clinical practice, systematic reviews are being increasingly sought after and published. We previously reported limitations in the methodological quality of 57 individual systematic reviews published from 1998 to 2008. We provide an update to our previous study, adding systematic reviews published from 2009 to 2012. We systematically searched PubMed® and hand searched the table of contents of 4 major urological journals to identify systematic reviews related to questions of prevention and therapy. Two independent reviewers with prior formal evidence-based medicine training assessed the methodological quality using the validated 11-point AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) instrument. We performed predefined statistical hypothesis testing for differences by publication period (1998 to 2008 vs 2009 to 2012) and journal of publication. We performed statistical testing using SPSS®, version 23.0 with a 2-sided α of 0.05 using the Student t-test, ANOVA and the chi-square test. A total of 113 systematic reviews published from 2009 to 2012 met study inclusion criteria. The most common topics were oncology (44 reviews or 38.9%), voiding dysfunction (26 or 23.0%) and stones/endourology (13 or 11.5%). The largest contributor was European Urology (46 reviews or 40.7%), followed by BJU International (31 or 27.4%) and The Journal of Urology® (22 or 19.5%). The mean ± SD AMSTAR score for the 2009 to 2012 period was 5.3 ± 2.3 compared to 4.8 ± 2.0 for 1998 to 2008 with a mean difference of 0.5 (95% CI 0.2 to 1.2, p = 0.133). While the number of systematic reviews published in the urological literature has increased substantially, the methodological quality of these studies remains suboptimal. Systematic review authors and editors should make every effort to adhere to well established methodological standards to enhance the impact of their research efforts. Copyright © 2015 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Converting systematic reviews to Cochrane format: a cross-sectional survey of Australian authors of systematic reviews

PubMed Central

Piehl, Janet H; Green, Sally; McDonald, Steve

2003-01-01

Background Despite the growing reputation and subject coverage of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, many systematic reviews continue to be published solely in paper-based health care journals. This study was designed to determine why authors choose to publish their systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration and if they might be interested in converting their reviews to Cochrane format for publication in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Methods Cross-sectional survey of Australian primary authors of systematic reviews not published on the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews identified from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness. Results We identified 88 systematic reviews from the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness with an Australian as the primary author. We surveyed 52 authors for whom valid contact information was available. The response rate was 88 per cent (46/52). Ten authors replied without completing the survey, leaving 36 valid surveys for analysis. The most frequently cited reasons for not undertaking a Cochrane review were: lack of time (78%), the need to undergo specific Cochrane training (46%), unwillingness to update reviews (36%), difficulties with the Cochrane process (26%) and the review topic already registered with the Cochrane Collaboration (21%). (Percentages based on completed responses to individual questions.) Nearly half the respondents would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Dedicated time emerged as the most important factor in facilitating the potential conversion process. Other factors included navigating the Cochrane system, assistance with updating and financial support. Eighty-six per cent were willing to have their review converted to Cochrane format by another author. Conclusion Time required to complete a Cochrane review and the need for specific training are the primary reasons why some authors publish systematic reviews outside of the Cochrane Collaboration. Encouragingly, almost half of the authors would consider converting their review to Cochrane format. Based on the current number of reviews in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, this could result in more than 700 additional Cochrane reviews. Ways of supporting these authors and how to provide dedicated time to convert systematic reviews needs further consideration. PMID:12533194

Up on the Roof: A Systematic Approach to Roof Maintenance.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Burd, William

1979-01-01

A systematic roof maintenance program is characterized by carefully prepared long- and short-range plans. An essential feature of a systematic approach to roof maintenance is the stress on preventive measures rather than the patching of leaks. (Author)

Cost-effectiveness of lung cancer screening and treatment methods: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Azar, Farbod Ebadifard; Azami-Aghdash, Saber; Pournaghi-Azar, Fatemeh; Mazdaki, Alireza; Rezapour, Aziz; Ebrahimi, Parvin; Yousefzadeh, Negar

2017-06-19

Due to extensive literature in the field of lung cancer and their heterogeneous results, the aim of this study was to systematically review of systematic reviews studies which reviewed the cost-effectiveness of various lung cancer screening and treatment methods. In this systematic review of systematic reviews study, required data were collected searching the following key words which selected from Mesh: "lung cancer", "lung oncology", "lung Carcinoma", "lung neoplasm", "lung tumors", "cost- effectiveness", "systematic review" and "Meta-analysis". The following databases were searched: PubMed, Cochrane Library electronic databases, Google Scholar, and Scopus. Two reviewers (RA and A-AS) evaluated the articles according to the checklist of "assessment of multiple systematic reviews" (AMSTAR) tool. Overall, information of 110 papers was discussed in eight systematic reviews. Authors focused on cost-effectiveness of lung cancer treatments in five systematic reviews. Targeted therapy options (bevacizumab, Erlotinib and Crizotinib) show an acceptable cost-effectiveness. Results of three studies failed to show cost-effectiveness of screening methods. None of the studies had used the meta-analysis method. The Quality of Health Economic Studies (QHES) tool and Drummond checklist were mostly used in assessing the quality of articles. Most perspective was related to the Payer (64 times) and the lowest was related to Social (11times). Most cases referred to Incremental analysis (82%) and also the lowest point of referral was related to Discounting (in 49% of the cases). The average quality score of included studies was calculated 9.2% from 11. Targeted therapy can be an option for the treatment of lung cancer. Evaluation of the cost-effectiveness of computerized tomographic colonography (CTC) in lung cancer screening is recommended. The perspective of the community should be more taken into consideration in studies of cost-effectiveness. Paying more attention to the topic of Discounting will be necessary in the studies.

A critical appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medical nursing interventions: a systematic review of reviews

PubMed Central

Jin, Ying-Hui; Wang, Guo-Hao; Sun, Yi-Rong; Li, Qi; Zhao, Chen; Li, Ge; Si, Jin-Hua; Li, Yan; Lu, Cui; Shang, Hong-Cai

2016-01-01

Objective To assess the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medical nursing (TCMN) interventions in Chinese journals. These interventions include acupressure, massage, Tai Chi, Qi Gong, electroacupuncture and use of Chinese herbal medicines—for example, in enemas, foot massage and compressing the umbilicus. Design A systematic literature search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of TCMN interventions was performed. Review characteristics were extracted. The methodological quality and the quality of the evidence were evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approaches. Result We included 20 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and a total of 11 TCMN interventions were assessed in the 20 reviews. The compliance with AMSTAR checklist items ranged from 4.5 to 8 and systematic reviews/meta-analyses were, on average, of medium methodological quality. The quality of the evidence we assessed ranged from very low to moderate; no high-quality evidence was found. The top two causes for downrating confidence in effect estimates among the 31 bodies of evidence assessed were the risk of bias and inconsistency. Conclusions There is room for improvement in the methodological quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of TCMN interventions published in Chinese journals. Greater efforts should be devoted to ensuring a more comprehensive search strategy, clearer specification of the interventions of interest in the eligibility criteria and identification of meaningful outcomes for clinicians and patients (consumers). The overall quality of evidence among reviews remains suboptimal, which raise concerns about their roles in influencing clinical practice. Thus, the conclusions in reviews we assessed must be treated with caution and their roles in influencing clinical practice should be limited. A critical appraisal of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of TCMN interventions is particularly important to provide sound guidance for TCMN. PMID:28186925

Do systematic reviews address community healthcare professionals' wound care uncertainties? Results from evidence mapping in wound care.

PubMed

Christie, Janice; Gray, Trish A; Dumville, Jo C; Cullum, Nicky A

2018-01-01

Complex wounds such as leg and foot ulcers are common, resource intensive and have negative impacts on patients' wellbeing. Evidence-based decision-making, substantiated by high quality evidence such as from systematic reviews, is widely advocated for improving patient care and healthcare efficiency. Consequently, we set out to classify and map the extent to which up-to-date systematic reviews containing robust evidence exist for wound care uncertainties prioritised by community-based healthcare professionals. We asked healthcare professionals to prioritise uncertainties based on complex wound care decisions, and then classified 28 uncertainties according to the type and level of decision. For each uncertainty, we searched for relevant systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers screened abstracts and full texts of reviews against the following criteria: meeting an a priori definition of a systematic review, sufficiently addressing the uncertainty, published during or after 2012, and identifying high quality research evidence. The most common uncertainty type was 'interventions' 24/28 (85%); the majority concerned wound level decisions 15/28 (53%) however, service delivery level decisions (10/28) were given highest priority. Overall, we found 162 potentially relevant reviews of which 57 (35%) were not systematic reviews. Of 106 systematic reviews, only 28 were relevant to an uncertainty and 18 of these were published within the preceding five years; none identified high quality research evidence. Despite the growing volume of published primary research, healthcare professionals delivering wound care have important clinical uncertainties which are not addressed by up-to-date systematic reviews containing high certainty evidence. These are high priority topics requiring new research and systematic reviews which are regularly updated. To reduce clinical and research waste, we recommend systematic reviewers and researchers make greater efforts to ensure that research addresses important clinical uncertainties and is of sufficient rigour to inform practice.

Does Consideration and Assessment of Effects on Health Equity Affect the Conclusions of Systematic Reviews? A Methodology Study

PubMed Central

Welch, Vivian; Petticrew, Mark; Ueffing, Erin; Benkhalti Jandu, Maria; Brand, Kevin; Dhaliwal, Bharbhoor; Kristjansson, Elizabeth; Smylie, Janet; Wells, George Anthony; Tugwell, Peter

2012-01-01

Introduction Tackling health inequities both within and between countries remains high on the agenda of international organizations including the World Health Organization and local, regional and national governments. Systematic reviews can be a useful tool to assess effects on equity in health status because they include studies conducted in a variety of settings and populations. This study aims to describe the extent to which the impacts of health interventions on equity in health status are considered in systematic reviews, describe methods used, and assess the implications of their equity related findings for policy, practice and research. Methods We conducted a methodology study of equity assessment in systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers extracted information on the reporting and analysis of impacts of health interventions on equity in health status in a group of 300 systematic reviews collected from all systematic reviews indexed in one month of MEDLINE, using a pre-tested data collection form. Any differences in data extraction were resolved by discussion. Results Of the 300 systematic reviews, 224 assessed the effectiveness of interventions on health outcomes. Of these 224 reviews, 29 systematic reviews assessed effects on equity in health status using subgroup analysis or targeted analyses of vulnerable populations. Of these, seven conducted subgroup analyses related to health equity which were reported in insufficient detail to judge their credibility. Of these 29 reviews, 18 described implications for policy and practice based on assessment of effects on health equity. Conclusion The quality and completeness of reporting should be enhanced as a priority, because without this policymakers and practitioners will continue lack the evidence base they need to inform decision-making about health inequity. Furthermore, there is a need to develop methods to systematically consider impacts on equity in health status that is currently lacking in systematic reviews. PMID:22427804

Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort.

PubMed

Thomas, James; Noel-Storr, Anna; Marshall, Iain; Wallace, Byron; McDonald, Steven; Mavergames, Chris; Glasziou, Paul; Shemilt, Ian; Synnot, Anneliese; Turner, Tari; Elliott, Julian

2017-11-01

New approaches to evidence synthesis, which use human effort and machine automation in mutually reinforcing ways, can enhance the feasibility and sustainability of living systematic reviews. Human effort is a scarce and valuable resource, required when automation is impossible or undesirable, and includes contributions from online communities ("crowds") as well as more conventional contributions from review authors and information specialists. Automation can assist with some systematic review tasks, including searching, eligibility assessment, identification and retrieval of full-text reports, extraction of data, and risk of bias assessment. Workflows can be developed in which human effort and machine automation can each enable the other to operate in more effective and efficient ways, offering substantial enhancement to the productivity of systematic reviews. This paper describes and discusses the potential-and limitations-of new ways of undertaking specific tasks in living systematic reviews, identifying areas where these human/machine "technologies" are already in use, and where further research and development is needed. While the context is living systematic reviews, many of these enabling technologies apply equally to standard approaches to systematic reviewing. Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Worldwide inequality in production of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Jamali, Arsia; Nedjat, Saharnaz; Heidari, Kazem; Jamali, Raika; Hassanpour, Kiana; Nedjat, Sima; Anvari, Pasha; Majdzadeh, Reza

2015-01-01

Investment in science is vital for the development and well-being of societies. This study aims to assess the scientific productivity of countries by quantifying their publication of systematic reviews taking the gross national income per capita (GNIPC) into account. Medline and ISI Web of Science were searched for systematic reviews published between 1st January 2006 and 31st December 2010. The productivity of each country was quantified by exploring the authors' affiliation. The GNIPC was used according to the World Bank Report. Concentration index (CI) was calculated as the index of inequality. CI of percentage of systematic reviews as a function of percentage of countries ranked by GNIPC was 0.82 which indicates inequality in production of systematic reviews in pro rich countries. Countries with high income produced 206.23 times more systematic reviews than low income countries, while this ratio for lower middle and upper middle countries was 9.67 and 12.97, respectively. The highest concentration index was observed in clinical sciences (0.76) and the lowest in public health (0.61). This study demonstrates a significant gap between industrialized and nonindustrialized countries in the production of systematic reviews. Addressing this gap needs tremendous national and international efforts.

A primer on systematic reviews in toxicology.

PubMed

Hoffmann, Sebastian; de Vries, Rob B M; Stephens, Martin L; Beck, Nancy B; Dirven, Hubert A A M; Fowle, John R; Goodman, Julie E; Hartung, Thomas; Kimber, Ian; Lalu, Manoj M; Thayer, Kristina; Whaley, Paul; Wikoff, Daniele; Tsaioun, Katya

2017-07-01

Systematic reviews, pioneered in the clinical field, provide a transparent, methodologically rigorous and reproducible means of summarizing the available evidence on a precisely framed research question. Having matured to a well-established approach in many research fields, systematic reviews are receiving increasing attention as a potential tool for answering toxicological questions. In the larger framework of evidence-based toxicology, the advantages and obstacles of, as well as the approaches for, adapting and adopting systematic reviews to toxicology are still being explored. To provide the toxicology community with a starting point for conducting or understanding systematic reviews, we herein summarized available guidance documents from various fields of application. We have elaborated on the systematic review process by breaking it down into ten steps, starting with planning the project, framing the question, and writing and publishing the protocol, and concluding with interpretation and reporting. In addition, we have identified the specific methodological challenges of toxicological questions and have summarized how these can be addressed. Ultimately, this primer is intended to stimulate scientific discussions of the identified issues to fuel the development of toxicology-specific methodology and to encourage the application of systematic review methodology to toxicological issues.

A test for correction made to spin systematics for coupled band in doubly-odd nuclei

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Kumar, Vinod, E-mail: vinod2.k2@gmail.com

2015-12-15

Systematic Spin Assignments were generally made by using the argument that the energy of levels is a function of neutron number. In the present systematics, the excitation energy of the levels incorporated the effect of nuclear deformation and signature splitting. The nuclear deformation changes toward the mid-shell, therefore a smooth variation in the excitation energy of the levels is observed towards the mid-shell, that intended to make systematics as a function of neutron number towards the mid-shell. Another term “signature splitting” that push the energy of levels for odd- and even-spin sequences up and down, caused the different energy variationmore » pattern for odd- and even-spin sequences. The corrections made in the spin systematics were tested for the known spins of various isotopic chain. In addition, the inconsistency in spin assignments made by the spin systematics and other methods of the configuration πh{sub 11/2} ⊗ νh{sub 11/2} band belonging to {sup 112,114,116}Cs, {sup 126}Pr, and {sup 138}Pr, as an example, was resolved by the correctionmade in the present spin systematics.« less

Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.

PubMed

Page, Matthew J; McKenzie, Joanne E; Kirkham, Jamie; Dwan, Kerry; Kramer, Sharon; Green, Sally; Forbes, Andrew

2014-10-01

Systematic reviews may be compromised by selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses. Selective inclusion occurs when there are multiple effect estimates in a trial report that could be included in a particular meta-analysis (e.g. from multiple measurement scales and time points) and the choice of effect estimate to include in the meta-analysis is based on the results (e.g. statistical significance, magnitude or direction of effect). Selective reporting occurs when the reporting of a subset of outcomes and analyses in the systematic review is based on the results (e.g. a protocol-defined outcome is omitted from the published systematic review). To summarise the characteristics and synthesise the results of empirical studies that have investigated the prevalence of selective inclusion or reporting in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), investigated the factors (e.g. statistical significance or direction of effect) associated with the prevalence and quantified the bias. We searched the Cochrane Methodology Register (to July 2012), Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, Ovid PsycINFO and ISI Web of Science (each up to May 2013), and the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Healthcare Program's Scientific Resource Center (SRC) Methods Library (to June 2013). We also searched the abstract books of the 2011 and 2012 Cochrane Colloquia and the article alerts for methodological work in research synthesis published from 2009 to 2011 and compiled in Research Synthesis Methods. We included both published and unpublished empirical studies that investigated the prevalence and factors associated with selective inclusion or reporting, or both, in systematic reviews of RCTs of healthcare interventions. We included empirical studies assessing any type of selective inclusion or reporting, such as investigations of how frequently RCT outcome data is selectively included in systematic reviews based on the results, outcomes and analyses are discrepant between protocol and published review or non-significant outcomes are partially reported in the full text or summary within systematic reviews. Two review authors independently selected empirical studies for inclusion, extracted the data and performed a risk of bias assessment. A third review author resolved any disagreements about inclusion or exclusion of empirical studies, data extraction and risk of bias. We contacted authors of included studies for additional unpublished data. Primary outcomes included overall prevalence of selective inclusion or reporting, association between selective inclusion or reporting and the statistical significance of the effect estimate, and association between selective inclusion or reporting and the direction of the effect estimate. We combined prevalence estimates and risk ratios (RRs) using a random-effects meta-analysis model. Seven studies met the inclusion criteria. No studies had investigated selective inclusion of results in systematic reviews, or discrepancies in outcomes and analyses between systematic review registry entries and published systematic reviews. Based on a meta-analysis of four studies (including 485 Cochrane Reviews), 38% (95% confidence interval (CI) 23% to 54%) of systematic reviews added, omitted, upgraded or downgraded at least one outcome between the protocol and published systematic review. The association between statistical significance and discrepant outcome reporting between protocol and published systematic review was uncertain. The meta-analytic estimate suggested an increased risk of adding or upgrading (i.e. changing a secondary outcome to primary) when the outcome was statistically significant, although the 95% CI included no association and a decreased risk as plausible estimates (RR 1.43, 95% CI 0.71 to 2.85; two studies, n = 552 meta-analyses). Also, the meta-analytic estimate suggested an increased risk of downgrading (i.e. changing a primary outcome to secondary) when the outcome was statistically significant, although the 95% CI included no association and a decreased risk as plausible estimates (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.62; two studies, n = 484 meta-analyses). None of the included studies had investigated whether the association between statistical significance and adding, upgrading or downgrading of outcomes was modified by the type of comparison, direction of effect or type of outcome; or whether there is an association between direction of the effect estimate and discrepant outcome reporting.Several secondary outcomes were reported in the included studies. Two studies found that reasons for discrepant outcome reporting were infrequently reported in published systematic reviews (6% in one study and 22% in the other). One study (including 62 Cochrane Reviews) found that 32% (95% CI 21% to 45%) of systematic reviews did not report all primary outcomes in the abstract. Another study (including 64 Cochrane and 118 non-Cochrane reviews) found that statistically significant primary outcomes were more likely to be completely reported in the systematic review abstract than non-significant primary outcomes (RR 2.66, 95% CI 1.81 to 3.90). None of the studies included systematic reviews published after 2009 when reporting standards for systematic reviews (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, and Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)) were disseminated, so the results might not be generalisable to more recent systematic reviews. Discrepant outcome reporting between the protocol and published systematic review is fairly common, although the association between statistical significance and discrepant outcome reporting is uncertain. Complete reporting of outcomes in systematic review abstracts is associated with statistical significance of the results for those outcomes. Systematic review outcomes and analysis plans should be specified prior to seeing the results of included studies to minimise post-hoc decisions that may be based on the observed results. Modifications that occur once the review has commenced, along with their justification, should be clearly reported. Effect estimates and CIs should be reported for all systematic review outcomes regardless of the results. The lack of research on selective inclusion of results in systematic reviews needs to be addressed and studies that avoid the methodological weaknesses of existing research are also needed.

Making evidence more wanted: a systematic review of facilitators to enhance the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

PubMed

Wallace, John; Byrne, Charles; Clarke, Mike

2012-12-01

The increased uptake of evidence from systematic reviews is advocated because of their potential to improve the quality of decision making for patient care. Systematic reviews can do this by decreasing inappropriate clinical variation and quickly expediting the application of current, effective advances to everyday practice. However, research suggests that evidence from systematic reviews has not been widely adopted by health professionals. Little is known about the facilitators to uptake of research evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To review the facilitators to the uptake by decision makers, of evidence from systematic, meta-analyses and the databases containing them. We searched 19 databases covering the full range of publication years, utilised three search engines and also personally contacted investigators. Grey literature and knowledge translation research was particularly sought. Reference lists of primary studies and related reviews were also searched. Studies were included if they reported on the views and perceptions of decision makers on the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and the databases associated with them. One investigator screened titles to identify candidate articles, and then two reviewers independently assessed the relevance of retrieved articles to exclude studies that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Quality of the included studies was also assessed. Using a pre-established taxonomy, two reviewers described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and then analysed. Differences were resolved by consensus. Of articles initially identified, we selected unique published studies describing at least one facilitator to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews. The 15 unique studies reported 10 surveys, three qualitative investigations and two mixed studies that addressed potential facilitators. Five studies were from Canada, four from the UK, three from Australia, one from Iran and one from South-east Asia (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and the Philippines), with one study covering both Canada and UK. In total, the 15 studies covered eight countries from four continents. Of 2495 participants in the 15 studies, at least 1343 (53.8%) were physicians. Perceived facilitators to the use of evidence from systematic reviews varied. The 15 studies yielded 54 potential facilitators to systematic review uptake. The five most commonly reported perceived facilitators to uptake of evidence from systematic reviews were the following: the perception that systematic reviews have multiple uses for improving knowledge, research, clinical protocols and evidence-based medicine skills (6/15); a content that included benefits, harms and costs and is current, transparent and timely (6/15); a format with a 1:3:25 staged access and executive summary (5/15); training in use (4/15); and peer-group support (4/15). The results expand our understanding of how multiple factors act as facilitators to optimal clinical practice. This systematic review reveals that interventions to foster uptake of evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and The Cochrane Library can build on a broad range of facilitators. © 2012 The Authors. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare © 2012 The Joanna Briggs Institute.

Purpose of the systematic physical assessment in everyday practice: critique of a "sacred cow".

PubMed

Zambas, Shelaine Iris

2010-06-01

Although considered an essential nursing skill, systematic physical assessment is rarely visible in everyday practice. Some nurses question whether systematic physical assessment is relevant to nursing, and others complain that they do not see it used in practice. Why is this, when these skills are considered so integral to nursing? This article challenges nurse educators to reflect on the purpose of the systematic physical assessment within nursing by analyzing the underlying assumptions of this apparent "sacred cow." Copyright 2010, SLACK Incorporated.

Salutogenically focused outcomes in systematic reviews of intrapartum interventions: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Smith, Valerie; Daly, Deirdre; Lundgren, Ingela; Eri, Tine; Benstoem, Carina; Devane, Declan

2014-04-01

research on intrapartum interventions in maternity care has focused traditionally on the identification of risk factors' and on the reduction of adverse outcomes with less attention given to the measurement of factors that contribute to well-being and positive health outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of reviews to determine the type and number of salutogenically-focused reported outcomes in current maternity care intrapartum intervention-based research. For the conduct of this review, we interpreted salutogenic outcomes as those relating to optimum and/or positive maternal and neonatal health and well-being. to identify salutogenically-focused outcomes reported in systematic reviews of randomised trials of intrapartum interventions. we searched Issue 9 (September) 2011 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for all reviews of intrapartum interventions published by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group using the group filter "hm-preg". Systematic reviews of randomised trials of intrapartum interventions were eligible for inclusion. We excluded protocols for systematic reviews and systematic reviews that had been withdrawn. Outcome data were extracted independently from each included review by at least two review authors. Unique lists of salutogenically and non-salutogenically focused outcomes were established. 16 salutogenically-focused outcome categories were identified in 102 included reviews. Maternal satisfaction and breast feeding were reported most frequently. 49 non-salutogenically-focused outcome categories were identified in the 102 included reviews. Measures of neonatal morbidity were reported most frequently. there is an absence of salutogenically-focused outcomes reported in intrapartum intervention-based research. We recommend the development of a core outcome data set of salutogenically-focused outcomes for intrapartum research. © 2013 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Causal Inference for fMRI Time Series Data with Systematic Errors of Measurement in a Balanced On/Off Study of Social Evaluative Threat.

PubMed

Sobel, Michael E; Lindquist, Martin A

2014-07-01

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) has facilitated major advances in understanding human brain function. Neuroscientists are interested in using fMRI to study the effects of external stimuli on brain activity and causal relationships among brain regions, but have not stated what is meant by causation or defined the effects they purport to estimate. Building on Rubin's causal model, we construct a framework for causal inference using blood oxygenation level dependent (BOLD) fMRI time series data. In the usual statistical literature on causal inference, potential outcomes, assumed to be measured without systematic error, are used to define unit and average causal effects. However, in general the potential BOLD responses are measured with stimulus dependent systematic error. Thus we define unit and average causal effects that are free of systematic error. In contrast to the usual case of a randomized experiment where adjustment for intermediate outcomes leads to biased estimates of treatment effects (Rosenbaum, 1984), here the failure to adjust for task dependent systematic error leads to biased estimates. We therefore adjust for systematic error using measured "noise covariates" , using a linear mixed model to estimate the effects and the systematic error. Our results are important for neuroscientists, who typically do not adjust for systematic error. They should also prove useful to researchers in other areas where responses are measured with error and in fields where large amounts of data are collected on relatively few subjects. To illustrate our approach, we re-analyze data from a social evaluative threat task, comparing the findings with results that ignore systematic error.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination.

PubMed

Remschmidt, Cornelius; Wichmann, Ole; Harder, Thomas

2014-03-26

There is a growing body of evidence on the risks and benefits of influenza vaccination in various target groups. Systematic reviews are of particular importance for policy decisions. However, their methodological quality can vary considerably. To investigate the methodological quality of systematic reviews on influenza vaccination (efficacy, effectiveness, safety) and to identify influencing factors. A systematic literature search on systematic reviews on influenza vaccination was performed, using MEDLINE, EMBASE and three additional databases (1990-2013). Review characteristics were extracted and the methodological quality of the reviews was evaluated using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. U-test, Kruskal-Wallis test, chi-square test, and multivariable linear regression analysis were used to assess the influence of review characteristics on AMSTAR-score. Fourty-six systematic reviews fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Average methodological quality was high (median AMSTAR-score: 8), but variability was large (AMSTAR range: 0-11). Quality did not differ significantly according to vaccination target group. Cochrane reviews had higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews (p=0.001). Detailed analysis showed that this was due to better study selection and data extraction, inclusion of unpublished studies, and better reporting of study characteristics (all p<0.05). In the adjusted analysis, no other factor, including industry sponsorship or journal impact factor had an influence on AMSTAR score. Systematic reviews on influenza vaccination showed large differences regarding their methodological quality. Reviews conducted by the Cochrane collaboration were of higher quality than others. When using systematic reviews to guide the development of vaccination recommendations, the methodological quality of a review in addition to its content should be considered. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Methodological issues and recommendations for systematic reviews of prognostic studies: an example from cardiovascular disease.

PubMed

Dretzke, Janine; Ensor, Joie; Bayliss, Sue; Hodgkinson, James; Lordkipanidzé, Marie; Riley, Richard D; Fitzmaurice, David; Moore, David

2014-12-03

Prognostic factors are associated with the risk of future health outcomes in individuals with a particular health condition. The prognostic ability of such factors is increasingly being assessed in both primary research and systematic reviews. Systematic review methodology in this area is continuing to evolve, reflected in variable approaches to key methodological aspects. The aim of this article was to (i) explore and compare the methodology of systematic reviews of prognostic factors undertaken for the same clinical question, (ii) to discuss implications for review findings, and (iii) to present recommendations on what might be considered to be 'good practice' approaches. The sample was comprised of eight systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, namely whether 'aspirin resistance' (a potential prognostic factor) has prognostic utility relative to future vascular events in patients on aspirin therapy for secondary prevention. A detailed comparison of methods around study identification, study selection, quality assessment, approaches to analysis, and reporting of findings was undertaken and the implications discussed. These were summarised into key considerations that may be transferable to future systematic reviews of prognostic factors. Across systematic reviews addressing the same clinical question, there were considerable differences in the numbers of studies identified and overlap between included studies, which could only partially be explained by different study eligibility criteria. Incomplete reporting and differences in terminology within primary studies hampered study identification and selection process across reviews. Quality assessment was highly variable and only one systematic review considered a checklist for studies of prognostic questions. There was inconsistency between reviews in approaches towards analysis, synthesis, addressing heterogeneity and reporting of results. Different methodological approaches may ultimately affect the findings and interpretation of systematic reviews of prognostic research, with implications for clinical decision-making.

Asteroseismic modelling of solar-type stars: internal systematics from input physics and surface correction methods

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Nsamba, B.; Campante, T. L.; Monteiro, M. J. P. F. G.; Cunha, M. S.; Rendle, B. M.; Reese, D. R.; Verma, K.

2018-04-01

Asteroseismic forward modelling techniques are being used to determine fundamental properties (e.g. mass, radius, and age) of solar-type stars. The need to take into account all possible sources of error is of paramount importance towards a robust determination of stellar properties. We present a study of 34 solar-type stars for which high signal-to-noise asteroseismic data is available from multi-year Kepler photometry. We explore the internal systematics on the stellar properties, that is, associated with the uncertainty in the input physics used to construct the stellar models. In particular, we explore the systematics arising from: (i) the inclusion of the diffusion of helium and heavy elements; and (ii) the uncertainty in solar metallicity mixture. We also assess the systematics arising from (iii) different surface correction methods used in optimisation/fitting procedures. The systematics arising from comparing results of models with and without diffusion are found to be 0.5%, 0.8%, 2.1%, and 16% in mean density, radius, mass, and age, respectively. The internal systematics in age are significantly larger than the statistical uncertainties. We find the internal systematics resulting from the uncertainty in solar metallicity mixture to be 0.7% in mean density, 0.5% in radius, 1.4% in mass, and 6.7% in age. The surface correction method by Sonoi et al. and Ball & Gizon's two-term correction produce the lowest internal systematics among the different correction methods, namely, ˜1%, ˜1%, ˜2%, and ˜8% in mean density, radius, mass, and age, respectively. Stellar masses obtained using the surface correction methods by Kjeldsen et al. and Ball & Gizon's one-term correction are systematically higher than those obtained using frequency ratios.

Grey literature: An important resource in systematic reviews.

PubMed

Paez, Arsenio

2017-12-21

Systematic reviews aid the analysis and dissemination of evidence, using rigorous and transparent methods to generate empirically attained answers to focused research questions. Identifying all evidence relevant to the research questions is an essential component, and challenge, of systematic reviews. Grey literature, or evidence not published in commercial publications, can make important contributions to a systematic review. Grey literature can include academic papers, including theses and dissertations, research and committee reports, government reports, conference papers, and ongoing research, among others. It may provide data not found within commercially published literature, providing an important forum for disseminating studies with null or negative results that might not otherwise be disseminated. Grey literature may thusly reduce publication bias, increase reviews' comprehensiveness and timeliness and foster a balanced picture of available evidence. Grey literature's diverse formats and audiences can present a significant challenge in a systematic search for evidence. However, the benefits of including grey literature may far outweigh the cost in time and resource needed to search for it, and it is important for it to be included in a systematic review or review of evidence. A carefully thought out grey literature search strategy may be an invaluable component of a systematic review. This narrative review provides guidance about the benefits of including grey literature in a systematic review, and sources for searching through grey literature. An illustrative example of a search for evidence within grey literature sources is presented to highlight the potential contributions of such a search to a systematic review. Benefits and challenges of grey literature search methods are discussed, and recommendations made. © 2017 Chinese Cochrane Center, West China Hospital of Sichuan University and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 7: Finding systematic reviews

PubMed Central

2009-01-01

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Systematic reviews are increasingly seen as a key source of information in policymaking, particularly in terms of assisting with descriptions of the impacts of options. Relative to single studies they offer a number of advantages related to understanding impacts and are also seen as a key source of information for clarifying problems and providing complementary perspectives on options. Systematic reviews can be undertaken to place problems in comparative perspective and to describe the likely harms of an option. They also assist with understanding the meanings that individuals or groups attach to a problem, how and why options work, and stakeholder views and experiences related to particular options. A number of constraints have hindered the wider use of systematic reviews in policymaking. These include a lack of awareness of their value and a mismatch between the terms employed by policymakers, when attempting to retrieve systematic reviews, and the terms used by the original authors of those reviews. Mismatches between the types of information that policymakers are seeking, and the way in which authors fail to highlight (or make obvious) such information within systematic reviews have also proved problematic. In this article, we suggest three questions that can be used to guide those searching for systematic reviews, particularly reviews about the impacts of options being considered. These are: 1. Is a systematic review really what is needed? 2. What databases and search strategies can be used to find relevant systematic reviews? 3. What alternatives are available when no relevant review can be found? PMID:20018114

Identification and correction of systematic error in high-throughput sequence data

PubMed Central

2011-01-01

Background A feature common to all DNA sequencing technologies is the presence of base-call errors in the sequenced reads. The implications of such errors are application specific, ranging from minor informatics nuisances to major problems affecting biological inferences. Recently developed "next-gen" sequencing technologies have greatly reduced the cost of sequencing, but have been shown to be more error prone than previous technologies. Both position specific (depending on the location in the read) and sequence specific (depending on the sequence in the read) errors have been identified in Illumina and Life Technology sequencing platforms. We describe a new type of systematic error that manifests as statistically unlikely accumulations of errors at specific genome (or transcriptome) locations. Results We characterize and describe systematic errors using overlapping paired reads from high-coverage data. We show that such errors occur in approximately 1 in 1000 base pairs, and that they are highly replicable across experiments. We identify motifs that are frequent at systematic error sites, and describe a classifier that distinguishes heterozygous sites from systematic error. Our classifier is designed to accommodate data from experiments in which the allele frequencies at heterozygous sites are not necessarily 0.5 (such as in the case of RNA-Seq), and can be used with single-end datasets. Conclusions Systematic errors can easily be mistaken for heterozygous sites in individuals, or for SNPs in population analyses. Systematic errors are particularly problematic in low coverage experiments, or in estimates of allele-specific expression from RNA-Seq data. Our characterization of systematic error has allowed us to develop a program, called SysCall, for identifying and correcting such errors. We conclude that correction of systematic errors is important to consider in the design and interpretation of high-throughput sequencing experiments. PMID:22099972

Psychosocial Benefits of Cooking Interventions: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Farmer, Nicole; Touchton-Leonard, Katherine; Ross, Alyson

2018-01-01

Objectives: Cooking interventions are used in therapeutic and rehabilitative settings; however, little is known about the influence of these interventions on psychosocial outcomes. This systematic review examines the research evidence regarding the influence of cooking interventions on psychosocial outcomes. Methods: A systematic review of the…

New single-copy nuclear genes for scale insect systematics

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

Despite the advent of next-generation sequencing, the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and Sanger sequencing remain useful tools for molecular identification and systematics. To date, molecular systematics of scale insects has been constrained by the paucity of loci that researchers have been able to...

The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses

PubMed Central

2016-01-01

Policy Points: Currently, there is massive production of unnecessary, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta‐analyses. Instead of promoting evidence‐based medicine and health care, these instruments often serve mostly as easily produced publishable units or marketing tools.Suboptimal systematic reviews and meta‐analyses can be harmful given the major prestige and influence these types of studies have acquired.The publication of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses should be realigned to remove biases and vested interests and to integrate them better with the primary production of evidence. Context Currently, most systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are done retrospectively with fragmented published information. This article aims to explore the growth of published systematic reviews and meta‐analyses and to estimate how often they are redundant, misleading, or serving conflicted interests. Methods Data included information from PubMed surveys and from empirical evaluations of meta‐analyses. Findings Publication of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses has increased rapidly. In the period January 1, 1986, to December 4, 2015, PubMed tags 266,782 items as “systematic reviews” and 58,611 as “meta‐analyses.” Annual publications between 1991 and 2014 increased 2,728% for systematic reviews and 2,635% for meta‐analyses versus only 153% for all PubMed‐indexed items. Currently, probably more systematic reviews of trials than new randomized trials are published annually. Most topics addressed by meta‐analyses of randomized trials have overlapping, redundant meta‐analyses; same‐topic meta‐analyses may exceed 20 sometimes. Some fields produce massive numbers of meta‐analyses; for example, 185 meta‐analyses of antidepressants for depression were published between 2007 and 2014. These meta‐analyses are often produced either by industry employees or by authors with industry ties and results are aligned with sponsor interests. China has rapidly become the most prolific producer of English‐language, PubMed‐indexed meta‐analyses. The most massive presence of Chinese meta‐analyses is on genetic associations (63% of global production in 2014), where almost all results are misleading since they combine fragmented information from mostly abandoned era of candidate genes. Furthermore, many contracting companies working on evidence synthesis receive industry contracts to produce meta‐analyses, many of which probably remain unpublished. Many other meta‐analyses have serious flaws. Of the remaining, most have weak or insufficient evidence to inform decision making. Few systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are both non‐misleading and useful. Conclusions The production of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses has reached epidemic proportions. Possibly, the large majority of produced systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are unnecessary, misleading, and/or conflicted. PMID:27620683

The methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry.

PubMed

Faggion, C M; Listl, S; Giannakopoulos, N N

2012-05-01

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies are important for improving estimates of the effects of treatment and for guiding future clinical studies on humans. The purpose of this systematic review was to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies in dentistry through using a validated checklist. A literature search was conducted independently and in duplicate in the PubMed and LILACS databases. References in selected systematic reviews were assessed to identify other studies not captured by the electronic searches. The methodological quality of studies was assessed independently and in duplicate by using the AMSTAR checklist; the quality was scored as low, moderate, or high. The reviewers were calibrated before the assessment and agreement between them was assessed using Cohen's Kappa statistic. Of 444 studies retrieved, 54 systematic reviews were selected after full-text assessment. Agreement between the reviewers was regarded as excellent. Only two studies were scored as high quality; 17 and 35 studies were scored as medium and low quality, respectively. There is room for improvement of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of animal studies in dentistry. Checklists, such as AMSTAR, can guide researchers in planning and executing systematic reviews and meta-analyses. For determining the need for additional investigations in animals and in order to provide good data for potential application in human, such reviews should be based on animal experiments performed according to sound methodological principles. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Longitudinal analysis of reporting and quality of systematic reviews in high-impact surgical journals.

PubMed

Chapman, S J; Drake, T M; Bolton, W S; Barnard, J; Bhangu, A

2017-02-01

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement aims to optimize the reporting of systematic reviews. The performance of the PRISMA Statement in improving the reporting and quality of surgical systematic reviews remains unclear. Systematic reviews published in five high-impact surgical journals between 2007 and 2015 were identified from online archives. Manuscripts blinded to journal, publication year and authorship were assessed according to 27 reporting criteria described by the PRISMA Statement and scored using a validated quality appraisal tool (AMSTAR, Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews). Comparisons were made between studies published before (2007-2009) and after (2011-2015) its introduction. The relationship between reporting and study quality was measured using Spearman's rank test. Of 281 eligible manuscripts, 80 were published before the PRISMA Statement and 201 afterwards. Most manuscripts (208) included a meta-analysis, with the remainder comprising a systematic review only. There was no meaningful change in median compliance with the PRISMA Statement (19 (i.q.r. 16-21) of 27 items before versus 19 (17-22) of 27 after introduction of PRISMA) despite achieving statistical significance (P = 0·042). Better reporting compliance was associated with higher methodological quality (r s  = 0·70, P < 0·001). The PRISMA Statement has had minimal impact on the reporting of surgical systematic reviews. Better compliance was associated with higher-quality methodology. © 2016 BJS Society Ltd Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Prospective systematic review registration: perspective from the Guidelines International Network (G-I-N).

PubMed

Van der Wees, Philip; Qaseem, Amir; Kaila, Minna; Ollenschlaeger, Guenter; Rosenfeld, Richard

2012-02-09

Clinical practice and public health guidelines are important tools for translating research findings into practice with the aim of assisting health practitioners as well as patients and consumers in health behavior and healthcare decision-making. Numerous programs for guideline development exist around the world, with growing international collaboration to improve their quality. One of the key features in developing trustworthy guidelines is that recommendations should be based on high-quality systematic reviews of the best available evidence. The review process used by guideline developers to identify and grade relevant evidence for developing recommendations should be systematic, transparent and unbiased. In this paper, we provide an overview of current international developments in the field of practice guidelines and methods to develop guidelines, with a specific focus on the role of systematic reviews. The Guidelines International Network (G-I-N) aims to stimulate collaboration between guideline developers and systematic reviewers to optimize the use of available evidence in guideline development and to increase efficiency in the guideline development process. Considering the significant benefit of systematic reviews for the guideline community, the G-I-N Board of Trustees supports the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) initiative. G-I-N also recently launched a Data Extraction Resource (GINDER) to present and share data extracted from individual studies in a standardized template. PROSPERO and GINDER are complementary tools to enhance collaboration between guideline developers and systematic reviewers to allow for alignment of activities and a reduction in duplication of effort.

Added value of double reading in diagnostic radiology,a systematic review.

PubMed

Geijer, Håkan; Geijer, Mats

2018-06-01

Double reading in diagnostic radiology can find discrepancies in the original report, but a systematic program of double reading is resource consuming. There are conflicting opinions on the value of double reading. The purpose of the current study was to perform a systematic review on the value of double reading. A systematic review was performed to find studies calculating the rate of misses and overcalls with the aim of establishing the added value of double reading by human observers. The literature search resulted in 1610 hits. After abstract and full-text reading, 46 articles were selected for analysis. The rate of discrepancy varied from 0.4 to 22% depending on study setting. Double reading by a sub-specialist, in general, led to high rates of changed reports. The systematic review found rather low discrepancy rates. The benefit of double reading must be balanced by the considerable number of working hours a systematic double-reading scheme requires. A more profitable scheme might be to use systematic double reading for selected, high-risk examination types. A second conclusion is that there seems to be a value of sub-specialisation for increased report quality. A consequent implementation of this would have far-reaching organisational effects. • In double reading, two or more radiologists read the same images. • A systematic literature review was performed. • The discrepancy rates varied from 0.4 to 22% in various studies. • Double reading by sub-specialists found high discrepancy rates.

Reliability and Validity of Survey Instruments to Measure Work-Related Fatigue in the Emergency Medical Services Setting: A Systematic Review

DOT National Transportation Integrated Search

2018-01-11

Background: This study sought to systematically search the literature to identify reliable and valid survey instruments for fatigue measurement in the Emergency Medical Services (EMS) occupational setting. Methods: A systematic review study design wa...

7 CFR 272.11 - Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... 7 Agriculture 4 2013-01-01 2013-01-01 false Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... FOR PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES § 272.11 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... and Naturalization Service (INS), in order to verify the validity of documents provided by aliens...

7 CFR 272.11 - Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... 7 Agriculture 4 2012-01-01 2012-01-01 false Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... FOR PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES § 272.11 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... and Naturalization Service (INS), in order to verify the validity of documents provided by aliens...

7 CFR 272.11 - Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 7 Agriculture 4 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... FOR PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES § 272.11 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... and Naturalization Service (INS), in order to verify the validity of documents provided by aliens...

7 CFR 272.11 - Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

... 7 Agriculture 4 2011-01-01 2011-01-01 false Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... FOR PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES § 272.11 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... and Naturalization Service (INS), in order to verify the validity of documents provided by aliens...

7 CFR 272.11 - Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) Program.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... 7 Agriculture 4 2014-01-01 2014-01-01 false Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... FOR PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES § 272.11 Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE... and Naturalization Service (INS), in order to verify the validity of documents provided by aliens...

Systematic Review Methodology in Higher Education

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bearman, Margaret; Smith, Calvin D.; Carbone, Angela; Slade, Susan; Baik, Chi; Hughes-Warrington, Marnie; Neumann, David L.

2012-01-01

Systematic review methodology can be distinguished from narrative reviews of the literature through its emphasis on transparent, structured and comprehensive approaches to searching the literature and its requirement for formal synthesis of research findings. There appears to be relatively little use of the systematic review methodology within the…

Systematic Treatment Selection (STS): A Review and Future Directions

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Nguyen, Tam T.; Bertoni, Matteo; Charvat, Mylea; Gheytanchi, Anahita; Beutler, Larry E.

2007-01-01

Systematic Treatment Selection (STS) is a form of technical eclectism that develops and plans treatments using empirically founded principles of psychotherapy. It is a model that provides systematic guidelines for the utilization of different psychotherapeutic strategies based on patient qualities and problem characteristics. Historically, it…

Systematic Review: Concept and Tool Development with Application in the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessment Process

EPA Science Inventory

Systematic Review: Concept and tool development with application to the National Toxicology Program (NTP) and the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Assessment Processes. There is growing interest within the environmental health community to incorporate systematic review m...

EMG Biofeedback Training Versus Systematic Desensitization for Test Anxiety Reduction

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Romano, John L.; Cabianca, William A.

1978-01-01

Biofeedback training to reduce test anxiety among university students was investigated. Biofeedback training with systematic desensitization was compared to an automated systematic desensitization program not using EMG feedback. Biofeedback training is a useful technique for reducing test anxiety, but not necessarily more effective than systematic…

Comment on the Status of Systematic Desensitization

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

McGlynn, F. Dudley; Smitherman, Todd A.; Gothard, Kelly D.

2004-01-01

Articles about systematic desensitization that appeared in mainstream behavior therapy journals between the years 1970 and 2002 were counted. Graphic displays of the data point to a sudden and lasting decline of interest in systematic desensitization among academics and researchers. A questionnaire concerning clinical use of orthodox systematic…

Introduction to Systematic Instruction. (SCAT Project, Title VI-G).

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Idaho State Dept. of Education, Boise.

Developed by the staff of SCAT (Support, Competency-Assistance and Training), the document provides information on systematic instructional procedures for teachers of exceptional children. Briefly addressed are the seven components of systematic instruction: initial assessment, establishment of long term goals, sequencing of short term objectives,…

5 CFR 1312.10 - Systematic review guidelines.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2010 CFR

2010-01-01

... 5 Administrative Personnel 3 2010-01-01 2010-01-01 false Systematic review guidelines. 1312.10... Declassification of National Security Information § 1312.10 Systematic review guidelines. The EOP Security Officer will prepare and keep current such guidelines as are required by Executive Order 12958 for the...

A Comparison of Systematic Screening Tools for Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lane, Kathleen Lynne; Little, M. Annette; Casey, Amy M.; Lambert, Warren; Wehby, Joseph; Weisenbach, Jessica L.; Phillips, Andrea

2009-01-01

Early identification of students who might develop emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) is essential in preventing negative outcomes. Systematic screening tools are available for identifying elementary-age students with EBD, including the "Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders" (SSBD) and the "Student Risk Screening…

Systematic Review Protocol for the IRIS Chloroform Assessment (Inhalation) (Preliminary Assessment Materials)

EPA Science Inventory

In January 2018, EPA released the Systematic Review Protocol for the IRIS Chloroform Assessment (Inhalation). As part of developing a draft IRIS assessment, EPA presents a methods document, referred to as the protocol, for conducting a chemical-specific systematic revie...

The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review.

PubMed

Petkovic, Jennifer; Welch, Vivian; Jacob, Maria Helena; Yoganathan, Manosila; Ayala, Ana Patricia; Cunningham, Heather; Tugwell, Peter

2016-12-09

Systematic reviews are important for decision makers. They offer many potential benefits but are often written in technical language, are too long, and do not contain contextual details which make them hard to use for decision-making. There are many organizations that develop and disseminate derivative products, such as evidence summaries, from systematic reviews for different populations or subsets of decision makers. This systematic review aimed to (1) assess the effectiveness of evidence summaries on policymakers' use of the evidence and (2) identify the most effective summary components for increasing policymakers' use of the evidence. We present an overview of the available evidence on systematic review derivative products. We included studies of policymakers at all levels as well as health system managers. We included studies examining any type of "evidence summary," "policy brief," or other products derived from systematic reviews that presented evidence in a summarized form. The primary outcomes were the (1) use of systematic review summaries in decision-making (e.g., self-reported use of the evidence in policymaking and decision-making) and (2) policymakers' understanding, knowledge, and/or beliefs (e.g., changes in knowledge scores about the topic included in the summary). We also assessed perceived relevance, credibility, usefulness, understandability, and desirability (e.g., format) of the summaries. Our database search combined with our gray literature search yielded 10,113 references after removal of duplicates. From these, 54 were reviewed in full text, and we included six studies (reported in seven papers) as well as protocols from two ongoing studies. Two studies assessed the use of evidence summaries in decision-making and found little to no difference in effect. There was also little to no difference in effect for knowledge, understanding or beliefs (four studies), and perceived usefulness or usability (three studies). Summary of findings tables and graded entry summaries were perceived as slightly easier to understand compared to complete systematic reviews. Two studies assessed formatting changes and found that for summary of findings tables, certain elements, such as reporting study event rates and absolute differences, were preferred as well as avoiding the use of footnotes. Evidence summaries are likely easier to understand than complete systematic reviews. However, their ability to increase the use of systematic review evidence in policymaking is unclear. The protocol was published in the journal Systematic Reviews (2015;4:122).

Conducting systematic reviews of association (etiology): The Joanna Briggs Institute's approach.

PubMed

Moola, Sandeep; Munn, Zachary; Sears, Kim; Sfetcu, Raluca; Currie, Marian; Lisy, Karolina; Tufanaru, Catalin; Qureshi, Rubab; Mattis, Patrick; Mu, Peifan

2015-09-01

The systematic review of evidence is the research method which underpins the traditional approach to evidence-based healthcare. There is currently no uniform methodology for conducting a systematic review of association (etiology). This study outlines and describes the Joanna Briggs Institute's approach and guidance for synthesizing evidence related to association with a predominant focus on etiology and contributes to the emerging field of systematic review methodologies. It should be noted that questions of association typically address etiological or prognostic issues.The systematic review of studies to answer questions of etiology follows the same basic principles of systematic review of other types of data. An a priori protocol must inform the conduct of the systematic review, comprehensive searching must be performed and critical appraisal of retrieved studies must be carried out.The overarching objective of systematic reviews of etiology is to identify and synthesize the best available evidence on the factors of interest that are associated with a particular disease or outcome. The traditional PICO (population, interventions, comparators and outcomes) format for systematic reviews of effects does not align with questions relating to etiology. A systematic review of etiology should include the following aspects: population, exposure of interest (independent variable) and outcome (dependent variable).Studies of etiology are predominantly explanatory or predictive. The objective of reviews of explanatory or predictive studies is to contribute to, and improve our understanding of, the relationship of health-related events or outcomes by examining the association between variables. When interpreting possible associations between variables based on observational study data, caution must be exercised due to the likely presence of confounding variables or moderators that may impact on the results.As with all systematic reviews, there are various approaches to present the results, including a narrative, graphical or tabular summary, or meta-analysis. When meta-analysis is not possible, a set of alternative methods for synthesizing research is available. On the basis of the research question and objectives, narrative, tabular and/or visual approaches can be used for data synthesis. There are some special considerations when conducting meta-analysis for questions related to risk and correlation. These include, but are not limited to, causal inference.Systematic review and meta-analysis of studies related to etiology is an emerging methodology in the field of evidence synthesis. These reviews can provide useful information for healthcare professionals and policymakers on the burden of disease. The standardized Joanna Briggs Institute approach offers a rigorous and transparent method to conduct reviews of etiology.

Effectiveness of Structured Psychodrama and Systematic Desensitization in Reducing Test Anxiety.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kipper, David A.; Giladi, Daniel

1978-01-01

Students with examination anxiety took part in study of effectiveness of two kinds of treatment, structured psychodrama and systematic desensitization, in reducing test anxiety. Results showed that subjects in both treatment groups significantly reduced test-anxiety scores. Structured psychodrama is as effective as systematic desensitization in…

Performing Systematic Literature Reviews with Novices: An Iterative Approach

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lavallée, Mathieu; Robillard, Pierre-N.; Mirsalari, Reza

2014-01-01

Reviewers performing systematic literature reviews require understanding of the review process and of the knowledge domain. This paper presents an iterative approach for conducting systematic literature reviews that addresses the problems faced by reviewers who are novices in one or both levels of understanding. This approach is derived from…

10 CFR 1045.43 - Systematic review for declassification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2014 CFR

2014-01-01

... ensure that FRD documents, are periodically and systematically reviewed for declassification. The focus... declassification upon review. (b) Agencies with RD or FRD document holdings shall cooperate with the Director of Classification (and with the DoD for FRD) to ensure the systematic review of RD and FRD documents. (c) Review of...

10 CFR 1045.43 - Systematic review for declassification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2013 CFR

2013-01-01

... ensure that FRD documents, are periodically and systematically reviewed for declassification. The focus... declassification upon review. (b) Agencies with RD or FRD document holdings shall cooperate with the Director of Classification (and with the DoD for FRD) to ensure the systematic review of RD and FRD documents. (c) Review of...

10 CFR 1045.43 - Systematic review for declassification.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2012 CFR

2012-01-01

... ensure that FRD documents, are periodically and systematically reviewed for declassification. The focus... declassification upon review. (b) Agencies with RD or FRD document holdings shall cooperate with the Director of Classification (and with the DoD for FRD) to ensure the systematic review of RD and FRD documents. (c) Review of...

Longitudinal and Contextual Associations between Teacher-Student Relationships and Student Engagement: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Quin, Daniel

2017-01-01

This systematic review examined multiple indicators of adolescent students' engagement in school, and the indicators' associations with teacher-student relationships (TSRs). Seven psychology, education, and social sciences databases were systematically searched. From this search, 46 published studies (13 longitudinal) were included for detailed…

Identifying Reinforcers for Persons with Profound Handicaps: Staff Opinion versus Systematic Assessment of Preferences.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Green, Carolyn W.; And Others

1988-01-01

A systematic assessment procedure successfully identified stimulus preferences of seven profoundly and multiply handicapped individuals (ages 12-34). Preference rankings based on caregiver opinion did not consistently coincide with these results. Systematically assessed student preferences were a likely, though not certain, source of reinforcing…

Methods for Documenting Systematic Review Searches: A Discussion of Common Issues

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Rader, Tamara; Mann, Mala; Stansfield, Claire; Cooper, Chris; Sampson, Margaret

2014-01-01

Introduction: As standardized reporting requirements for systematic reviews are being adopted more widely, review authors are under greater pressure to accurately record their search process. With careful planning, documentation to fulfill the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses requirements can become a valuable…

Mobile Phone-Based Behavioural Interventions for Health: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Buhi, Eric R.; Trudnak, Tara E.; Martinasek, Mary P.; Oberne, Alison B.; Fuhrmann, Hollie J.; McDermott, Robert J.

2013-01-01

Objective: To perform a systematic review of the literature concerning behavioural mobile health (mHealth) and summarize points related to heath topic, use of theory, audience, purpose, design, intervention components, and principal results that can inform future health education applications. Design: A systematic review of the literature. Method:…

Modeling Systematicity and Individuality in Nonlinear Second Language Development: The Case of English Grammatical Morphemes

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Murakami, Akira

2016-01-01

This article introduces two sophisticated statistical modeling techniques that allow researchers to analyze systematicity, individual variation, and nonlinearity in second language (L2) development. Generalized linear mixed-effects models can be used to quantify individual variation and examine systematic effects simultaneously, and generalized…

Systematic Desensitization as a Method of Teaching a General Anxiety-Reducing Skill

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Zemore, Robert

1975-01-01

College students were treated with either a standard or modified version of systematic desensitization. Relative to a no-treatment control group, both treatment methods produced significant reductions in both the treated and untreated fears. The implications these findings have for two alternative conceptions of systematic desensitization are…

Hypnosis Versus Systematic Desensitization in the Treatment of Test Anxiety

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Melnick, Joseph; Russell, Ronald W.

1976-01-01

This study compared the effectiveness of systematic desensitization and the directed experience hypnotic technique in reducing self-reported test anxiety and increasing the academic performance of test-anxious undergraduates (N=36). The results are discussed as evidence for systematic desensitization as the more effective treatment in reducing…

Flooding and Systematic Desensitization: Efficacy in Subclinical Phobics as a Function of Arousal

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Suarez, Yolanda; And Others

1976-01-01

Flooding and systematic desensitization procedures were investigated for possible interactions with subject arousal level on reduction in phobic reactions. No such interaction was found. Behaviorally and on GSR response, both flooding and systematic desensitization were effective, but only the latter was effective on subjective reports. (NG)

Cognitive Modification and Systematic Desensitization with Test Anxious High School Students.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Leal, Lois L.; And Others

1981-01-01

Compares the relative effectiveness of cognitive modification and systematic desensitization with test anxious high school students (N=30). The systematic desensitization treatment appeared to be significantly more effective on the performance measure while cognitive modification was more effective on one of the self-report measures. (Author/JAC)

Use of Fictional Medical Television in Health Sciences Education: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Hoffman, Beth L.; Hoffman, Robert; Wessel, Charles B.; Shensa, Ariel; Woods, Michelle S.; Primack, Brian A.

2018-01-01

While medical television programs are popular among health profession trainees, it is not clear to what extent these programs affect their knowledge, perceptions, and/or behaviors. Therefore, we conducted a systematic review of research evaluating associations between program exposure and outcomes. We conducted systematic literature searches in…

The Alameda County Study: A Systematic, Chronological Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Housman, Jeff; Dorman, Steve

2005-01-01

This study is a systematic review of the Alameda County study findings and their importance in establishing a link between lifestyle and health outcomes. A systematic review of literature was performed and data indicating important links between lifestyle and health were synthesized. Although initial studies focused on the associations between…

Understanding Systematics in ZZ Ceti Model Fitting to Enable Differential Seismology

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Fuchs, J. T.; Dunlap, B. H.; Clemens, J. C.; Meza, J. A.; Dennihy, E.; Koester, D.

2017-03-01

We are conducting a large spectroscopic survey of over 130 Southern ZZ Cetis with the Goodman Spectrograph on the SOAR Telescope. Because it employs a single instrument with high UV throughput, this survey will both improve the signal-to-noise of the sample of SDSS ZZ Cetis and provide a uniform dataset for model comparison. We are paying special attention to systematics in the spectral fitting and quantify three of those systematics here. We show that relative positions in the log g -Teff plane are consistent for these three systematics.

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

NONE

Training programs at DOE facilities should prepare personnel to safely and efficiently operate and maintain the facilities in accordance with DOE requirements. This guide presents good practices for a systematic approach to on-the-job training (OJT) and OJT programs and should be used in conjunction with DOE Training Program Handbook: A Systematic Approach to Training, and with the DOE Handbook entitled Alternative Systematic Approaches to Training to develop performance-based OJT programs. DOE contractors may also use this guide to modify existing OJT programs that do not meet the systematic approach to training (SAT) objectives.

Evidence synthesis and its role in evidence-based health care.

PubMed

Pearson, Alan

2014-12-01

The central role of evidence synthesis (or the systematic review of evidence) in evidence-based health care is often poorly understood. There are numerous examples in the literature of poorly conceived and/or executed systematic reviews and of a lack of awareness of the international standards developed by the international leaders in systematic reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration has played a critical global role in developing and refining systematic review methods in relation to evidence of effects and of diagnostic accuracy. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Analysis of Wind Tunnel Polar Replicates Using the Modern Design of Experiments

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Deloach, Richard; Micol, John R.

2010-01-01

The role of variance in a Modern Design of Experiments analysis of wind tunnel data is reviewed, with distinctions made between explained and unexplained variance. The partitioning of unexplained variance into systematic and random components is illustrated, with examples of the elusive systematic component provided for various types of real-world tests. The importance of detecting and defending against systematic unexplained variance in wind tunnel testing is discussed, and the random and systematic components of unexplained variance are examined for a representative wind tunnel data set acquired in a test in which a missile is used as a test article. The adverse impact of correlated (non-independent) experimental errors is described, and recommendations are offered for replication strategies that facilitate the quantification of random and systematic unexplained variance.

Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap.

PubMed

Elliott, Julian H; Turner, Tari; Clavisi, Ornella; Thomas, James; Higgins, Julian P T; Mavergames, Chris; Gruen, Russell L

2014-02-01

The current difficulties in keeping systematic reviews up to date leads to considerable inaccuracy, hampering the translation of knowledge into action. Incremental advances in conventional review updating are unlikely to lead to substantial improvements in review currency. A new approach is needed. We propose living systematic review as a contribution to evidence synthesis that combines currency with rigour to enhance the accuracy and utility of health evidence. Living systematic reviews are high quality, up-to-date online summaries of health research, updated as new research becomes available, and enabled by improved production efficiency and adherence to the norms of scholarly communication. Together with innovations in primary research reporting and the creation and use of evidence in health systems, living systematic review contributes to an emerging evidence ecosystem.

[Analysis of the implementation of Nursing Assistance Systematization in a rehabilitation unit].

PubMed

Neves, Rinaldo de Souza; Shimizu, Helena Eri

2010-01-01

This study seeks to analyze the execution of the Infirmary Attendance Systematization Nursing stages through an exploratory, qualitative and retrospective approach. The retrospective analysis took place using 25 medic reports containing 25 historical reports, 12 diagnosis reports, 100 prescriptions and 100 nursing evolution reports. The results demonstrated the many difficulties the nurses faced to make Nursing Assistance Systematization operational. Although all Nursing Assistance Systematization stages were accomplished - historical, diagnosis, prescription, evolution and nursing - it was verified a larger frequency in filling prescription and historical related forms and a lesser one related with evolution and diagnosis related forms. In short, Nursing Assistance Systematization procedures still are fragmentized, showing the need to reorganize this attendance methodology attendance, and, above all, to invest in continuous nursing training to improve the customer care services quality.

How arbitrary is language?

PubMed Central

Monaghan, Padraic; Shillcock, Richard C.; Christiansen, Morten H.; Kirby, Simon

2014-01-01

It is a long established convention that the relationship between sounds and meanings of words is essentially arbitrary—typically the sound of a word gives no hint of its meaning. However, there are numerous reported instances of systematic sound–meaning mappings in language, and this systematicity has been claimed to be important for early language development. In a large-scale corpus analysis of English, we show that sound–meaning mappings are more systematic than would be expected by chance. Furthermore, this systematicity is more pronounced for words involved in the early stages of language acquisition and reduces in later vocabulary development. We propose that the vocabulary is structured to enable systematicity in early language learning to promote language acquisition, while also incorporating arbitrariness for later language in order to facilitate communicative expressivity and efficiency. PMID:25092667

Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews*

PubMed Central

Hartley, James

2000-01-01

Background: There is a small body of research on improving the clarity of abstracts in general that is relevant to improving the clarity of abstracts of systematic reviews. Objectives: To summarize this earlier research and indicate its implications for writing the abstracts of systematic reviews. Method: Literature review with commentary on three main features affecting the clarity of abstracts: their language, structure, and typographical presentation. Conclusions: The abstracts of systematic reviews should be easier to read than the abstracts of medical research articles, as they are targeted at a wider audience. The aims, methods, results, and conclusions of systematic reviews need to be presented in a consistent way to help search and retrieval. The typographic detailing of the abstracts (type-sizes, spacing, and weights) should be planned to help, rather than confuse, the reader. PMID:11055300

Manual search approaches used by systematic reviewers in dermatology.

PubMed

Vassar, Matt; Atakpo, Paul; Kash, Melissa J

2016-10-01

Manual searches are supplemental approaches to database searches to identify additional primary studies for systematic reviews. The authors argue that these manual approaches, in particular hand-searching and perusing reference lists, are often considered the same yet lead to different outcomes. We conducted a PubMed search for systematic reviews in the top 10 dermatology journals (January 2006-January 2016). After screening, the final sample comprised 292 reviews. Statements related to manual searches were extracted from each review and categorized by the primary and secondary authors. Each statement was categorized as either "Search of Reference List," "Hand Search," "Both," or "Unclear." Of the 292 systematic reviews included in our sample, 143 reviews (48.97%) did not report a hand-search or scan of reference lists. One-hundred thirty-six reviews (46.58%) reported searches of reference lists, while 4 reviews (1.37%) reported systematic hand-searches. Three reviews (1.03%) reported use of both hand-searches and scanning reference lists. Six reviews (2.05%) were classified as unclear due to vague wording. Authors of systematic reviews published in dermatology journals in our study sample scanned reference lists more frequently than they conducted hand-searches, possibly contributing to biased search outcomes. We encourage systematic reviewers to routinely practice hand-searching in order to minimize bias.

What do we know about preventing school violence? A systematic review of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Lester, Soraya; Lawrence, Cayleigh; Ward, Catherine L

2017-03-01

Many children across the world are exposed to school violence, which undermines their right to education and adversely affects their development. Studies of interventions for school violence suggest that it can be prevented. However, this evidence base is challenging to navigate. We completed a systematic review of interventions to reduce four types of school violence: (a) peer violence; (b) corporal punishment; (c) student-on-teacher violence and (d) teacher-on-student violence. Reviewers independently searched databases and journals. Included studies were published between 2005 and 2015; in English; considered school-based interventions for children and measured violence as an outcome. Many systematic reviews were found, thus we completed a systematic review of systematic reviews. Only systematic reviews on interventions for intimate partner violence (IPV) and peer aggression were found. These reviews were generally of moderate quality. Research on both types of violence was largely completed in North America. Only a handful of programmes demonstrate promise in preventing IPV. Cognitive behavioral, social-emotional and peer mentoring/mediation programmes showed promise in reducing the levels of perpetration of peer aggression. Further research needs to determine the long-term effects of interventions, potential moderators and mediators of program effects, program effects across different contexts and key intervention components.

Applicability and feasibility of systematic review for performing evidence-based risk assessment in food and feed safety.

PubMed

Aiassa, E; Higgins, J P T; Frampton, G K; Greiner, M; Afonso, A; Amzal, B; Deeks, J; Dorne, J-L; Glanville, J; Lövei, G L; Nienstedt, K; O'connor, A M; Pullin, A S; Rajić, A; Verloo, D

2015-01-01

Food and feed safety risk assessment uses multi-parameter models to evaluate the likelihood of adverse events associated with exposure to hazards in human health, plant health, animal health, animal welfare, and the environment. Systematic review and meta-analysis are established methods for answering questions in health care, and can be implemented to minimize biases in food and feed safety risk assessment. However, no methodological frameworks exist for refining risk assessment multi-parameter models into questions suitable for systematic review, and use of meta-analysis to estimate all parameters required by a risk model may not be always feasible. This paper describes novel approaches for determining question suitability and for prioritizing questions for systematic review in this area. Risk assessment questions that aim to estimate a parameter are likely to be suitable for systematic review. Such questions can be structured by their "key elements" [e.g., for intervention questions, the population(s), intervention(s), comparator(s), and outcome(s)]. Prioritization of questions to be addressed by systematic review relies on the likely impact and related uncertainty of individual parameters in the risk model. This approach to planning and prioritizing systematic review seems to have useful implications for producing evidence-based food and feed safety risk assessment.

Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group's Stakeholder Engagement Project identified systematic review priority areas.

PubMed

Scott, Anna Mae; Clark, Justin; Dooley, Liz; Jones, Ann; Jones, Mark; Del Mar, Chris

2018-05-22

Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI) Group conducts systematic reviews of the evidence for treatment and prevention of ARIs. We report the results of a prioritisation project, aiming to identify highest priority systematic review topics. The project consisted of 2 Phases. Phase 1 analysed the gap between existing RCTs and Cochrane Systematic Reviews (reported previously). Phase 2 (reported here) consisted of a two-round survey. In round 1, respondents prioritised 68 topics and suggested up to 10 additional topics; in Round 2, respondents prioritised top 25 topics from Round 1. Respondents included clinicians, researchers, systematic reviewers, allied health, patients, and carers, from 33 different countries. In Round 1, 154 respondents identified 20 priority topics, most commonly selecting topics in non-specific ARIs, influenza, and common cold. 50 respondents also collectively suggested 134 additional topics. In Round 2, 78 respondents prioritised top 25 topics, most commonly in the areas of non-specific ARIs, pneumonia and influenza. We generated a list of priority systematic review topics, to guide the Cochrane ARI Group's systematic review work for the next 24 months. Stakeholder involvement enhanced the transparency of the process, and will increase the usability and relevance of the Group's work to stakeholders. Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people

PubMed Central

Wilkinson, Tim; Dodds, Richard M.; Ioannidis, John P. A.

2017-01-01

Abstract Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written—and if possible published—before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews. PMID:28655142

Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary.

PubMed

Pham, Ba'; Klassen, Terry P; Lawson, Margaret L; Moher, David

2005-08-01

To assess whether language of publication restrictions impact the estimates of an intervention's effectiveness, whether such impact is similar for conventional medicine and complementary medicine interventions, and whether the results are influenced by publication bias and statistical heterogeneity. We set out to examine the extent to which including reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in languages other than English (LOE) influences the results of systematic reviews, using a broad dataset of 42 language-inclusive systematic reviews, involving 662 RCTs, including both conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions. For CM interventions, language-restricted systematic reviews, compared with language-inclusive ones, did not introduce biased results, in terms of estimates of intervention effectiveness (random effects ration of odds rations ROR=1.02; 95% CI=0.83-1.26). For CAM interventions, however, language-restricted systematic reviews resulted in a 63% smaller protective effect estimate than language-inclusive reviews (random effects ROR=1.63; 95% CI=1.03-2.60). Language restrictions do not change the results of CM systematic reviews but do substantially alter the results of CAM systematic reviews. These findings are robust even after sensitivity analyses, and do not appear to be influenced by statistical heterogeneity and publication bias.

Systematic review to inform prevention and management of chronic disease for Indigenous Australians: overview and priorities.

PubMed

Gomersall, Judith Streak; Canuto, Karla; Aromataris, Edoardo; Braunack-Mayer, Annette; Brown, Alex

2016-02-01

To describe the main characteristics of systematic reviews addressing questions of chronic disease and related risk factors for Indigenous Australians. We searched databases for systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed quality and extracted characteristics using pre-defined tools. We identified 14 systematic reviews. Seven synthesised evidence about health intervention effectiveness; four addressed chronic disease or risk factor prevalence; and six conducted critical appraisal as per current best practice. Only three reported steps to align the review with standards for ethical research with Indigenous Australians and/or capture Indigenous-specific knowledge. Most called for more high-quality research. Systematic review is an under-utilised method for gathering evidence to inform chronic disease prevention and management for Indigenous Australians. Relevance of future systematic reviews could be improved by: 1) aligning questions with community priorities as well as decision maker needs; 2) involvement of, and leadership by, Indigenous researchers with relevant cultural and contextual knowledge; iii) use of critical appraisal tools that include traditional risk of bias assessment criteria and criteria that reflect Indigenous standards of appropriate research. Systematic review method guidance, tools and reporting standards are required to ensure alignment with ethical obligations and promote rigor and relevance. © 2015 Public Health Association of Australia.

Critical appraisal of systematic reviews on the effect of a history of periodontitis on dental implant loss.

PubMed

Faggion, Clovis Mariano; Giannakopoulos, Nikolaos Nikitas

2013-05-01

To perform a systematic critical appraisal of the methodological quality of systematic reviews on the effect of a history of periodontitis on dental implant loss. PubMed, the Cochrane database for systematic reviews, the DARE, Biosis Preview, CINAHL, Web of Science, and LILACS electronic databases were searched on 16th June 2012, independently and in duplicate, for systematic reviews and meta-analyses related to dental implants for patients with and without a history of periodontitis. Manual searching of the reference lists of included papers was also conducted. The methodological quality of these systematic reviews was assessed by use of the AMSTAR and R-AMSTAR checklists. Before quality assessment was initiated, the reviewers were calibrated until they achieved excellent agreement. Sixty-eight papers were initially retrieved. Of these, nine systematic reviews and three meta-analyses were included. Some domains, for example, "characteristics of the included studies" were satisfied in both checklists. In contrast, domains such as "comprehensive literature search" and "assessment of likelihood of publication bias" were rarely met. Much methodological variability was encountered in the selected reviews. To furnish readers with a more comprehensive assessment of the evidence, authors should observe higher standards when conducting and reporting their reviews. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S.

Introducing a Chair-Side Novel Approach to Reach Evidence-based Periodontal Information in the Daily Periodontal Practice

PubMed Central

Dannan, Aous

2009-01-01

Background Evidence-based healthcare is not an easier approach to patient management, but should provide both clinicians and patients with greater confidence and trust in their mutual relationship. The intellectual embrace of evidence-based methods, coupled with clinical expertise and consideration of the patients individual uniqueness and requirements, is needed for all periodontal therapists if optimum care is the goal. One important element of evidence-based decision making in periodontology is the systematic review. Systematic reviews usually provide the periodontist with the highest level of evidence which should be taken into consideration when constructing any treatment plan in the dental clinic. However, reaching systematic reviews might be a time-consuming procedure that needs further personal skills. Methods In this paper, a chair-side novel approach to facilitate the incorporation of systematic reviews into daily periodontal practice is presented. It is based on three simple tools, namely, a list of suitable periodontics-related key words, a data bank of all up-to-date published systematic reviews in periodontology, and hand-made paper sheets to match the key words with their related systematic review statements. Results and Conclusions A primary validation of this method indicated the simplicity in learning and application. Keywords Chair-side; Evidence-based medicine; Periodontology; Systematic review PMID:22461868

How to get started with a systematic review in epidemiology: an introductory guide for early career researchers.

PubMed

Denison, Hayley J; Dodds, Richard M; Ntani, Georgia; Cooper, Rachel; Cooper, Cyrus; Sayer, Avan Aihie; Baird, Janis

2013-08-07

Systematic review is a powerful research tool which aims to identify and synthesize all evidence relevant to a research question. The approach taken is much like that used in a scientific experiment, with high priority given to the transparency and reproducibility of the methods used and to handling all evidence in a consistent manner.Early career researchers may find themselves in a position where they decide to undertake a systematic review, for example it may form part or all of a PhD thesis. Those with no prior experience of systematic review may need considerable support and direction getting started with such a project. Here we set out in simple terms how to get started with a systematic review. Advice is given on matters such as developing a review protocol, searching using databases and other methods, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and data synthesis including meta-analysis. Signposts to further information and useful resources are also given. A well-conducted systematic review benefits the scientific field by providing a summary of existing evidence and highlighting unanswered questions. For the individual, undertaking a systematic review is also a great opportunity to improve skills in critical appraisal and in synthesising evidence.

Lurasidone in the Treatment of Bipolar Depression: Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews

PubMed Central

Perna, Giampaolo; Solmi, Marco; Veronese, Nicola; Buonaguro, Elisabetta Filomena; Köhler, Cristiano André; de Bartolomeis, Andrea

2017-01-01

Introduction A burgeoning number of systematic reviews considering lurasidone in the treatment of bipolar depression have occurred since its Food and Drug Administration extended approval in 2013. While a paucity of available quantitative evidence still precludes preliminary meta-analysis on the matter, the present quality assessment of systematic review of systematic reviews, nonetheless, aims at highlighting current essential information on the topic. Methods Both published and unpublished systematic reviews about lurasidone mono- or adjunctive therapy in the treatment of bipolar depression were searched by two independent authors inquiring PubMed/Cochrane/Embase/Scopus from inception until October 2016. Results Twelve included systematic reviews were of moderate-to-high quality and consistent in covering the handful of RCTs available to date, suggesting the promising efficacy, safety, and tolerability profile of lurasidone. Concordance on the drug profile seems to be corroborated by a steadily increasing number of convergent qualitative reports on the matter. Limitations Publication, sponsorship, language, citation, and measurement biases. Conclusions Despite being preliminary in nature, this overview stipulates the effectiveness of lurasidone in the acute treatment of Type I bipolar depression overall. As outlined by most of the reviewed evidence, recommendations for future research should include further controlled trials of extended duration. PMID:28573138

Family-based interventions for substance misuse: a systematic review of systematic reviews--protocol.

PubMed

Akram, Yasmin; Copello, Alex; Moore, David

2014-08-15

Worldwide, there are an estimated 15 million individuals with drug use disorders and over five times as many with alcohol use disorders (WHO 1:2, 2005). Most individuals with substance misuse have families who are affected. Initial scoping searches identified an expanse of broad and disparate studies and reviews on the family interventions for substance misuse. This systematic review of systematic reviews aims to bring together the expanse of research on the effectiveness of family-based interventions in substance misuse.Initial scoping searches identified an expanse of broad and disparate studies and reviews on the family interventions for substance misuse. This systematic review of systematic reviews aims to bring together the expanse of research on the effectiveness of family-based interventions in substance misuse. Extensive electronic and manual searches will be undertaken. Screening, data extraction and quality assessment will be undertaken by two reviewers with disagreements resolved through discussion.The inclusion criteria will be that the study is a systematically undertaken review, the population is individuals with substance misuse problems and the interventions include a family-focused component. Reviews that focus on prevention rather than treatment will be excluded. The reviews will be assessed for quality and relevance. The evidence from included systematic reviews will be mapped by focus of intervention (promoting engagement of user into treatment/joint involvement in treatment of user/treating family member in own right) for both adults and adolescents for drug and/or alcohol misusers to allow assessment of the density of available evidence. The higher-quality, up-to-date evidence for each domain will be identified and described, and conclusions will be drawn with limitations of the evidence highlighted. This systematic review of systematic reviews will be an efficient and robust way of looking at the current state of the evidence in the field of family-based interventions for substance misuse. It will evaluate all the available systematic-review-level literature to report on the effectiveness of family-based psychological interventions in improving substance-related outcomes and improving health and wellbeing of substance misusers and/or their families. This will inform future treatment policies and commissioning decisions.In addition, it will identify areas of poor quality, inconsistency and gaps in the evidence base for family-based psychological interventions in substance misuse with respect to secondary evidence in order to inform future research. PROSPERO CRD42014006834.

An overview of systematic reviews on the public health consequences of social isolation and loneliness.

PubMed

Leigh-Hunt, N; Bagguley, D; Bash, K; Turner, V; Turnbull, S; Valtorta, N; Caan, W

2017-11-01

Social isolation and loneliness have been associated with ill health and are common in the developed world. A clear understanding of their implications for morbidity and mortality is needed to gauge the extent of the associated public health challenge and the potential benefit of intervention. A systematic review of systematic reviews (systematic overview) was undertaken to determine the wider consequences of social isolation and loneliness, identify any differences between the two, determine differences from findings of non-systematic reviews and to clarify the direction of causality. Eight databases were searched from 1950 to 2016 for English language reviews covering social isolation and loneliness but not solely social support. Suitability for inclusion was determined by two or more reviewers, the methodological quality of included systematic reviews assessed using the a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR) checklist and the quality of evidence within these reviews using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development and evaluations (GRADE) approach. Non-systematic reviews were sought for a comparison of findings but not included in the primary narrative synthesis. Forty systematic reviews of mainly observational studies were identified, largely from the developed world. Meta-analyses have identified a significant association between social isolation and loneliness with increased all-cause mortality and social isolation with cardiovascular disease. Narrative systematic reviews suggest associations with poorer mental health outcomes, with less strong evidence for behavioural and other physical health outcomes. No reviews were identified for wider socio-economic or developmental outcomes. This systematic overview highlights that there is consistent evidence linking social isolation and loneliness to worse cardiovascular and mental health outcomes. The role of social isolation and loneliness in other conditions and their socio-economic consequences is less clear. More research is needed on associations with cancer, health behaviours, and the impact across the life course and wider socio-economic consequences. Policy makers and health and local government commissioners should consider social isolation and loneliness as important upstream factors impacting on morbidity and mortality due to their effects on cardiovascular and mental health. Prevention strategies should therefore be developed across the public and voluntary sectors, using an asset-based approach. Copyright © 2017 The Royal Society for Public Health. All rights reserved.

Global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: systematic review of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Collins, Dylan R J; Tompson, Alice C; Onakpoya, Igho J; Roberts, Nia; Ward, Alison M; Heneghan, Carl J

2017-03-24

To identify, critically appraise and summarise existing systematic reviews on the impact of global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adults. Systematic review of systematic reviews published between January 2005 and October 2016 in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE or CINAHL databases, and post hoc analysis of primary trials. Systematic reviews of interventions involving global cardiovascular risk assessment relative to no formal risk assessment in adults with no history of CVD. The primary outcomes of interest were CVD-related morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol and smoking. We identified six systematic reviews of variable but generally of low quality (mean Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 4.2/11, range 0/11 to 7/11). No studies identified by the systematic reviews reported CVD-related morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality. Meta-analysis of reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed small reductions in SBP (mean difference (MD) -2.22 mm Hg (95% CI -3.49 to -0.95); I 2 =66%; n=9; GRADE: very low), total cholesterol (MD -0.11 mmol/L (95% CI -0.20 to -0.02); I 2 =72%; n=5; GRADE: very low), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD -0.15 mmol/L (95% CI -0.26 to -0.05), I 2 =47%; n=4; GRADE: very low) and smoking cessation (RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.43); I 2 =17%; n=7; GRADE: low). The median follow-up time of reported RCTs was 12 months (range 2-36 months). The quality of existing systematic reviews was generally poor and there is currently no evidence reported in these reviews that the prospective use of global cardiovascular risk assessment translates to reductions in CVD morbidity or mortality. There are reductions in SBP, cholesterol and smoking but they may not be clinically significant given their small effect size and short duration. Resources need to be directed to conduct high-quality systematic reviews focusing on hard patient outcomes, and likely further primary RCTs. CRD42015019821. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease in adults: systematic review of systematic reviews

PubMed Central

Tompson, Alice C; Onakpoya, Igho J; Roberts, Nia; Ward, Alison M; Heneghan, Carl J

2017-01-01

Objective To identify, critically appraise and summarise existing systematic reviews on the impact of global cardiovascular risk assessment in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in adults. Design Systematic review of systematic reviews published between January 2005 and October 2016 in The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE or CINAHL databases, and post hoc analysis of primary trials. Participants, interventions, outcomes Systematic reviews of interventions involving global cardiovascular risk assessment relative to no formal risk assessment in adults with no history of CVD. The primary outcomes of interest were CVD-related morbidity and mortality and all-cause mortality; secondary outcomes were systolic blood pressure (SBP), cholesterol and smoking. Results We identified six systematic reviews of variable but generally of low quality (mean Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 4.2/11, range 0/11 to 7/11). No studies identified by the systematic reviews reported CVD-related morbidity or mortality or all-cause mortality. Meta-analysis of reported randomised controlled trials (RCTs) showed small reductions in SBP (mean difference (MD) −2.22 mm Hg (95% CI −3.49 to −0.95); I2=66%; n=9; GRADE: very low), total cholesterol (MD −0.11 mmol/L (95% CI −0.20 to −0.02); I2=72%; n=5; GRADE: very low), low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (MD −0.15 mmol/L (95% CI −0.26 to −0.05), I2=47%; n=4; GRADE: very low) and smoking cessation (RR 1.62 (95% CI 1.08 to 2.43); I2=17%; n=7; GRADE: low). The median follow-up time of reported RCTs was 12 months (range 2–36 months). Conclusions The quality of existing systematic reviews was generally poor and there is currently no evidence reported in these reviews that the prospective use of global cardiovascular risk assessment translates to reductions in CVD morbidity or mortality. There are reductions in SBP, cholesterol and smoking but they may not be clinically significant given their small effect size and short duration. Resources need to be directed to conduct high-quality systematic reviews focusing on hard patient outcomes, and likely further primary RCTs. Trial registration number CRD42015019821. PMID:28341688

The role of pragmatism in explaining heterogeneity in meta-analyses of randomised trials: a protocol for a cross-sectional methodological review.

PubMed

Aves, Theresa; Allan, Katherine S; Lawson, Daeria; Nieuwlaat, Robby; Beyene, Joseph; Mbuagbaw, Lawrence

2017-09-03

There has been increasing interest in pragmatic trials methodology. As a result, tools such as the Pragmatic-Explanatory Continuum Indicator Summary-2 (PRECIS-2) are being used prospectively to help researchers design randomised controlled trials (RCTs) within the pragmatic-explanatory continuum. There may be value in applying the PRECIS-2 tool retrospectively in a systematic review setting as it could provide important information about how to pool data based on the degree of pragmatism. To investigate the role of pragmatism as a source of heterogeneity in systematic reviews by (1) identifying systematic reviews with meta-analyses of RCTs that have moderate to high heterogeneity, (2) applying PRECIS-2 to RCTs of systematic reviews, (3) evaluating the inter-rater reliability of PRECIS-2, (4) determining how much of this heterogeneity may be explained by pragmatism. A cross-sectional methodological review will be conducted on systematic reviews of RCTs published in the Cochrane Library from 1 January 2014 to 1 January 2017. Included systematic reviews will have a minimum of 10 RCTs in the meta-analysis of the primary outcome and moderate to substantial heterogeneity (I 2 ≥50%). Of the eligible systematic reviews, a random selection of 10 will be included for quantitative evaluation. In each systematic review, RCTs will be scored using the PRECIS-2 tool, in duplicate. Agreement between raters will be measured using the intraclass correlation coefficient. Subgroup analyses and meta-regression will be used to evaluate how much variability in the primary outcome may be due to pragmatism. This review will be among the first to evaluate the PRECIS-2 tool in a systematic review setting. Results from this research will provide inter-rater reliability information about PRECIS-2 and may be used to provide methodological guidance when dealing with pragmatism in systematic reviews and subgroup considerations. On completion, this review will be submitted to a peer-reviewed journal for publication. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

A critical appraisal of the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medical nursing interventions: a systematic review of reviews.

PubMed

Jin, Ying-Hui; Wang, Guo-Hao; Sun, Yi-Rong; Li, Qi; Zhao, Chen; Li, Ge; Si, Jin-Hua; Li, Yan; Lu, Cui; Shang, Hong-Cai

2016-11-14

To assess the methodology and quality of evidence of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medical nursing (TCMN) interventions in Chinese journals. These interventions include acupressure, massage, Tai Chi, Qi Gong, electroacupuncture and use of Chinese herbal medicines-for example, in enemas, foot massage and compressing the umbilicus. A systematic literature search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of TCMN interventions was performed. Review characteristics were extracted. The methodological quality and the quality of the evidence were evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approaches. We included 20 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and a total of 11 TCMN interventions were assessed in the 20 reviews. The compliance with AMSTAR checklist items ranged from 4.5 to 8 and systematic reviews/meta-analyses were, on average, of medium methodological quality. The quality of the evidence we assessed ranged from very low to moderate; no high-quality evidence was found. The top two causes for downrating confidence in effect estimates among the 31 bodies of evidence assessed were the risk of bias and inconsistency. There is room for improvement in the methodological quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of TCMN interventions published in Chinese journals. Greater efforts should be devoted to ensuring a more comprehensive search strategy, clearer specification of the interventions of interest in the eligibility criteria and identification of meaningful outcomes for clinicians and patients (consumers). The overall quality of evidence among reviews remains suboptimal, which raise concerns about their roles in influencing clinical practice. Thus, the conclusions in reviews we assessed must be treated with caution and their roles in influencing clinical practice should be limited. A critical appraisal of systematic reviews/meta-analyses of TCMN interventions is particularly important to provide sound guidance for TCMN. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Systematic reviews in context: highlighting systematic reviews relevant to Africa in the Pan African Medical Journal.

PubMed

Wiysonge, Charles Shey; Kamadjeu, Raoul; Tsague, Landry

2016-01-01

Health research serves to answer questions concerning health and to accumulate facts (evidence) required to guide healthcare policy and practice. However, research designs vary and different types of healthcare questions are best answered by different study designs. For example, qualitative studies are best suited for answering questions about experiences and meaning; cross-sectional studies for questions concerning prevalence; cohort studies for questions regarding incidence and prognosis; and randomised controlled trials for questions on prevention and treatment. In each case, one study would rarely yield sufficient evidence on which to reliably base a healthcare decision. An unbiased and transparent summary of all existing studies on a given question (i.e. a systematic review) tells a better story than any one of the included studies taken separately. A systematic review enables producers and users of research to gauge what a new study has contributed to knowledge by setting the study's findings in the context of all previous studies investigating the same question. It is therefore inappropriate to initiate a new study without first conducting a systematic review to find out what can be learnt from existing studies. There is nothing new in taking account of earlier studies in either the design or interpretation of new studies. For example, in the 18th century James Lind conducted a clinical trial followed by a systematic review of contemporary treatments for scurvy; which showed fruits to be an effective treatment for the disease. However, surveys of the peer-reviewed literature continue to provide empirical evidence that systematic reviews are seldom used in the design and interpretation of the findings of new studies. Such indifference to systematic reviews as a research function is unethical, unscientific, and uneconomical. Without systematic reviews, limited resources are very likely to be squandered on ill-conceived research and policies. In order to contribute in enhancing the value of research in Africa, the Pan African Medical Journal will start a new regular column that will highlight priority systematic reviews relevant to the continent.

A Critical Review of Search Strategies Used in Recent Systematic Reviews Published in Selected Prosthodontic and Implant-Related Journals: Are Systematic Reviews Actually Systematic?

PubMed

Layton, Danielle

The aim of this study was to outline how search strategies can be systematic, to examine how the searches in recent systematic reviews in prosthodontic and implant-related journals were structured, and to determine whether the search strategies used in those articles were systematic. A total of 103 articles published as systematic reviews and indexed in Medline between January 2013 and May 2016 were identified from eight prosthodontic and implant journals and reviewed. The search strategies were considered systematic when they met the following criteria: (1) more than one electronic database was searched, (2) more than one searcher was clearly involved, (3) both text words and indexing terms were clearly included in the search strategy, (4) a hand search of selected journals or reference lists was undertaken, (5) gray research was specifically sought, and (6) the articles were published in English and at least one other language. The data were tallied and qualitatively assessed. The majority of articles reported on implants (54%), followed by tooth-supported fixed prosthodontics (13%). A total of 23 different electronic resources were consulted, including Medline (by 100% of articles), the Cochrane Library (52%), and Embase (37%). The majority consulted more than one electronic resource (71%), clearly included more than one searcher (73%), and employed a hand search of either selected journals or reference lists (86%). Less than half used both text words and indexing terms to identify articles (42%), while 15% actively sought gray research. Articles published in languages other than English were considered in 63 reviews, but only 14 had no language restrictions. Of the 103 articles, 5 completed search strategies that met all 6 criteria, and a further 12 met 5 criteria. Two articles did not fulfill any of the criteria. More than 95% of recent prosthodontic and implant review articles published in the selected journals failed to use search strategies that were systematic, and this undermines the conclusions. Many resources are available to help investigators design search strategies for systematic reviews that minimize the risk of omitting important data, including the simple criteria presented in this paper.

A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery

PubMed Central

Gudlaugsdottir, Katrin; Andrews, James

2017-01-01

Objective Our objective was to evaluate quality of conduct and reporting of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. We also aimed to identify characteristics predictive of review quality. Background Systematic reviews summarise evidence by combining sources, but are potentially prone to bias. To counter this, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) was published to aid in reporting. Similarly, the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) measurement tool was designed to appraise methodology. The paediatric surgical literature has seen an increasing number of reviews over the past decade, but quality has not been evaluated. Methods Adhering to PRISMA guidelines, we performed a systematic review with a priori design to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions in paediatric surgery. From 01/2010 to 06/2016, we searched: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, Web of Science, Google Scholar, reference lists and journals. Two reviewers independently selected studies and extracted data. We assessed conduct and reporting using AMSTAR and PRISMA. Scores were calculated as the sum of reported items. We also extracted author, journal and article characteristics, and used them in exploratory analysis to determine which variables predict quality. Results 112 articles fulfilled eligibility criteria (53 systematic reviews; 59 meta-analyses). Overall, 68% AMSTAR and 56.8% PRISMA items were reported adequately. Poorest scores were identified with regards a priori design, inclusion of structured summaries, including the grey literature, citing excluded articles and evaluating bias. 13 reviews were pre-registered and 6 in PRISMA-endorsing journals. The following predicted quality in univariate analysis:, word count, Cochrane review, journal h-index, impact factor, journal endorses PRISMA, PRISMA adherence suggested in author guidance, article mentions PRISMA, review includes comparison of interventions and review registration. The latter three variables were significant in multivariate regression. Conclusions There are gaps in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in paediatric surgery. More endorsement by journals of the PRISMA guideline may improve review quality, and the dissemination of reliable evidence to paediatric clinicians. PMID:28384296

Contextualizing the findings of a systematic review on patient and carer experiences of dementia diagnosis and treatment: a qualitative study.

PubMed

Bunn, Frances; Sworn, Katie; Brayne, Carol; Iliffe, Steve; Robinson, Louise; Goodman, Claire

2015-10-01

Involving service users in the systematic review process is seen as increasingly important. As systematic reviews often include studies from diverse settings and covering a time span of several decades, involving service users in consideration of applicability to specific populations or settings might make reviews more useful to practitioners and policymakers. To test and contextualize the findings of a systematic review of qualitative studies looking at patient and carer experiences of diagnosis and treatment of dementia. Results from the systematic review were discussed in focus groups and semi-structured interviews with patient, public and professional participants in the South East of England. Analysis was guided by coding frameworks developed from the results of the systematic review. We recruited 27 participants, including three people with dementia, 12 carers, six service providers and five older people without dementia. Findings from the focus groups and interviews were consistent with those from the systematic review and suggest that our review findings were applicable to the local setting. We found some evidence that access to information and diagnostic services had improved but, as in the systematic review, post-diagnosis support was still often experienced as inadequate. Focus groups and interviews with service users and their representatives can provide useful contextual information. However, such strategies can require considerable investment of the part of the researcher in terms of time and resources, and more work is needed to refine strategies and establish the benefits for patients and the organization of services. © 2013 The Authors Health Expectations Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Citation of previous meta-analyses on the same topic: a clue to perpetuation of incorrect methods?

PubMed

Li, Tianjing; Dickersin, Kay

2013-06-01

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses serve as a basis for decision-making and clinical practice guidelines and should be carried out using appropriate methodology to avoid incorrect inferences. We describe the characteristics, statistical methods used for meta-analyses, and citation patterns of all 21 glaucoma systematic reviews we identified pertaining to the effectiveness of prostaglandin analog eye drops in treating primary open-angle glaucoma, published between December 2000 and February 2012. We abstracted data, assessed whether appropriate statistical methods were applied in meta-analyses, and examined citation patterns of included reviews. We identified two forms of problematic statistical analyses in 9 of the 21 systematic reviews examined. Except in 1 case, none of the 9 reviews that used incorrect statistical methods cited a previously published review that used appropriate methods. Reviews that used incorrect methods were cited 2.6 times more often than reviews that used appropriate statistical methods. We speculate that by emulating the statistical methodology of previous systematic reviews, systematic review authors may have perpetuated incorrect approaches to meta-analysis. The use of incorrect statistical methods, perhaps through emulating methods described in previous research, calls conclusions of systematic reviews into question and may lead to inappropriate patient care. We urge systematic review authors and journal editors to seek the advice of experienced statisticians before undertaking or accepting for publication a systematic review and meta-analysis. The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article. Copyright © 2013 American Academy of Ophthalmology. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Development of an algorithm to provide awareness in choosing study designs for inclusion in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions: a method study

PubMed Central

Peinemann, Frank; Kleijnen, Jos

2015-01-01

Objectives To develop an algorithm that aims to provide guidance and awareness for choosing multiple study designs in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. Design Method study: (1) To summarise the literature base on the topic. (2) To apply the integration of various study types in systematic reviews. (3) To devise decision points and outline a pragmatic decision tree. (4) To check the plausibility of the algorithm by backtracking its pathways in four systematic reviews. Results (1) The results of our systematic review of the published literature have already been published. (2) We recaptured the experience from our four previously conducted systematic reviews that required the integration of various study types. (3) We chose length of follow-up (long, short), frequency of events (rare, frequent) and types of outcome as decision points (death, disease, discomfort, disability, dissatisfaction) and aligned the study design labels according to the Cochrane Handbook. We also considered practical or ethical concerns, and the problem of unavailable high-quality evidence. While applying the algorithm, disease-specific circumstances and aims of interventions should be considered. (4) We confirmed the plausibility of the pathways of the algorithm. Conclusions We propose that the algorithm can assist to bring seminal features of a systematic review with multiple study designs to the attention of anyone who is planning to conduct a systematic review. It aims to increase awareness and we think that it may reduce the time burden on review authors and may contribute to the production of a higher quality review. PMID:26289450

Effective implementation of research into practice: an overview of systematic reviews of the health literature.

PubMed

Boaz, Annette; Baeza, Juan; Fraser, Alec

2011-06-22

The gap between research findings and clinical practice is well documented and a range of interventions has been developed to increase the implementation of research into clinical practice. A review of systematic reviews of the effectiveness of interventions designed to increase the use of research in clinical practice. A search for relevant systematic reviews was conducted of Medline and the Cochrane Database of Reviews 1998-2009. 13 systematic reviews containing 313 primary studies were included. Four strategy types are identified: audit and feedback; computerised decision support; opinion leaders; and multifaceted interventions. Nine of the reviews reported on multifaceted interventions. This review highlights the small effects of single interventions such as audit and feedback, computerised decision support and opinion leaders. Systematic reviews of multifaceted interventions claim an improvement in effectiveness over single interventions, with effect sizes ranging from small to moderate. This review found that a number of published systematic reviews fail to state whether the recommended practice change is based on the best available research evidence. This overview of systematic reviews updates the body of knowledge relating to the effectiveness of key mechanisms for improving clinical practice and service development. Multifaceted interventions are more likely to improve practice than single interventions such as audit and feedback. This review identified a small literature focusing explicitly on getting research evidence into clinical practice. It emphasizes the importance of ensuring that primary studies and systematic reviews are precise about the extent to which the reported interventions focus on changing practice based on research evidence (as opposed to other information codified in guidelines and education materials).

Can Communicating Personalised Disease Risk Promote Healthy Behaviour Change? A Systematic Review of Systematic Reviews.

PubMed

French, David P; Cameron, Elaine; Benton, Jack S; Deaton, Christi; Harvie, Michelle

2017-10-01

The assessment and communication of disease risk that is personalised to the individual is widespread in healthcare contexts. Despite several systematic reviews of RCTs, it is unclear under what circumstances that personalised risk estimates promotes change in four key health-related behaviours: smoking, physical activity, diet and alcohol consumption. The present research aims to systematically identify, evaluate and synthesise the findings of existing systematic reviews. This systematic review of systematic reviews followed published guidance. A search of four databases and two-stage screening procedure with good reliability identified nine eligible systematic reviews. The nine reviews each included between three and 15 primary studies, containing 36 unique studies. Methods of personalising risk feedback included imaging/visual feedback, genetic testing, and numerical estimation from risk algorithms. The reviews were generally high quality. For a broad range of methods of estimating and communicating risk, the reviews found no evidence that risk information had strong or consistent effects on health-related behaviours. The most promising effects came from interventions using visual or imaging techniques and with smoking cessation and dietary behaviour as outcomes, but with inconsistent results. Few interventions explicitly used theory, few targeted self-efficacy or response efficacy, and a limited range of Behaviour Change Techniques were used. Presenting risk information on its own, even when highly personalised, does not produce strong effects on health-related behaviours or changes which are sustained. Future research in this area should build on the existing knowledge base about increasing the effects of risk communication on behaviour.

Overview of systematic reviews in allergy epidemiology.

PubMed

Genuneit, J; Seibold, A M; Apfelbacher, C J; Konstantinou, G N; Koplin, J J; La Grutta, S; Logan, K; Perkin, M R; Flohr, C

2017-06-01

There is a substantial body of evidence on the epidemiology of allergic conditions, which has advanced the understanding of these conditions. We aimed to systematically identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the epidemiology of allergic diseases to assess what has been studied comprehensively and what areas might benefit from further research. We searched PubMed and EMBASE up to 12/2014 for systematic reviews on epidemiological research on allergic diseases. We indexed diseases and topics covered and extracted data on the search characteristics of each systematic review. The search resulted in 3991 entries after removing duplicates, plus 20 other items found via references and conference abstracts; 421 systematic reviews were relevant and included in this overview. The majority contained some evidence on asthma (72.9%). Allergic rhinitis, atopic eczema and food hypersensitivity were covered in 15.7%, 24.5% and 9.0%, respectively. Commonly studied risk factors for atopic eczema included dietary and microbial factors, while for asthma, pollution and genetic factors were often investigated in systematic reviews. There was some indication of differing search characteristics across topics. We present a comprehensive overview with an indexed database of published systematic reviews in allergy epidemiology. We believe that this clarifies where most research interest has focussed and which areas could benefit from further research. We propose that this effort is updated every few years to include the most recently published evidence and to extend the search to an even broader list of hypersensitivity/allergic disorders. © 2017 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Systematic Reviews of Research in Education: Aims, Myths and Multiple Methods

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Gough, David; Thomas, James

2016-01-01

Systematic reviews are still a controversial topic in some quarters, with the arguments for and against their use being well-rehearsed. In an attempt to advance a more nuanced approach to thinking about systematic reviewing, this paper illustrates the wide range of theoretical perspectives, methodologies and purposes that underpin the vast range…

Learning by Doing--Teaching Systematic Review Methods in 8 Weeks

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Li, Tianjing; Saldanha, Ian J.; Vedula, S. Swaroop; Yu, Tsung; Rosman, Lori; Twose, Claire; Goodman, Steven N.; Dickersin, Kay

2014-01-01

Objective: The objective of this paper is to describe the course "Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis" at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Methods: A distinct feature of our course is a group project in which students, assigned to multi-disciplinary groups, conduct a systematic review. In-class sessions comprise…

Screening for Intensive Intervention Needs in Secondary Schools: Directions for the Future

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lane, Kathleen Lynne; Oakes, Wendy Peia; Lusk, Mandy E.; Cantwell, Emily Dawn; Schatschneider, Christopher

2016-01-01

In this article, we provided descriptive and methodological illustrations of how to conduct systematic behavior screenings at the middle and high school levels to detect students with intensive intervention needs using one systematic screening tool: the Student Risk Screening Scale. We discussed the importance of systematic screening and presented…

Impact of Overt and Subclinical Hypothyroidism on Exercise Tolerance: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lankhaar, Jeannette A. C.; de Vries, Wouter R.; Jansen, Jaap A. C. G.; Zelissen, Pierre M. J.; Backx, Frank J. G.

2014-01-01

Purpose: This systematic review describes the state of the art of the impact of hypothyroidism on exercise tolerance and physical performance capacity in untreated and treated patients with hypothyroidism. Method: A systematic computer-aided search was conducted using biomedical databases. Relevant studies in English, German, and Dutch, published…

Eleventh-Grade High School Students' Accounts of Mathematical Metacognitive Knowledge: Explicitness and Systematicity

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

van Velzen, Joke H.

2016-01-01

Theoretically, it has been argued that a conscious understanding of metacognitive knowledge requires that this knowledge is explicit and systematic. The purpose of this descriptive study was to obtain a better understanding of explicitness and systematicity in knowledge of the mathematical problem-solving process. Eighteen 11th-grade…

Neurobiological Correlates of Psychosocial Deprivation in Children: A Systematic Review of Neuroscientific Contributions

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Perego, Gaia; Caputi, Marcella; Ogliari, Anna

2016-01-01

Background: Institutionalization from birth offers a unique opportunity to investigate the effects on brain and endocrine system of psychosocial deprivation in early infancy. Nonetheless, a systematic review about institutionalization and biological anomalies does not exist. Objective: The purpose of this paper was to systematize all the studies…

Use and Impacts of Campbell Systematic Reviews on Policy, Practice, and Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Maynard, Brandy R.; Dell, Nathaniel A.

2018-01-01

Aim: This study examines use and impacts of systematic reviews produced by the Campbell Collaboration's Social Welfare Coordinating Group (SWCG) on practice, policy, and research. Methods: A mixed-method research design was used to examine impacts of 52 systematic reviews published by the SWCG. We conducted author surveys and retrieved multiple…

Evidence-Based Systematic Review: Effects of Neuromuscular Electrical Stimulation on Swallowing and Neural Activation

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Clark, Heather; Lazarus, Cathy; Arvedson, Joan; Schooling, Tracy; Frymark, Tobi

2009-01-01

Purpose: To systematically review the literature examining the effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) on swallowing and neural activation. The review was conducted as part of a series examining the effects of oral motor exercises (OMEs) on speech, swallowing, and neural activation. Method: A systematic search was conducted to…

A Systematic Method for Search Term Selection in Systematic Reviews

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Thompson, Jenna; Davis, Jacqueline; Mazerolle, Lorraine

2014-01-01

The wide variety of readily available electronic media grants anyone the freedom to retrieve published references from almost any area of research around the world. Despite this privilege, keeping up with primary research evidence is almost impossible because of the increase in professional publishing across disciplines. Systematic reviews are a…

Behavioural Interventions for the Prevention of Sexually Transmitted Infections in Young People Aged 13-19 Years: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Picot, Joanna; Shepherd, Jonathan; Kavanagh, Josephine; Cooper, Keith; Harden, Angela; Barnett-Page, Elaine; Jones, Jeremy; Clegg, Andrew; Hartwell, Debbie; Frampton, Geoff K.

2012-01-01

We systematically reviewed school-based skills building behavioural interventions for the prevention of sexually transmitted infections. References were sought from 15 electronic resources, bibliographies of systematic reviews/included studies and experts. Two authors independently extracted data and quality-assessed studies. Fifteen randomized…

Assessing the Strengths of Mental Health Consumers: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bird, Victoria J.; Le Boutillier, Clair; Leamy, Mary; Larsen, John; Oades, Lindsay G.; Williams, Julie; Slade, Mike

2012-01-01

Strengths assessments focus on the individual's talents, abilities, resources, and strengths. No systematic review of strengths assessments for use within mental health populations has been published. The aims of this study were to describe and evaluate strengths assessments for use within mental health services. A systematic review identified 12…

Foray search: an effective systematic dispersal strategy in fragmented landscapes

Treesearch

L. Conradt; P.A. Zollner; T.J. Roper; C.D. Thomas

2003-01-01

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, population models generally assume that the dispersal trajectories of animals are random, but systematic dispersal could be more efficient at detecting new habitat and may therefore constitute a more realistic assumption. Here, we investigate, by means of simulations, the properties of a potentially widespread systematic...

Systematic Academic Instruction for Students with EBD: The Construction and Use of a Tool for Teachers

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

van der Worp-van der Kamp, Lidy; Pijl, Sip Jan; Post, Wendy J.; Bijstra, Jan O.; van den Bosch, Els J.

2017-01-01

Educating students with behavioural, emotional and social difficulties requires a thorough systematic approach with the focus on academic instruction. This study addresses the development of a tool, consisting of two questionnaires, for measuring systematic academic instruction. The questionnaires cover the Plan-Do-Check-Act cycle and academic…

Predictors of Post-School Success: A Systematic Review of NLTS2 Secondary Analyses

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Mazzotti, Valerie L.; Rowe, Dawn A.; Sinclair, James; Poppen, Marcus; Woods, William E.; Shearer, Mackenzie L.

2016-01-01

The purpose of this systematic review was to (a) systematically review the literature to identify National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 secondary analyses articles published since 2009 that met the quality indicators for correlational research, (b) further extend the findings of Test et al. by identifying additional evidence to support the…

Methodological Reflections on the Use of Systematic Reviews in Early Childhood Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ang, Lynn

2018-01-01

This article sets out to look critically at the use of systematic reviews in the cross-disciplinary field of early childhood and international development. Systematic reviews--a specialist methodology involving the secondary analysis of existing knowledge on a particular topic--is prevalently used to address complex questions in social and…

Spatial Abilities and Anatomy Knowledge Assessment: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Langlois, Jean; Bellemare, Christian; Toulouse, Josée; Wells, George A.

2017-01-01

Anatomy knowledge has been found to include both spatial and non-spatial components. However, no systematic evaluation of studies relating spatial abilities and anatomy knowledge has been undertaken. The objective of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the relationship between spatial abilities test and anatomy knowledge assessment. A…

Systematic Review of Two Decades (1995 to 2014) of Research on Synchronous Online Learning

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Martin, Florence; Ahlgrim-Delzell, Lynn; Budhrani, Kiran

2017-01-01

Systematic reviews of literature are studies that strategically search for published research on a specific topic in order to synthesize what is known about the topic. This systematic review describes 157 articles on synchronous online learning (SOL) from thirty-four different countries on instructional setting, content areas, participant…

Enhancing Core Mathematics Instruction for Students at Risk for Mathematics Disabilities

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Doabler, Christian T.; Cary, Mari Strand; Jungjohann, Kathleen; Clarke, Ben; Fien, Hank; Baker, Scott; Smolkowski, Keith; Chard, David

2012-01-01

This paper presents eight practical guidelines that teachers can use to make core instruction more systematic and explicit for students with or at-risk for mathematics disabilities. In the paper, we use the notion of explicit and systematic instruction as a foundation for intensifying core math instruction. Explicit and systematic core instruction…

More on Systematic Error in a Boyle's Law Experiment

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

McCall, Richard P.

2012-01-01

A recent article in "The Physics Teacher" describes a method for analyzing a systematic error in a Boyle's law laboratory activity. Systematic errors are important to consider in physics labs because they tend to bias the results of measurements. There are numerous laboratory examples and resources that discuss this common source of error.

Interventions for Secondary Traumatic Stress with Mental Health Workers: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bercier, Melissa L.; Maynard, Brandy R.

2015-01-01

Objective: A systematic review was conducted to examine effects of indicated interventions to reduce symptoms of secondary traumatic stress (STS) experienced by mental health workers. Method: Systematic review methods were employed to search, retrieve, select, and analyze studies that met study inclusion criteria. Results: Over 4,000 citations…

Writing a Cochrane systematic review on preventive interventions to improve safety: the case of the construction industry.

PubMed

van der Molen, H F; Hoonakker, P L T; Lehtola, Marika M; Hsiao, H; Haslam, R A; Hale, A R; Verbeek, J H

2009-01-01

The objective of this paper is to describe the main steps and to conduct a systematic literature review on preventive interventions concerning work-related injuries and to illustrate the process. Based on the Cochrane handbook, a structured framework of six steps was outlined for the development of a systematic review. This framework was used to describe a Cochrane systematic review (CSR) on the effectiveness of interventions to prevent work related injuries in the construction industry. The 6 main steps to write a CSR were: formulating the problem and objectives; locating and selecting studies; assessing study quality; collecting data; analysing data and presenting results; and interpreting results. The CSR on preventing injuries in the construction industry yielded five eligible intervention studies. Re-analysis of original injury data of the studies on regulatory interventions, through correcting for pre-intervention injury trends led to different conclusions about the effectiveness of interventions than those reported in the original studies. The Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions provides a practical and feasible six-step framework for developing and reporting a systematic review for preventive interventions.

The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies.

PubMed

Morrison, Andra; Polisena, Julie; Husereau, Don; Moulton, Kristen; Clark, Michelle; Fiander, Michelle; Mierzwinski-Urban, Monika; Clifford, Tammy; Hutton, Brian; Rabb, Danielle

2012-04-01

The English language is generally perceived to be the universal language of science. However, the exclusive reliance on English-language studies may not represent all of the evidence. Excluding languages other than English (LOE) may introduce a language bias and lead to erroneous conclusions. We conducted a comprehensive literature search using bibliographic databases and grey literature sources. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they measured the effect of excluding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in LOE from systematic review-based meta-analyses (SR/MA) for one or more outcomes. None of the included studies found major differences between summary treatment effects in English-language restricted meta-analyses and LOE-inclusive meta-analyses. Findings differed about the methodological and reporting quality of trials reported in LOE. The precision of pooled estimates improved with the inclusion of LOE trials. Overall, we found no evidence of a systematic bias from the use of language restrictions in systematic review-based meta-analyses in conventional medicine. Further research is needed to determine the impact of language restriction on systematic reviews in particular fields of medicine.

SYSTEMATIC CENTER-TO-LIMB VARIATION IN MEASURED HELIOSEISMIC TRAVEL TIMES AND ITS EFFECT ON INFERENCES OF SOLAR INTERIOR MERIDIONAL FLOWS

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Zhao Junwei; Nagashima, Kaori; Bogart, R. S.

We report on a systematic center-to-limb variation in measured helioseismic travel times, which must be taken into account for an accurate determination of solar interior meridional flows. The systematic variation, found in time-distance helioseismology analysis using SDO/HMI and SDO/AIA observations, is different in both travel-time magnitude and variation trend for different observables. It is not clear what causes this systematic effect. Subtracting the longitude-dependent east-west travel times, obtained along the equatorial area, from the latitude-dependent north-south travel times, obtained along the central meridian area, gives remarkably similar results for different observables. We suggest this as an effective procedure for removingmore » the systematic center-to-limb variation. The subsurface meridional flows obtained from inversion of the corrected travel times are approximately 10 m s{sup -1} slower than those obtained without removing the systematic effect. The detected center-to-limb variation may have important implications in the derivation of meridional flows in the deep interior and needs to be better understood.« less

Systematic Center-To-Limb Variation in Measured Helioseismic Travel Times and Its Effect on Inferences of Solar Interior Meridional Flows

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Zhao, Junwei; Nagashima, Kaori; Bogart, R. S.; Kosovichev, Alexander; Duvall, T. L., Jr.

2012-01-01

We report on a systematic center-to-limb variation in measured helioseismic travel times, which must be taken into account for an accurate determination of solar interior meridional flows. The systematic variation, found in time-distance helioseismology analysis using SDO/HMI and SDO/AIA observations, is different in both travel-time magnitude and variation trend for different observables. It is not clear what causes this systematic effect. Subtracting the longitude-dependent east-west travel times, obtained along the equatorial area, from the latitude-dependent north-south travel times, obtained along the central meridian area, gives remarkably similar results for different observables. We suggest this as an effective procedure for removing the systematic center-to-limb variation. The subsurface meridional flows obtained from inversion of the corrected travel times are approximately 10 m s-1 slower than those obtained without removing the systematic effect. The detected center-to-limb variation may have important implications in the derivation of meridional flows in the deep interior and needs to be better understood.

Higher-Order Systematic Effects in the Muon Beam-Spin Dynamics for Muon g-2

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Crnkovic, Jason; Brown, Hugh; Krouppa, Brandon; Metodiev, Eric; Morse, William; Semertzidis, Yannis; Tishchenko, Vladimir

2016-03-01

The BNL Muon g-2 Experiment (E821) produced a precision measurement of the muon anomalous magnetic moment, where as the Fermilab Muon g-2 Experiment (E989) is an upgraded version of E821 that has a goal of producing a measurement with approximately 4 times more precision. Improving the precision requires a more detailed understanding of the experimental systematic effects, and so three higher-order systematic effects in the muon beam-spin dynamics have recently been found and estimated for E821. The beamline systematic effect originates from muon production in beamline spectrometers, as well as from muons traversing beamline bending magnets. The kicker systematic effect comes from a combination of the variation in time spent inside the muon storage ring across a muon bunch and the temporal structure of the storage ring kicker waveform. Finally, the detector systematic effect arises from a combination of the energy dependent muon equilibrium orbit in the storage ring, muon decay electron drift time, and decay electron detector acceptance effects. Brookhaven Natl Lab.

Potential value of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence in informing user-centered health and social care: findings from a descriptive overview.

PubMed

Dalton, Jane; Booth, Andrew; Noyes, Jane; Sowden, Amanda J

2017-08-01

Systematic reviews of quantitative evidence are well established in health and social care. Systematic reviews of qualitative evidence are increasingly available, but volume, topics covered, methods used, and reporting quality are largely unknown. We provide a descriptive overview of systematic reviews of qualitative evidence assessing health and social care interventions included on the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE). We searched DARE for reviews published between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2014. We extracted data on review content and methods, summarized narratively, and explored patterns over time. We identified 145 systematic reviews conducted worldwide (64 in the UK). Interventions varied but largely covered treatment or service delivery in community and hospital settings. There were no discernible patterns over time. Critical appraisal of primary studies was conducted routinely. Most reviews were poorly reported. Potential exists to use systematic reviews of qualitative evidence when driving forward user-centered health and social care. We identify where more research is needed and propose ways to improve review methodology and reporting. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Characterizing unknown systematics in large scale structure surveys

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Agarwal, Nishant; Ho, Shirley; Myers, Adam D.

Photometric large scale structure (LSS) surveys probe the largest volumes in the Universe, but are inevitably limited by systematic uncertainties. Imperfect photometric calibration leads to biases in our measurements of the density fields of LSS tracers such as galaxies and quasars, and as a result in cosmological parameter estimation. Earlier studies have proposed using cross-correlations between different redshift slices or cross-correlations between different surveys to reduce the effects of such systematics. In this paper we develop a method to characterize unknown systematics. We demonstrate that while we do not have sufficient information to correct for unknown systematics in the data,more » we can obtain an estimate of their magnitude. We define a parameter to estimate contamination from unknown systematics using cross-correlations between different redshift slices and propose discarding bins in the angular power spectrum that lie outside a certain contamination tolerance level. We show that this method improves estimates of the bias using simulated data and further apply it to photometric luminous red galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey as a case study.« less

Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects.

PubMed

Pollock, Alex; Campbell, Pauline; Struthers, Caroline; Synnot, Anneliese; Nunn, Jack; Hill, Sophie; Goodare, Heather; Watts, Chris; Morley, Richard

2017-01-01

Researchers are expected to actively involve stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) in their research. Although researchers increasingly recognise that this is good practice, there is limited practical guidance about how to involve stakeholders. Systematic reviews are a research method in which international literature is brought together, using carefully designed and rigorous methods to answer a specified question about healthcare. We want to investigate how researchers have involved stakeholders in systematic reviews, and how involvement has potentially affected the quality and impact of reviews. We plan to bring this information together by searching and reviewing the literature for reports of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews. This paper describes in detail the methods that we plan to use to do this. After carrying out comprehensive searches for literature, we will: 1. Provide an overview of identified reports, describing key information such as types of stakeholders involved, and how. 2. Pick out reports of involvement which include detailed descriptions of how researchers involved people in a systematic review and summarise the methods they used. We will consider who was involved, how people were recruited, and how the involvement was organised and managed. 3. Bring together any reports which have explored the effect, or impact, of involving stakeholders in a systematic review. We will assess the quality of these reports, and summarise their findings. Once completed, our review will be used to produce training resources aimed at helping researchers to improve ways of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. Background There is an expectation for stakeholders (including patients, the public, health professionals, and others) to be involved in research. Researchers are increasingly recognising that it is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. There is currently a lack of evidence about (A) how to do this and (B) the effects, or impact, of such involvement. We aim to create a map of the evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and use this evidence to address the two points above. Methods We will complete a mixed-method synthesis of the evidence, first completing a scoping review to create a broad map of evidence relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, and secondly completing two contingent syntheses. We will use a stepwise approach to searching; the initial step will include comprehensive searches of electronic databases, including CENTRAL, AMED, Embase, Medline, Cinahl and other databases, supplemented with pre-defined hand-searching and contacting authors. Two reviewers will undertake each review task (i.e., screening, data extraction) using standard systematic review processes. For the scoping review, we will include any paper, regardless of publication status or study design, which investigates, reports or discusses involvement in a systematic review. Included papers will be summarised within structured tables. Criteria for judging the focus and comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement will be applied, informing which papers are included within the two contingent syntheses. Synthesis A will detail the methods that have been used to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews. Papers from the scoping review that are judged to provide an adequate description of methods or approaches will be included. Details of the methods of involvement will be extracted from included papers using pre-defined headings, presented in tables and described narratively. Synthesis B will include studies that explore the effect of stakeholder involvement on the quality, relevance or impact of a systematic review, as identified from the scoping review. Study quality will be appraised, data extracted and synthesised within tables. Discussion This review should help researchers select, improve and evaluate methods of involving stakeholders in systematic reviews. Review findings will contribute to Cochrane training resources.

Association between use of systematic reviews and national policy recommendations on screening newborn babies for rare diseases: systematic review and meta-analysis.

PubMed

Taylor-Phillips, Sian; Stinton, Chris; Ferrante di Ruffano, Lavinia; Seedat, Farah; Clarke, Aileen; Deeks, Jonathan J

2018-05-09

To understand whether international differences in recommendations of whether to screen for rare diseases using the newborn blood spot test might in part be explained by use of systematic review methods. Systematic review and meta-analysis. Website searches of 26 national screening organisations. Journal articles, papers, legal documents, presentations, conference abstracts, or reports relating to a national recommendation on whether to screen for any condition using the newborn blood spot test, with no restrictions on date or language. Two reviewers independently assessed whether the recommendation for or against screening included systematic reviews, and data on test accuracy, benefits of early detection, and potential harms of overdiagnosis. The odds of recommending screening according to the use of systematic review methods was estimated across conditions using meta-analysis. 93 reports were included that assessed 104 conditions across 14 countries, totalling 276 recommendations (units of analysis). Screening was favoured in 159 (58%) recommendations, not favoured in 98 (36%), and not recommended either way in 19 (7%). Only 60 (22%) of the recommendations included a systematic review. Use of a systematic review was associated with a reduced probability of screening being recommended (23/60 (38%) v 136/216 (63%), odds ratio 0.17, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.43). Of the recommendations, evidence for test accuracy, benefits of early detection, and overdiagnosis was not considered in 115 (42%), 83 (30%), and 211 (76%), respectively. Using systematic review methods is associated with a reduced probability of screening being recommended. Many national policy reviews of screening for rare conditions using the newborn blood spot test do not assess the evidence on the key benefits and harms of screening. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Using Multiple Types of Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions – A Systematic Review

PubMed Central

Peinemann, Frank; Tushabe, Doreen Allen; Kleijnen, Jos

2013-01-01

Background A systematic review may evaluate different aspects of a health care intervention. To accommodate the evaluation of various research questions, the inclusion of more than one study design may be necessary. One aim of this study is to find and describe articles on methodological issues concerning the incorporation of multiple types of study designs in systematic reviews on health care interventions. Another aim is to evaluate methods studies that have assessed whether reported effects differ by study types. Methods and Findings We searched PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Cochrane Methodology Register on 31 March 2012 and identified 42 articles that reported on the integration of single or multiple study designs in systematic reviews. We summarized the contents of the articles qualitatively and assessed theoretical and empirical evidence. We found that many examples of reviews incorporating multiple types of studies exist and that every study design can serve a specific purpose. The clinical questions of a systematic review determine the types of design that are necessary or sufficient to provide the best possible answers. In a second independent search, we identified 49 studies, 31 systematic reviews and 18 trials that compared the effect sizes between randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials, which were statistically different in 35%, and not different in 53%. Twelve percent of studies reported both, different and non-different effect sizes. Conclusions Different study designs addressing the same question yielded varying results, with differences in about half of all examples. The risk of presenting uncertain results without knowing for sure the direction and magnitude of the effect holds true for both nonrandomized and randomized controlled trials. The integration of multiple study designs in systematic reviews is required if patients should be informed on the many facets of patient relevant issues of health care interventions. PMID:24416098

Physical rehabilitation interventions for adult patients with critical illness across the continuum of recovery: an overview of systematic reviews protocol.

PubMed

Connolly, Bronwen; O'Neill, Brenda; Salisbury, Lisa; McDowell, Kathryn; Blackwood, Bronagh

2015-09-29

Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with critical illness often experience significant physical impairments, which typically persist for many years following resolution of the original illness. Physical rehabilitation interventions that enhance restoration of physical function have been evaluated across the continuum of recovery following critical illness including within the intensive care unit, following discharge to the ward and beyond hospital discharge. Multiple systematic reviews have been published appraising the expanding evidence investigating these physical rehabilitation interventions, although there appears to be variability in review methodology and quality. We aim to conduct an overview of existing systematic reviews of physical rehabilitation interventions for adult intensive care patients across the continuum of recovery. This protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. We will search the Cochrane Systematic Review Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of adult patients, admitted to the intensive care unit and who have received physical rehabilitation interventions at any time point during their recovery. Data extraction will include systematic review aims and rationale, study types, populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes and quality appraisal method. Primary outcomes of interest will focus on findings reflecting recovery of physical function. Quality of reporting and methodological quality will be appraised using the PRISMA checklist and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. We anticipate the findings from this novel overview of systematic reviews will contribute to the synthesis and interpretation of existing evidence regarding physical rehabilitation interventions and physical recovery in post-critical illness patients across the continuum of recovery. PROSPERO CRD42015001068.

An overview and methodological assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of enhanced recovery programmes in colorectal surgery

PubMed Central

Chambers, Duncan; Paton, Fiona; Wilson, Paul; Eastwood, Alison; Craig, Dawn; Fox, Dave; Jayne, David; McGinnes, Erika

2014-01-01

Objectives To identify and critically assess the extent to which systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery differ in their methodology and reported estimates of effect. Design Review of published systematic reviews. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database from 1990 to March 2013. Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes for patients undergoing colorectal surgery were eligible for inclusion. Primary and secondary outcome measures The primary outcome was length of hospital stay. We assessed changes in pooled estimates of treatment effect over time and how these might have been influenced by decisions taken by researchers as well as by the availability of new trials. The quality of systematic reviews was assessed using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) DARE critical appraisal process. Results 10 systematic reviews were included. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials have consistently shown a reduction in length of hospital stay with enhanced recovery compared with traditional care. The estimated effect tended to increase from 2006 to 2010 as more trials were published but has not altered significantly in the most recent review, despite the inclusion of several unique trials. The best estimate appears to be an average reduction of around 2.5 days in primary postoperative length of stay. Differences between reviews reflected differences in interpretation of inclusion criteria, searching and analytical methods or software. Conclusions Systematic reviews of enhanced recovery programmes show a high level of research waste, with multiple reviews covering identical or very similar groups of trials. Where multiple reviews exist on a topic, interpretation may require careful attention to apparently minor differences between reviews. Researchers can help readers by acknowledging existing reviews and through clear reporting of key decisions, especially on inclusion/exclusion and on statistical pooling. PMID:24879828

TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review

PubMed Central

Dall, PM; Coulter, EH; Fitzsimons, CF; Skelton, DA; Chastin, SFM

2017-01-01

Objective Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework. Design A framework, TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains. Data sources Systematic searches were conducted via EBSCO, reference lists and expert opinion. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies The inventory included tools measuring SB in adults that could be self-completed at one sitting, and excluded tools measuring SB in specific populations or contexts. The systematic review included studies reporting on the accuracy against an objective measure of SB and/or sensitivity to change of a tool in the inventory. Results The systematic review initially identified 32 distinct tools (141 questions), which were used to develop the TASST framework. Twenty-two studies evaluated accuracy and/or sensitivity to change representing only eight taxa. Assessing SB as a sum of behaviours and using a previous day recall were the most promising features of existing tools. Accuracy was poor for all existing tools, with underestimation and overestimation of SB. There was a lack of evidence about sensitivity to change. Conclusions Despite the limited evidence, mapping existing SB tools onto the TASST framework has enabled informed recommendations to be made about the most promising features for a surveillance tool, identified aspects on which future research and development of SB surveillance tools should focus. Trial registration number International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROPSPERO)/CRD42014009851. PMID:28391233

Benefits and Challenges of Scaling Up Expansion of Marine Protected Area Networks in the Verde Island Passage, Central Philippines.

PubMed

Horigue, Vera; Pressey, Robert L; Mills, Morena; Brotánková, Jana; Cabral, Reniel; Andréfouët, Serge

2015-01-01

Locally-established marine protected areas (MPAs) have been proven to achieve local-scale fisheries and conservation objectives. However, since many of these MPAs were not designed to form ecologically-connected networks, their contributions to broader-scale goals such as complementarity and connectivity can be limited. In contrast, integrated networks of MPAs designed with systematic conservation planning are assumed to be more effective--ecologically, socially, and economically--than collections of locally-established MPAs. There is, however, little empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates the supposed advantages of systematic MPA networks. A key reason is the poor record of implementation of systematic plans attributable to lack of local buy-in. An intermediate scenario for the expansion of MPAs is scaling up of local decisions, whereby locally-driven MPA initiatives are coordinated through collaborative partnerships among local governments and their communities. Coordination has the potential to extend the benefits of individual MPAs and perhaps to approach the potential benefits offered by systematic MPA networks. We evaluated the benefits of scaling up local MPAs to form networks by simulating seven expansion scenarios for MPAs in the Verde Island Passage, central Philippines. The scenarios were: uncoordinated community-based establishment of MPAs; two scenarios reflecting different levels of coordinated MPA expansion through collaborative partnerships; and four scenarios guided by systematic conservation planning with different contexts for governance. For each scenario, we measured benefits through time in terms of achievement of objectives for representation of marine habitats. We found that: in any governance context, systematic networks were more efficient than non-systematic ones; systematic networks were more efficient in broader governance contexts; and, contrary to expectations but with caveats, the uncoordinated scenario was slightly more efficient than the coordinated scenarios. Overall, however, coordinated MPA networks have the potential to be more efficient than the uncoordinated ones, especially when coordinated planning uses systematic methods.

Benefits and Challenges of Scaling Up Expansion of Marine Protected Area Networks in the Verde Island Passage, Central Philippines

PubMed Central

Horigue, Vera; Pressey, Robert L.; Mills, Morena; Brotánková, Jana; Cabral, Reniel; Andréfouët, Serge

2015-01-01

Locally-established marine protected areas (MPAs) have been proven to achieve local-scale fisheries and conservation objectives. However, since many of these MPAs were not designed to form ecologically-connected networks, their contributions to broader-scale goals such as complementarity and connectivity can be limited. In contrast, integrated networks of MPAs designed with systematic conservation planning are assumed to be more effective—ecologically, socially, and economically—than collections of locally-established MPAs. There is, however, little empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates the supposed advantages of systematic MPA networks. A key reason is the poor record of implementation of systematic plans attributable to lack of local buy-in. An intermediate scenario for the expansion of MPAs is scaling up of local decisions, whereby locally-driven MPA initiatives are coordinated through collaborative partnerships among local governments and their communities. Coordination has the potential to extend the benefits of individual MPAs and perhaps to approach the potential benefits offered by systematic MPA networks. We evaluated the benefits of scaling up local MPAs to form networks by simulating seven expansion scenarios for MPAs in the Verde Island Passage, central Philippines. The scenarios were: uncoordinated community-based establishment of MPAs; two scenarios reflecting different levels of coordinated MPA expansion through collaborative partnerships; and four scenarios guided by systematic conservation planning with different contexts for governance. For each scenario, we measured benefits through time in terms of achievement of objectives for representation of marine habitats. We found that: in any governance context, systematic networks were more efficient than non-systematic ones; systematic networks were more efficient in broader governance contexts; and, contrary to expectations but with caveats, the uncoordinated scenario was slightly more efficient than the coordinated scenarios. Overall, however, coordinated MPA networks have the potential to be more efficient than the uncoordinated ones, especially when coordinated planning uses systematic methods. PMID:26288089

Chronic pain and opioid misuse: a review of reviews.

PubMed

Voon, Pauline; Karamouzian, Mohammad; Kerr, Thomas

2017-08-15

The crisis of prescription opioid (PO) related harms has focused attention toward identifying and treating high-risk populations. This review aims to synthesize systematic reviews on the epidemiology and clinical management of comorbid chronic pain and PO or other substance misuse. A systematic database search was conducted to identify systematic reviews published between 2000 and 2016. Eligible studies were systematic reviews related to chronic non-cancer pain and PO or other substance misuse. Evidence from the included reviews was synthesized according to epidemiology and clinical management themes. Of 1908 identified articles, 18 systematic reviews were eligible for final inclusion. Two meta-analyses estimated the prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain in individuals using POs non-medically to be approximately 48% to 60%, which is substantially higher than the prevalence of chronic non-cancer pain in general population samples (11% to 19%). Five systematic reviews estimated the rates of PO or other opioid use in chronic pain populations with substantial variation in results (0.05% to 81%), likely due to widely varying definitions of dependence, substance use disorder, misuse, addiction, and abuse. Several clinical assessment and treatment approaches were identified, including: standardized assessment instruments; urine drug testing; medication counts; prescription drug monitoring programs; blood level monitoring; treatment agreements; opioid selection; dosing and dispensing strategies; and opioid agonist treatment. However, the reviews commonly noted serious limitations, inconsistencies, and imprecision of studies, and a lack of evidence on effectiveness or clinical utility for the majority of these strategies. Overall, current systematic reviews have found a lack of high-quality evidence or consistent findings on the prevalence, risk factors, and optimal clinical assessment and treatment approaches related to concurrent chronic pain and substance misuse. Given the role of systematic reviews in guiding evidence-based medicine and health policy, there is an urgent need for high-quality primary research to guide future systematic reviews to address the escalating epidemic of harms related to chronic pain and substance misuse.

A review of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer.

PubMed

Diaby, Vakaramoko; Tawk, Rima; Sanogo, Vassiki; Xiao, Hong; Montero, Alberto J

2015-05-01

Breast cancer is a global health concern. In fact, breast cancer is the primary cause of death among women worldwide and constitutes the most expensive malignancy to treat. As health care resources are finite, decisions regarding the adoption and coverage of breast cancer treatments are increasingly being based on "value for money," i.e., cost-effectiveness. As the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments is abundant, therefore difficult to navigate, systematic reviews of published systematic reviews offer the advantage of bringing together the results of separate systematic reviews in a single report. As a consequence, this paper presents an overview of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer to inform policy and reimbursement decision-making. A systematic review was conducted of published systematic reviews documenting cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer treatments from 2000 to 2014. Systematic reviews identified through a literature search of health and economic databases were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews of original evaluations were included only if they targeted breast cancer patients and specific breast cancer treatments (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy only), documented incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and were reported in the English language. The search strategy used a combination of these key words: "breast cancer," "systematic review/meta-analysis," and "cost-effectiveness/economics." Data were extracted using predefined extraction forms and qualitatively appraised using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. The literature search resulted in 511 bibliographic records, of which ten met our inclusion criteria. Five reviews were conducted in the early-stage breast cancer setting and five reviews in the metastatic setting. In early-stage breast cancer, evidence about trastuzumab value differed by age. Trastuzumab was cost-effective only in women with HER2-positive breast cancer younger than 65 years and over a life-time horizon. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer yielded conflicting results. The same conclusions were reached in comparisons between vinorelbine and taxanes. In both early stage and advanced/metastatic breast cancer, newer aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proved cost-effective compared to older treatments. This overview of systematic reviews shows that there is heterogeneity in the evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of these treatments depends not only on the comparators but the context, i.e., adjuvant or metastatic setting, subtype of patient population, and perspective adopted. Decisions involving the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments could be made easier and more transparent by better harmonizing the reporting of economic evaluations assessing the value of these treatments.

Complexities and Perplexities: A Critical Appraisal of the Evidence for Soil-Transmitted Helminth Infection-Related Morbidity

PubMed Central

Nery, Susana V.; Doi, Suhail A.; Gray, Darren J.; Soares Magalhães, Ricardo J.; McCarthy, James S.; Traub, Rebecca J.; Andrews, Ross M.; Clements, Archie C. A.

2016-01-01

Background: Soil-transmitted helminths (STH) have acute and chronic manifestations, and can result in lifetime morbidity. Disease burden is difficult to quantify, yet quantitative evidence is required to justify large-scale deworming programmes. A recent Cochrane systematic review, which influences Global Burden of Disease (GBD) estimates for STH, has again called into question the evidence for deworming benefit on morbidity due to STH. In this narrative review, we investigate in detail what the shortfalls in evidence are. Methodology/Principal Findings: We systematically reviewed recent literature that used direct measures to investigate morbidity from STH and we critically appraised systematic reviews, particularly the most recent Cochrane systematic review investigating deworming impact on morbidity. We included six systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 36 literature reviews, 44 experimental or observational studies, and five case series. We highlight where evidence is insufficient and where research needs to be directed to strengthen morbidity evidence, ideally to prove benefits of deworming. Conclusions/Significance: Overall, the Cochrane systematic review and recent studies indicate major shortfalls in evidence for direct morbidity. However, it is questionable whether the systematic review methodology should be applied to STH due to heterogeneity of the prevalence of different species in each setting. Urgent investment in studies powered to detect direct morbidity effects due to STH is required. PMID:27196100

The full spectrum of ethical issues in the care of patients with ALS: a systematic qualitative review.

PubMed

Seitzer, F; Kahrass, H; Neitzke, G; Strech, D

2016-02-01

Dealing systematically with ethical issues in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) care requires an unbiased awareness of all the relevant ethical issues. The aim of the study was to determine systematically and transparently the full spectrum of ethical issues in ALS care. We conducted a systematic review in Medline and Google Books (restricted to English and German literature published between 1993 and 2014). We applied qualitative text analysis and normative analysis to categorise the spectrum of ethical issues in ALS care. The literature review retrieved 56 references that together mentioned a spectrum of 103 ethical issues in ALS care. The spectrum was structured into six major categories that consist of first and second-order categories of ethical issues. The systematically derived spectrum of ethical issues in ALS care presented in this paper raises awareness and understanding of the complexity of ethical issues in ALS care. It also offers a basis for the systematic development of informational and training materials for health professionals, patients and their relatives, and society as a whole. Finally, it supports a rational and fair selection of all those ethical issues that should be addressed in health policies, position papers and clinical practice guidelines. Further research is needed to identify ways to systematically select the most relevant ethical issues not only in the clinical environment, but also for the development of clinical practice guidelines.

The Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses in Industrial and Organizational Psychology: A Systematic Review

PubMed Central

Schalken, Naomi; Rietbergen, Charlotte

2017-01-01

Objective: The goal of this systematic review was to examine the reporting quality of the method section of quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses from 2009 to 2016 in the field of industrial and organizational psychology with the help of the Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards (MARS), and to update previous research, such as the study of Aytug et al. (2012) and Dieckmann et al. (2009). Methods: A systematic search for quantitative systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted in the top 10 journals in the field of industrial and organizational psychology between January 2009 and April 2016. Data were extracted on study characteristics and items of the method section of MARS. A cross-classified multilevel model was analyzed, to test whether publication year and journal impact factor (JIF) were associated with the reporting quality scores of articles. Results: Compliance with MARS in the method section was generally inadequate in the random sample of 120 articles. Variation existed in the reporting of items. There were no significant effects of publication year and journal impact factor (JIF) on the reporting quality scores of articles. Conclusions: The reporting quality in the method section of systematic reviews and meta-analyses was still insufficient, therefore we recommend researchers to improve the reporting in their articles by using reporting standards like MARS. PMID:28878704

Promoting Children's Health with Digital Games: A Review of Reviews.

PubMed

Parisod, Heidi; Pakarinen, Anni; Kauhanen, Lotta; Aromaa, Minna; Leppänen, Ville; Liukkonen, Tapani N; Smed, Jouni; Salanterä, Sanna

2014-06-01

Effective, evidence-based, and interesting methods are needed for children's health promotion. Digital games can be such a method, but there is need for a summary of the evidence on the effectiveness of digital games in promoting children's health. The aim of this review of reviews was to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews, to summarize the evidence in systematic reviews and reviews related to the effectiveness of digital games in children's health promotion, and to identify gaps in knowledge. A systematic literature search was conducted in May-August 2013 from relevant databases, and 1178 references were found. In total, 15 systematic reviews and reviews met the inclusion criteria. Most of the systematic reviews were found to be medium quality on the AMSTAR checklist. Most commonly, systematic reviews and reviews evaluated active videogames. According to the results, evidence of the highest level and quality seems to support an increase in physical activity to light to moderate levels and energy expenditure, especially when playing active videogames that require both upper and lower body movements. In addition, sedentary games were shown to have potential in children's health education, especially in supporting changes in asthma- and diabetes-related behavior and in dietary habits. However, there are still several gaps in the knowledge. There is a need for further high-quality systematic reviews and research in the field of health games.

Demystifying Kepler Data: A Primer for Systematic Artifact Mitigation

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Kinemuchi, K.; Barclay, T.; Fanelli, M.; Pepper, J.; Still, M.; Howell, Steve B.

2012-09-01

The Kepler spacecraft has collected data of high photometric precision and cadence almost continuously since operations began on 2009 May 2. Primarily designed to detect planetary transits and asteroseismological signals from solar-like stars, Kepler has provided high-quality data for many areas of investigation. Unconditioned simple aperture time-series photometry is, however, affected by systematic structure. Examples of these systematics include differential velocity aberration, thermal gradients across the spacecraft, and pointing variations. While exhibiting some impact on Kepler’s primary science, these systematics can critically handicap potentially ground-breaking scientific gains in other astrophysical areas, especially over long timescales greater than 10 days. As the data archive grows to provide light curves for 105 stars of many years in length, Kepler will only fulfill its broad potential for stellar astrophysics if these systematics are understood and mitigated. Post-launch developments in the Kepler archive, data reduction pipeline and open source data analysis software have helped to remove or reduce systematic artifacts. This paper provides a conceptual primer to help users of the Kepler data archive understand and recognize systematic artifacts within light curves and some methods for their removal. Specific examples of artifact mitigation are provided using data available within the archive. Through the methods defined here, the Kepler community will find a road map to maximizing the quality and employment of the Kepler legacy archive.

Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration.

PubMed

Welch, Vivian; Petticrew, Mark; Petkovic, Jennifer; Moher, David; Waters, Elizabeth; White, Howard; Tugwell, Peter

2016-02-01

The promotion of health equity, the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes, is a global imperative. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for health decision makers but have been found to lack assessments of the intervention effects on health equity. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) is a 27-item checklist intended to improve transparency and reporting of systematic reviews. We developed an equity extension for PRISMA (PRISMA-E 2012) to help systematic reviewers identify, extract, and synthesize evidence on equity in systematic reviews. In this explanation and elaboration article, we provide the rationale for each extension item. These items are additions or modifications to the existing PRISMA statement items, to incorporate a focus on equity. An example of good reporting is provided for each item as well as the original PRISMA item. This explanation and elaboration document is intended to accompany the PRISMA-E 2012 statement and the PRISMA statement to improve understanding of the reporting guideline for users. The PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline is intended to improve transparency and completeness of reporting of equity-focused systematic reviews. Improved reporting can lead to better judgment of applicability by policy makers which may result in more appropriate policies and programs and may contribute to reductions in health inequities. Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Systematic reviews: guidance relevant for studies of older people.

PubMed

Shenkin, Susan D; Harrison, Jennifer K; Wilkinson, Tim; Dodds, Richard M; Ioannidis, John P A

2017-09-01

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are increasingly common. This article aims to provide guidance for people conducting systematic reviews relevant to the healthcare of older people. An awareness of these issues will also help people reading systematic reviews to determine whether the results will influence their clinical practice. It is essential that systematic reviews are performed by a team which includes the required technical and clinical expertise. Those performing reviews for the first time should ensure they have appropriate training and support. They must be planned and performed in a transparent and methodologically robust way: guidelines are available. The protocol should be written-and if possible published-before starting the review. Geriatricians will be interested in a table of baseline characteristics, which will help to determine if the studied samples or populations are similar to their patients. Reviews of studies of older people should consider how they will manage issues such as different age cut-offs; non-specific presentations; multiple predictors and outcomes; potential biases and confounders. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses may provide evidence to improve older people's care, or determine where new evidence is required. Newer methodologies, such as meta-analyses of individual level data, network meta-analyses and umbrella reviews, and realist synthesis, may improve the reliability and clinical utility of systematic reviews. © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.

Demystifying Kepler Data: A Primer for Systematic Artifact Mitigation

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Kinemuchi, K.; Barclay, T.; Fanelli, M.; Pepper, J.; Still, M.; Howell, B.

2012-01-01

The Kepler spacecraft has collected data of high photometric precision and cadence almost continuously since operations began on 2009 May 2. Primarily designed to detect planetary transits and asteroseismological signals from solar-like stars, Kepler has provided high quality data for many areas of investigation. Unconditioned simple aperture time-series photometry are however affected by systematic structure. Examples of these systematics are differential velocity aberration, thermal gradients across the spacecraft, and pointing variations. While exhibiting some impact on Kepler's primary science, these systematics can critically handicap potentially ground-breaking scientific gains in other astrophysical areas, especially over long timescales greater than 10 days. As the data archive grows to provide light curves for 10(exp 5) stars of many years in length, Kepler will only fulfill its broad potential for stellar astrophysics if these systematics are understood and mitigated. Post-launch developments in the Kepler archive, data reduction pipeline and open source data analysis software have occurred to remove or reduce systematic artifacts. This paper provides a conceptual primer for users of the Kepler data archive to understand and recognize systematic artifacts within light curves and some methods for their removal. Specific examples of artifact mitigation are provided using data available within the archive. Through the methods defined here, the Kepler community will find a road map to maximizing the quality and employment of the Kepler legacy archive.

Calculation of the detection limit in radiation measurements with systematic uncertainties

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Kirkpatrick, J. M.; Russ, W.; Venkataraman, R.; Young, B. M.

2015-06-01

The detection limit (LD) or Minimum Detectable Activity (MDA) is an a priori evaluation of assay sensitivity intended to quantify the suitability of an instrument or measurement arrangement for the needs of a given application. Traditional approaches as pioneered by Currie rely on Gaussian approximations to yield simple, closed-form solutions, and neglect the effects of systematic uncertainties in the instrument calibration. These approximations are applicable over a wide range of applications, but are of limited use in low-count applications, when high confidence values are required, or when systematic uncertainties are significant. One proposed modification to the Currie formulation attempts account for systematic uncertainties within a Gaussian framework. We have previously shown that this approach results in an approximation formula that works best only for small values of the relative systematic uncertainty, for which the modification of Currie's method is the least necessary, and that it significantly overestimates the detection limit or gives infinite or otherwise non-physical results for larger systematic uncertainties where such a correction would be the most useful. We have developed an alternative approach for calculating detection limits based on realistic statistical modeling of the counting distributions which accurately represents statistical and systematic uncertainties. Instead of a closed form solution, numerical and iterative methods are used to evaluate the result. Accurate detection limits can be obtained by this method for the general case.

Designing and Integrating Purposeful Learning in Game Play: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ke, Fengfeng

2016-01-01

Via a systematic review of the literature on learning games, this article presents a systematic discussion on the design of intrinsic integration of domain-specific learning in game mechanics and game world design. A total of 69 articles ultimately met the inclusion criteria and were coded for the literature synthesis. Exemplary learning games…

Organising and Leading Systematic Quality Work in the Preschool -- Preschool Managers' Perspectives

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Håkansson, Jan

2016-01-01

Preschool managers' responsibility for and leadership of systematic quality work has come to the fore in connection with changes made to the Swedish preschool curriculum. The aim of this study is to contribute to the understanding of preschool managers' leadership and management of the systematic quality work in Swedish preschools with reference…

School Leadership and Management in South Africa: Findings from a Systematic Literature Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bush, Tony; Glover, Derek

2016-01-01

Purpose: The purpose of this paper is to provide a systematic review of the literature on school leadership and management in South Africa, linked to the 20th anniversary of democratic government and integrated education. Design/Methodology/Approach: The authors conducted a systematic review of all published work since 2007 with a more selective…

Systematic Literature Review of Randomized Control Trials Assessing the Effectiveness of Nutrition Interventions in Community-Dwelling Older Adults

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bandayrel, Kristofer; Wong, Sharon

2011-01-01

Objective: Nutrition interventions may play an important role in maintaining the health and quality of life in community-dwelling older adults. To the authors' knowledge, no systematic literature review has been conducted on the effectiveness of nutrition interventions in the community-dwelling older adult population. Design: Systematic literature…

Systematic Professional Development Training and Its Impact on Teachers' Attitudes toward ELLs: SIOP and Guided Coaching

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Song, Kim Hyunsook

2016-01-01

This study examined systematic professional development (PD) training and its impact on teachers' roles for and attitudes toward English language learners (ELLs). Systematic PD should compensate for theories and pedagogies not obtained during teacher education programs yet needed for content teachers with ELLs. A study was conducted to examine…

Systematic Instruction of Functional Skills for Students and Adults with Disabilities. 2nd Edition

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Storey, Keith; Miner, Craig

2017-01-01

This book provides an overview of systematic instructional strategies and is written in a format so that teachers and other service providers can immediately put the information to use. It specifically focuses upon systematic instruction for individuals with disabilities (school age and adults) and is generic across age groups as well as…

Use of Evidence from Systematic Reviews to Inform Commissioning Decisions: A Case Study

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Chambers, Duncan; Grant, Rod; Warren, Erica; Pearson, Sally-Anne; Wilson, Paul

2012-01-01

Systematic reviews provide high-level evidence but there are barriers to their use by policy makers. This paper reports the preparation and evaluation of an evidence briefing, using systematic reviews and other existing sources of synthesised evidence, to support a possible reorganisation of services for young people with eating disorders in an…

A Systematic Review of the Literature on Mathematics Manipulatives to Support Students with Disabilities

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bouck, Emily C.; Park, Jiyoon

2018-01-01

Manipulatives are considered a common tool for mathematics teaching and learning, for both students with and without disabilities. Yet, a systematic review of the current state of research regarding manipulatives for students with disabilities did not exist prior to this article. This manuscript presents a systematic review of the literature…

Mediating Policy-Relevant Evidence at Speed: Are Systematic Reviews of Systematic Reviews a Useful Approach?

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Caird, Jenny; Sutcliffe, Katy; Kwan, Irene; Dickson, Kelly; Thomas, James

2015-01-01

When swift, accurate appraisal of evidence is required to inform policy concerning broad research questions, and budgetary constraints limit the employment of large research teams, researchers face a significant challenge which is sometimes met by reviewing existing systematic reviews. In this paper we highlight the challenges inherent in the…

The Effects of Oral-Motor Exercises on Swallowing in Children: An Evidence-Based Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Arvedson, Joan; Clark, Heather; Lazarus, Cathy; Schooling, Tracy; Frymark, Tobi

2010-01-01

Aim: The aim of this unregistered evidence-based systematic review was to determine the state and quality of evidence on the effects of oral motor exercises (OME) on swallowing physiology, pulmonary health, functional swallowing outcomes, and drooling management in children with swallowing disorders. Method: A systematic search of 20 electronic…

Falls Prevention Education for Older Adults during and after Hospitalization: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lee, Den-Ching A.; Pritchard, Elizabeth; McDermott, Fiona; Haines, Terry P.

2014-01-01

Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of patient education in reducing falls, promoting behavioural change and the uptake of prevention activities in older adults during and after hospitalization. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: A systematic search of five health science databases was performed up to November 2012. Studies…

Evidence-Based Systematic Review: Effects of Oral Motor Interventions on Feeding and Swallowing in Preterm Infants

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Arvedson, Joan; Clark, Heather; Lazarus, Cathy; Schooling, Tracy; Frymark, Tobi

2010-01-01

Purpose: To conduct an evidence-based systematic review and provide an estimate of the effects of oral motor interventions (OMIs) on feeding/swallowing outcomes (both physiological and functional) and pulmonary health in preterm infants. Method: A systematic search of the literature published from 1960 to 2007 was conducted. Articles meeting the…

International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes. Subcommittee on the taxonomy of Campylobacter and related bacteria. Minutes of the Meeting, August 27 2011, Vancouver, Canada.

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

The minutes from the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes Subcommittee on the Taxonomy of Campylobacter and Related Bacteria was submitted to the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. The subcommittee meets every two years at the Campylobacter, Helicobac...

Psychotropic Medications in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Systematic Review and Synthesis for Evidence-Based Practice

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Siegel, Matthew; Beaulieu, Amy A.

2012-01-01

This paper presents a systematic review, rating and synthesis of the empirical evidence for the use of psychotropic medications in children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). Thirty-three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in peer-reviewed journals qualified for inclusion and were coded and analyzed using a systematic evaluative…

Developing and Applying a Protocol for a Systematic Review in the Social Sciences

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Campbell, Allison; Taylor, Brian; Bates, Jessica; O'Connor-Bones, Una

2018-01-01

The article reports on a systematic method of undertaking a literature search on the educational impact of being a young carer (16-24 years old). The search methodology applied and described in detail will be of value to academic librarians and to other education researchers who undertake systematic literature searches. Seven bibliographic…

Impact of Environmental Factors on Community Participation of Persons with an Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Verdonschot, Manon M. L.; de Witte, L. P.; Reichrath, E.; Buntinx, W. H. E.; Curfs, L. M. G.

2009-01-01

Study Design: A systematic review of the literature. Objectives: To describe which environmental factors have an impact on community participation of persons with an intellectual disability. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted for the period of 1996-2006 in Pubmed, CINAHL and PSYCINFO. Search terms were derived from the…

Impact of Peer Nutrition Education on Dietary Behaviors and Health Outcomes among Latinos: A Systematic Literature Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Perez-Escamilla, Rafael; Hromi-Fiedler, Amber; Vega-Lopez, Sonia; Bermudez-Millan, Angela; Segura-Perez, Sofia

2008-01-01

Objective: This systematic review assesses the impact of peer education/counseling on nutrition and health outcomes among Latinos and identifies future research needs. Design: A systematic literature search was conducted by: (1) searching Internet databases; (2) conducting backward searches from reference lists of articles of interest; (3)…

Systematic uncertainties in RF-based measurement of superconducting cavity quality factors

DOE PAGES

Holzbauer, J. P.; Pischalnikov, Yu.; Sergatskov, D. A.; ...

2016-05-10

Q 0 determinations based on RF power measurements are subject to at least three potentially large systematic effects that have not been previously appreciated. Here, instrumental factors that can systematically bias RF based measurements of Q 0 are quantified and steps that can be taken to improve the determination of Q 0 are discussed.

Broadening Public Participation in Systematic Reviews: A Case Example Involving Young People in Two Configurative Reviews

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Oliver, Kathryn; Rees, Rebecca; Brady, Louca-Mai; Kavanagh, Josephine; Oliver, Sandy; Thomas, James

2015-01-01

Background: Arguments supporting the involvement of users in research have even more weight when involving the public in systematic reviews of research. We aimed to explore the potential for public involvement in systematic reviews of observational and qualitative studies. Methods: Two consultative workshops were carried out with a group of young…

A Systematic Review of Evidence for the Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kersten, Paula; Czuba, Karol; McPherson, Kathryn; Dudley, Margaret; Elder, Hinemoa; Tauroa, Robyn; Vandal, Alain

2016-01-01

This article synthesized evidence for the validity and reliability of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire in children aged 3-5 years. A systematic review using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement guidelines was carried out. Study quality was rated using the Consensus-based Standards for the…

A Systematic Review of the Behavioural Outcomes Following Exercise Interventions for Children and Youth with Autism Spectrum Disorder

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Bremer, Emily; Crozier, Michael; Lloyd, Meghann

2016-01-01

The purpose of this review was to systematically search and critically analyse the literature pertaining to behavioural outcomes of exercise interventions for individuals with autism spectrum disorder aged ?16 years. This systematic review employed a comprehensive peer-reviewed search strategy, two-stage screening process and rigorous critical…

The Effect of Systematic Academic Instruction on Behavioural and Academic Outcomes of Students with EBD

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

van der Worp-van der Kamp, Lidy; Pijl, Sip Jan; Post, Wendy J.; Bijstra, Jan O.; van den Bosch, Els J.

2016-01-01

This study aims to assess the impact of systematic academic instruction on academic progress and behavioural problems of students with emotional and/or behavioural disorders (EBD) in special education. Earlier studies have noted the importance of a systematic approach as well as the significance of focusing on academic instruction instead of on…

Optimising the Efficacy of Hybrid Academic Teams: Lessons from a Systematic Review Process

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Lake, Warren; Wallin, Margie; Boyd, Bill; Woolcott, Geoff; Markopoulos, Christos; Boyd, Wendy; Foster, Alan

2018-01-01

Undertaking a systematic review can have many benefits, beyond any theoretical or conceptual discoveries pertaining to the underlying research question. This paper explores the value of utilising a hybrid academic team when undertaking the systematic review process, and shares a range of practical strategies. The paper also comments on how such a…

Job Satisfaction, Quality of Work Life and Work Motivation in Employees with Intellectual Disability: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Kocman, Andreas; Weber, Germain

2018-01-01

Background: Current research on employment options for people with Intellectual Disability emphasizes the importance of employee needs and satisfaction. The study aims at systematically reviewing the literature on job satisfaction and related constructs. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted. Studies were included if (i) they are…

School-Based Mental Health and Behavioral Programs for Low-Income, Urban Youth: A Systematic and Meta-Analytic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Farahmand, Farahnaz K.; Grant, Kathryn E.; Polo, Antonio J.; Duffy, Sophia N.; Dubois, David L.

2011-01-01

A systematic and meta-analytic review was conducted of the effectiveness of school-based mental health and behavioral programs for low-income, urban youth. Applying criteria from an earlier systematic review (Rones & Hoagwood, 2000) of such programs for all populations indicated substantially fewer effective programs for low-income, urban…

Behavioural Intervention Practices for Stereotypic and Repetitive Behaviour in Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Patterson, Stephanie Y.; Smith, Veronica; Jelen, Michaela

2010-01-01

Aim: The purpose of this systematic review was to examine the quality of conduct of experimental studies contributing to our empirical understanding of function-based behavioural interventions for stereotypic and repetitive behaviours (SRBs) in individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASDs). Method: Systematic review methodology was used to…

Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR).

PubMed

Beller, Elaine; Clark, Justin; Tsafnat, Guy; Adams, Clive; Diehl, Heinz; Lund, Hans; Ouzzani, Mourad; Thayer, Kristina; Thomas, James; Turner, Tari; Xia, Jun; Robinson, Karen; Glasziou, Paul

2018-05-19

Systematic reviews (SR) are vital to health care, but have become complicated and time-consuming, due to the rapid expansion of evidence to be synthesised. Fortunately, many tasks of systematic reviews have the potential to be automated or may be assisted by automation. Recent advances in natural language processing, text mining and machine learning have produced new algorithms that can accurately mimic human endeavour in systematic review activity, faster and more cheaply. Automation tools need to be able to work together, to exchange data and results. Therefore, we initiated the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR), to successfully put all the parts of automation of systematic review production together. The first meeting was held in Vienna in October 2015. We established a set of principles to enable tools to be developed and integrated into toolkits.This paper sets out the principles devised at that meeting, which cover the need for improvement in efficiency of SR tasks, automation across the spectrum of SR tasks, continuous improvement, adherence to high quality standards, flexibility of use and combining components, the need for a collaboration and varied skills, the desire for open source, shared code and evaluation, and a requirement for replicability through rigorous and open evaluation.Automation has a great potential to improve the speed of systematic reviews. Considerable work is already being done on many of the steps involved in a review. The 'Vienna Principles' set out in this paper aim to guide a more coordinated effort which will allow the integration of work by separate teams and build on the experience, code and evaluations done by the many teams working across the globe.

Interventional Radiology Clinical Practice Guideline Recommendations for Neurovascular Disorders Are Not Based on High-Quality Systematic Reviews.

PubMed

Chong, A B; Taylor, M; Schubert, G; Vassar, M

2017-04-01

In recent years, clinical practice guidelines have been criticized for biased interpretations of research evidence, and interventional radiology is no exception. Our aim was to evaluate the methodologic quality and transparency of reporting in systematic reviews used as evidence in interventional radiology clinical practice guidelines for neurovascular disorders from the Society of Interventional Radiology. Our sources were 9 neurovascular disorder clinical practice guidelines from the Society of Interventional Radiology. We selected 65 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) tools were used to assess the methodologic quality and reporting transparency of systematic reviews. Radial plots were created on the basis of average scores for PRISMA and AMSTAR items. On the basis of AMSTAR scores, 3 (4.62%) reviews were high-quality, 28 reviews (43.08%) were moderate-quality, and 34 reviews (52.31%) were low-quality, with an average quality score of 3.66 (34.32%; minimum, 0%; maximum, 81.82%). The average PRISMA score was 18.18 (69.41%). We were unable to obtain previous versions for 8 reviews, 7 of which were from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. The methodologic quality of systematic reviews needs to be improved. Although reporting clarity was much better than the methodologic quality, it still has room for improvement. The methodologic quality and transparency of reporting did not vary much among clinical practice guidelines. This study can also be applied to other medical specialties to examine the quality of studies used as evidence in their own clinical practice guidelines. © 2017 by American Journal of Neuroradiology.

Maximizing the Impact of Systematic Reviews in Health Care Decision Making: A Systematic Scoping Review of Knowledge-Translation Resources

PubMed Central

Chambers, Duncan; Wilson, Paul M; Thompson, Carl A; Hanbury, Andria; Farley, Katherine; Light, Kate

2011-01-01

Context: Barriers to the use of systematic reviews by policymakers may be overcome by resources that adapt and present the findings in formats more directly tailored to their needs. We performed a systematic scoping review to identify such knowledge-translation resources and evaluations of them. Methods: Resources were eligible for inclusion in this study if they were based exclusively or primarily on systematic reviews and were aimed at health care policymakers at the national or local level. Resources were identified by screening the websites of health technology assessment agencies and systematic review producers, supplemented by an email survey. Electronic databases and proceedings of the Cochrane Colloquium and HTA International were searched as well for published and unpublished evaluations of knowledge-translation resources. Resources were classified as summaries, overviews, or policy briefs using a previously published classification. Findings: Twenty knowledge-translation resources were identified, of which eleven were classified as summaries, six as overviews, and three as policy briefs. Resources added value to systematic reviews by, for example, evaluating their methodological quality or assessing the reliability of their conclusions or their generalizability to particular settings. The literature search found four published evaluation studies of knowledge-translation resources, and the screening of abstracts and contact with authors found three more unpublished studies. The majority of studies reported on the perceived usefulness of the service, although there were some examples of review-based resources being used to assist actual decision making. Conclusions: Systematic review producers provide a variety of resources to help policymakers, of which focused summaries are the most common. More evaluations of these resources are required to ensure users’ needs are being met, to demonstrate their impact, and to justify their funding. PMID:21418315

An approach to addressing subpopulation considerations in systematic reviews: the experience of reviewers supporting the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

PubMed

Whitlock, Evelyn P; Eder, Michelle; Thompson, Jamie H; Jonas, Daniel E; Evans, Corinne V; Guirguis-Blake, Janelle M; Lin, Jennifer S

2017-03-02

Guideline developers and other users of systematic reviews need information about whether a medical or preventive intervention is likely to benefit or harm some patients more (or less) than the average in order to make clinical practice recommendations tailored to these populations. However, guidance is lacking on how to include patient subpopulation considerations into the systematic reviews upon which guidelines are often based. In this article, we describe methods developed to consistently consider the evidence for relevant subpopulations in systematic reviews conducted to support primary care clinical preventive service recommendations made by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Our approach is grounded in our experience conducting systematic reviews for the USPSTF and informed by a review of existing guidance on subgroup analysis and subpopulation issues. We developed and refined our approach based on feedback from the Subpopulation Workgroup of the USPSTF and pilot testing on reviews being conducted for the USPSTF. This paper provides processes and tools for incorporating evidence-based identification of important sources of potential heterogeneity of intervention effects into all phases of systematic reviews. Key components of our proposed approach include targeted literature searches and key informant interviews to identify the most important subpopulations a priori during topic scoping, a framework for assessing the credibility of subgroup analyses reported in studies, and structured investigation of sources of heterogeneity of intervention effects. Further testing and evaluation are necessary to refine this proposed approach and demonstrate its utility to the producers and users of systematic reviews beyond the context of the USPSTF. Gaps in the evidence on important subpopulations identified by routinely applying this process in systematic reviews will also inform future research needs.

The systematic review as a research process in music therapy.

PubMed

Hanson-Abromeit, Deanna; Sena Moore, Kimberly

2014-01-01

Music therapists are challenged to present evidence on the efficacy of music therapy treatment and incorporate the best available research evidence to make informed healthcare and treatment decisions. Higher standards of evidence can come from a variety of sources including systematic reviews. To define and describe a range of research review methods using examples from music therapy and related literature, with emphasis on the systematic review. In addition, the authors provide a detailed overview of methodological processes for conducting and reporting systematic reviews in music therapy. The systematic review process is described in five steps. Step 1 identifies the research plan and operationalized research question(s). Step 2 illustrates the identification and organization of the existing literature related to the question(s). Step 3 details coding of data extracted from the literature. Step 4 explains the synthesis of coded findings and analysis to answer the research question(s). Step 5 describes the strength of evidence evaluation and results presentation for practice recommendations. Music therapists are encouraged to develop and conduct systematic reviews. This methodology contributes to review outcome credibility and can determine how information is interpreted and used by clinicians, clients or patients, and policy makers. A systematic review is a methodologically rigorous research method used to organize and evaluate extant literature related to a clinical problem. Systematic reviews can assist music therapists in managing the ever-increasing literature, making well-informed evidence based practice and research decisions, and translating existing music-based and nonmusic based literature to clinical practice and research development. © the American Music Therapy Association 2014. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

CFHTLenS revisited: assessing concordance with Planck including astrophysical systematics

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Joudaki, Shahab; Blake, Chris; Heymans, Catherine; Choi, Ami; Harnois-Deraps, Joachim; Hildebrandt, Hendrik; Joachimi, Benjamin; Johnson, Andrew; Mead, Alexander; Parkinson, David; Viola, Massimo; van Waerbeke, Ludovic

2017-02-01

We investigate the impact of astrophysical systematics on cosmic shear cosmological parameter constraints from the Canada-France-Hawaii Telescope Lensing Survey (CFHTLenS) and the concordance with cosmic microwave background measurements by Planck. We present updated CFHTLenS cosmic shear tomography measurements extended to degree scales using a covariance calibrated by a new suite of N-body simulations. We analyse these measurements with a new model fitting pipeline, accounting for key systematic uncertainties arising from intrinsic galaxy alignments, baryonic effects in the non-linear matter power spectrum, and photometric redshift uncertainties. We examine the impact of the systematic degrees of freedom on the cosmological parameter constraints, both independently and jointly. When the systematic uncertainties are considered independently, the intrinsic alignment amplitude is the only degree of freedom that is substantially preferred by the data. When the systematic uncertainties are considered jointly, there is no consistently strong preference in favour of the more complex models. We quantify the level of concordance between the CFHTLenS and Planck data sets by employing two distinct data concordance tests, grounded in Bayesian evidence and information theory. We find that the two data concordance tests largely agree with one another and that the level of concordance between the CFHTLenS and Planck data sets is sensitive to the exact details of the systematic uncertainties included in our analysis, ranging from decisive discordance to substantial concordance as the treatment of the systematic uncertainties becomes more conservative. The least conservative scenario is the one most favoured by the cosmic shear data, but it is also the one that shows the greatest degree of discordance with Planck. The data and analysis code are publicly available at https://github.com/sjoudaki/cfhtlens_revisited.

Methods to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies: a systematic scoping review of recommendations.

PubMed

Mueller, Monika; D'Addario, Maddalena; Egger, Matthias; Cevallos, Myriam; Dekkers, Olaf; Mugglin, Catrina; Scott, Pippa

2018-05-21

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies are frequently performed, but no widely accepted guidance is available at present. We performed a systematic scoping review of published methodological recommendations on how to systematically review and meta-analyse observational studies. We searched online databases and websites and contacted experts in the field to locate potentially eligible articles. We included articles that provided any type of recommendation on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. We extracted and summarised recommendations on pre-defined key items: protocol development, research question, search strategy, study eligibility, data extraction, dealing with different study designs, risk of bias assessment, publication bias, heterogeneity, statistical analysis. We summarised recommendations by key item, identifying areas of agreement and disagreement as well as areas where recommendations were missing or scarce. The searches identified 2461 articles of which 93 were eligible. Many recommendations for reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies were transferred from guidance developed for reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs. Although there was substantial agreement in some methodological areas there was also considerable disagreement on how evidence synthesis of observational studies should be conducted. Conflicting recommendations were seen on topics such as the inclusion of different study designs in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, the use of quality scales to assess the risk of bias, and the choice of model (e.g. fixed vs. random effects) for meta-analysis. There is a need for sound methodological guidance on how to conduct systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies, which critically considers areas in which there are conflicting recommendations.

SKA weak lensing - III. Added value of multiwavelength synergies for the mitigation of systematics

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Camera, Stefano; Harrison, Ian; Bonaldi, Anna; Brown, Michael L.

2017-02-01

In this third paper of a series on radio weak lensing for cosmology with the Square Kilometre Array, we scrutinize synergies between cosmic shear measurements in the radio and optical/near-infrared (IR) bands for mitigating systematic effects. We focus on three main classes of systematics: (I) experimental systematic errors in the observed shear; (II) signal contamination by intrinsic alignments and (III) systematic effects due to an incorrect modelling of non-linear scales. First, we show that a comprehensive, multiwavelength analysis provides a self-calibration method for experimental systematic effects, only implying <50 per cent increment on the errors on cosmological parameters. We also illustrate how the cross-correlation between radio and optical/near-IR surveys alone is able to remove residual systematics with variance as large as 10-5, I.e. the same order of magnitude of the cosmological signal. This also opens the possibility of using such a cross-correlation as a means to detect unknown experimental systematics. Secondly, we demonstrate that, thanks to polarization information, radio weak lensing surveys will be able to mitigate contamination by intrinsic alignments, in a way similar but fully complementary to available self-calibration methods based on position-shear correlations. Lastly, we illustrate how radio weak lensing experiments, reaching higher redshifts than those accessible to optical surveys, will probe dark energy and the growth of cosmic structures in regimes less contaminated by non-linearities in the matter perturbations. For instance, the higher redshift bins of radio catalogues peak at z ≃ 0.8-1, whereas their optical/near-IR counterparts are limited to z ≲ 0.5-0.7. This translates into having a cosmological signal 2-5 times less contaminated by non-linear perturbations.

The methodological quality of systematic reviews published in high-impact nursing journals: a review of the literature.

PubMed

Pölkki, Tarja; Kanste, Outi; Kääriäinen, Maria; Elo, Satu; Kyngäs, Helvi

2014-02-01

To analyse systematic review articles published in the top 10 nursing journals to determine the quality of the methods employed within them. Systematic review is defined as a scientific research method that synthesises high-quality scientific knowledge on a given topic. The number of such reviews in nursing science has increased dramatically during recent years, but their methodological quality has not previously been assessed. A review of the literature using a narrative approach. Ranked impact factor scores for nursing journals were obtained from the Journal Citation Report database of the Institute of Scientific Information (ISI Web of Knowledge). All issues from the years 2009 and 2010 of the top 10 ranked journals were included. CINAHL and MEDLINE databases were searched to locate studies using the search terms 'systematic review' and 'systematic literature review'. A total of 39 eligible studies were identified. Their methodological quality was evaluated through the specific criteria of quality assessment, description of synthesis and strengths and weaknesses reported in the included studies. Most of the eligible systematic reviews included several different designs or types of quantitative study. The majority included a quality assessment, and a total of 17 different criteria were identified. The method of synthesis was mentioned in about half of the reviews, the most common being narrative synthesis. The weaknesses of reviews were discussed, while strengths were rarely highlighted. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews examined varied considerably, although they were all published in nursing journals with a high-impact factor. Despite the fact that systematic reviews are considered the most robust source of research evidence, they vary in methodological quality. This point is important to consider in clinical practice when applying the results to patient care. © 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Toothbrushing Systematics Index (TSI) – A new tool for quantifying systematics in toothbrushing behaviour

PubMed Central

Winterfeld, Katrin; Quera, Vicenç; Winterfeld, Tobias; Ganss, Carolina

2018-01-01

Systematics is considered important for effective toothbrushing. A theoretical concept of systematics in toothbrushing and a validated index to quantify it using observational data is suggested. The index consists of three components: completeness (all areas of the dentition reached), isochronicity (all areas brushed equally long) and consistency (avoiding frequent alternations between areas). Toothbrushing should take a sufficient length of time; therefore, this parameter is part of the index value calculation. Quantitative data from video observations were used including the number of changes between areas, number of areas reached, absolute brushing time and brushing time per area. These data were fed into two algorithms that converted the behaviour into two index values (each with values between 0 and 1) and were summed as the Toothbrushing Systematics Index (TSI) value; 0 indicates completely unsystematic and 2 indicates perfectly systematic brushing. The index was developed using theoretical data. The data matrices revealed the highest values when all areas are reached and brushed equally long. Few changes occurred between the areas when the brushing duration was ≥90 s; the lowest values occurred under opposite conditions. Clinical applicability was tested with data from re-analysed videos from an earlier intervention study aiming to establish a pre-defined toothbrushing sequence. Subjects who fully adopted this sequence had a baseline TSI of 1.30±0.26, which increased to 1.74±0.09 after the intervention (p≤0.001). When the participants who only partially adopted the sequence were included, the respective values were 1.25±0.27 and 1.69±0.14 (p≤0.001). The suggested new TS-index can cover a variety of clinically meaningful variations of systematic brushing, validly quantifies the changes in toothbrushing systematics and has discriminative power. PMID:29708989

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

PubMed

Shamseer, Larissa; Moher, David; Clarke, Mike; Ghersi, Davina; Liberati, Alessandro; Petticrew, Mark; Shekelle, Paul; Stewart, Lesley A

2015-01-02

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols. © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2014.

α-decay systematics for superheavy elements

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Duarte, S. B.; Teruya, N.

2012-01-01

In this Brief Report we extend the α-decay half-life calculation to the superheavy emitter region to verify whether these nuclei satisfy the recently observed systematics [D. N. Poenaru , Phys. Rev. CPRVCAN0556-281310.1103/PhysRevC.83.014601 83, 014601 (2011);C. Qi , Phys. Rev. CPRVCAN0556-281310.1103/PhysRevC.80.044326 80, 044326 (2009)]. To establish the systematics, we have used the α-cluster potential description, which was originally developed to study α decay in connection with nuclear energy level structure [B. Buck , Phys. Rev. CPRVCAN0556-281310.1103/PhysRevC.51.559 51, 559 (1995)]. The quantum-mechanical tunneling calculation has been employed to obtain the half-lives, showing that with this treatment the systematics are well reproduced in the region of heavy nuclei. Finally, the half-life calculation has been extended to the superheavy emitters to verify whether the systematics can still be observed.

Remodeling of legacy systems in health care using UML.

PubMed

Garde, Sebastian; Knaup, Petra; Herold, Ralf

2002-01-01

Research projects in the field of Medical Informatics often involve the development of application systems. Usually they are developed over a longer period of time, so that at a certain point of time a systematically planned reimplementation is necessary. The first step of reimplementation should be a systematic and comprehensive remodeling. When using UML for this task a systematic approach for remodeling activities is missing. Therefore, we developed a method for remodeling of legacy systems (Qumquad) and applied it to DOSPO, a documentation and therapy planning system for pediatric oncology. Qumquad helps to systematically carry out three steps: the modeling of the current actual state of the application system, the systematic identification of weak points and the development of a target concept for reimplementation considering the identified weak points. Results show that this approach is valuable and feasible and could be applied to various application systems in health care.

SYSTEMATIC EFFECTS IN POLARIZING FOURIER TRANSFORM SPECTROMETERS FOR COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND OBSERVATIONS

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Nagler, Peter C.; Tucker, Gregory S.; Fixsen, Dale J.

The detection of the primordial B-mode polarization signal of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) would provide evidence for inflation. Yet as has become increasingly clear, the detection of a such a faint signal requires an instrument with both wide frequency coverage to reject foregrounds and excellent control over instrumental systematic effects. Using a polarizing Fourier transform spectrometer (FTS) for CMB observations meets both of these requirements. In this work, we present an analysis of instrumental systematic effects in polarizing FTSs, using the Primordial Inflation Explorer (PIXIE) as a worked example. We analytically solve for the most important systematic effects inherentmore » to the FTS—emissive optical components, misaligned optical components, sampling and phase errors, and spin synchronous effects—and demonstrate that residual systematic error terms after corrections will all be at the sub-nK level, well below the predicted 100 nK B-mode signal.« less

[Systematization of nursing care: viewing care as interactive, complementary and multi-professional].

PubMed

do Nascimento, Keyla Cristiane; Backes, Dirce Stein; Koerich, Magda Santos; Erdmann, Alacoque Lorenzini

2008-12-01

This study is the result of an extended project, named: The systematization of nursing care in the perspective of complex thinking. The objective of this qualitative study is to better comprehend the meaning of the systematization of nursing care among healthcare professionals. The Data-Based Theory was used as a methodological reference. Data were collected by interviewing three sample groups, in a total of fifteen healthcare professionals. Data codification and analysis led us to the central theme: Viewing the Systematization of Nursing Care (SNC) as an Interactive and Complex Phenomenon. This theme is complemented by two phenomena. In this article, we discuss the phenomenon: Verifying the necessity of on interactive, complementary, and multi-professional process. The Systematization of Nursing Care is part of a process that has been developing over time by nurses committed to improve the care given to the patient, since they view the necessity for interactive, complementary, and multi-professional care.

Review and Synthesize Completed Research Through Systematic Review.

PubMed

Hopp, Lisa; Rittenmeyer, Leslie

2015-10-01

The evidence-based health care movement has generated new opportunity for scholars to generate synthesized sources of evidence. Systematic reviews are rigorous forms of synthesized evidence that scholars can conduct if they have requisite skills, time, and access to excellent library resources. Systematic reviews play an important role in synthesizing what is known and unknown about a particular health issue. Thus, they have a synergistic relationship with primary research. They can both inform clinical decisions when the evidence is adequate and identify gaps in knowledge to inform research priorities. Systematic reviews can be conducted of quantitative and qualitative evidence to answer many types of questions. They all share characteristics of rigor that arise from a priori protocol development, transparency, exhaustive searching, dual independent reviewers who critically appraise studies using standardized tools, rigor in synthesis, and peer review at multiple stages in the conduct and reporting of the systematic review. © The Author(s) 2015.

A systematic review of systematic reviews of homeopathy

PubMed Central

Ernst, E

2002-01-01

Homeopathy remains one of the most controversial subjects in therapeutics. This article is an attempt to clarify its effectiveness based on recent systematic reviews. Electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews/meta-analysis on the subject. Seventeen articles fulfilled the inclusion/exclusion criteria. Six of them related to re-analyses of one landmark meta-analysis. Collectively they implied that the overall positive result of this meta-analysis is not supported by a critical analysis of the data. Eleven independent systematic reviews were located. Collectively they failed to provide strong evidence in favour of homeopathy. In particular, there was no condition which responds convincingly better to homeopathic treatment than to placebo or other control interventions. Similarly, there was no homeopathic remedy that was demonstrated to yield clinical effects that are convincingly different from placebo. It is concluded that the best clinical evidence for homeopathy available to date does not warrant positive recommendations for its use in clinical practice. PMID:12492603

The Relative Effectiveness of Systematic Desensitization and Hypnosis in Alleviating Test Anxiety in Community College Students.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Simmons, Roy D., Jr.

In order to determine whether or not systematic desensitization or hypnosis have any effect in alleviating the test anxiety of community college students, 30 Massasoit Community College student volunteers were matched for GPA and assigned to one of three treatment groups: (1) a systematic desensitization group, in which subjects listened to tape…

Beyond Synthesis: Augmenting Systematic Review Procedures with Practical Principles to Optimise Impact and Uptake in Educational Policy and Practice

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Green, Chris; Taylor, Celia; Buckley, Sharon; Hean, Sarah

2016-01-01

Whilst systematic reviews, meta-analyses and other forms of synthesis are considered amongst the most valuable forms of research evidence, their limited impact on educational policy and practice has been criticised. In this article, we analyse why systematic reviews do not benefit users of evidence more consistently and suggest how review teams…

Systematic Review and Narrative Synthesis of the Effectiveness of Contraceptive Service Interventions for Young People, Delivered in Health Care Settings

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Blank, Lindsay; Baxter, Susan K.; Payne, Nick; Guillaume, Louise R.; Squires, Hazel

2012-01-01

A systematic review and narrative synthesis to determine the effectiveness of contraception service interventions for young people delivered in health care premises was undertaken. We searched 12 key health and medical databases, reference lists of included papers and systematic reviews and cited reference searches on included articles. All…

Effects of Spaced Retrieval Training on Semantic Memory in Alzheimer's Disease: A Systematic Review

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Oren, Shiri; Willerton, Charlene; Small, Jeff

2014-01-01

Purpose: This article reports on a systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of spaced retrieval training (SRT) on semantic memory in people with Alzheimer's disease (AD) or related disorder. Method: An initial systematic database search identified 454 potential studies. After screening and de-duplication, 35 studies that used SRT…

Initial Teacher Training to Promote Health and Well-Being in Schools--A Systematic Review of Effectiveness, Barriers and Facilitators

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Shepherd, Jonathan; Pickett, Karen; Dewhirst, Sue; Byrne, Jenny; Speller, Viv; Grace, Marcus; Almond, Palo; Roderick, Paul

2016-01-01

Objectives: To conduct a systematic review of effectiveness, and barriers and facilitators, of initial teacher training to promote health and well-being in schools. Design: Systematic review of the literature. Method: A total of 20 bibliographic databases were searched, including MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Social Science Citation Index. Studies were…

Evidence-Based Systematic Review: Effects of Intensity of Treatment and Constraint-Induced Language Therapy for Individuals with Stroke-Induced Aphasia

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Cherney, Leora R.; Patterson, Janet P.; Raymer, Anastasia; Frymark, Tobi; Schooling, Tracy

2008-01-01

Purpose: This systematic review summarizes evidence for intensity of treatment and constraint-induced language therapy (CILT) on measures of language impairment and communication activity/participation in individuals with stroke-induced aphasia. Method: A systematic search of the aphasia literature using 15 electronic databases (e.g., PubMed,…

Systematic sampling of discrete and continuous populations: sample selection and the choice of estimator

Treesearch

Harry T. Valentine; David L. R. Affleck; Timothy G. Gregoire

2009-01-01

Systematic sampling is easy, efficient, and widely used, though it is not generally recognized that a systematic sample may be drawn from the population of interest with or without restrictions on randomization. The restrictions or the lack of them determine which estimators are unbiased, when using the sampling design as the basis for inference. We describe the...

Opportunities and Challenges of Using Systematic Reviews of Research for Evidence-Based Policy in Education

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Harlen, Wynne; Crick, Ruth Deakin

2004-01-01

In this paper we discuss the potential for using systematic reviews of research to inform policy in education against the background of severe criticisms of the quality and relevance of individual research studies, most recently by the Commission on the Social Sciences. The potential is set against the reality of conducting systematic reviews of…

The Experiences of and Attitudes toward Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Attention-Deficit/hyperactivity Disorder Used in School Settings: A Systematic Review and Synthesis of Qualitative Research

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Moore, Darren A.; Gwernan-Jones, Ruth; Richardson, Michelle; Racey, Daniel; Rogers, Morwenna; Stein, Ken; Thompson-Coon, Jo; Ford, Tamsin J.; Garside, Ruth

2016-01-01

School-based non-pharmacological interventions are an important part of the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). We aimed to systematically review qualitative literature relating to the experience of and attitudes towards school-based non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD. Systematic searches of 20 electronic…

International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes Subcommittee on the Taxonomy of Campylobacter and Related Bacteria. Minutes of the Meetings, September 15th and 18th 2013, Aberdeen, Scotland

USDA-ARS?s Scientific Manuscript database

The minutes from the International Committee on Systematics of Prokaryotes Subcommittee on the Taxonomy of Campylobacter and Related Bacteria was submitted to the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. The subcommittee meets every two years at the Campylobacter, Helicobac...

Health System Decision Makers' Feedback on Summaries and Tools Supporting the Use of Systematic Reviews: A Qualitative Study

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Ellen, Moriah E.; Lavis, John N.; Wilson, Michael G.; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Haynes, R. Brian; Ouimet, Mathieu; Raina, Parminder; Gruen, Russell

2014-01-01

Health system managers and policy makers need timely access to high quality, policy-relevant systematic reviews. Our objectives were to obtain managers' and policy makers' feedback about user-friendly summaries of systematic reviews and about tools related to supporting or assessing their use. Our interviews identified that participants prefer key…

Voice, Articulation, and Prosody Contribute to Listener Perceptions of Speaker Gender: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Leung, Yeptain; Oates, Jennifer; Chan, Siew Pang

2018-01-01

Purpose: The aim of this study was to provide a systematic review of the aspects of verbal communication contributing to listener perceptions of speaker gender with a view to providing clinicians with guidance for the selection of the training goals when working with transsexual individuals. Method: Preferred reporting items for systematic review…

A Pilot Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Effectiveness of Problem Based Learning.

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Newman, Mark

This paper reports on the development and piloting of a systematic review and meta analysis of research on the effectiveness of problem based learning (PBL). The systematic review protocol was pilot tested with a sample of studies cited as providing "evidence" about the effectiveness of PBL. From the 5 studies mentioned in the sample of reviews,…

A nephrology guide to reading and using systematic reviews of randomized trials.

PubMed

Badve, Sunil V; Palmer, Suetonia C; Johnson, David W; Strippoli, Giovanni F M

2015-06-01

Conscientious integration of the best available evidence in the care of an individual patient could be challenging for a busy clinician. A well-conducted systematic review can adequately inform not only the clinicians, but also the policy makers and researchers about the benefits and risks of a particular intervention. In this article, we describe how to critically appraise the methods and interpret the results of a systematic review of interventional trials and apply the findings of a systematic review to the clinical questions. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of ERA-EDTA. All rights reserved.

Improving diagnostic accuracy of prostate carcinoma by systematic random map-biopsy.

PubMed

Szabó, J; Hegedûs, G; Bartók, K; Kerényi, T; Végh, A; Romics, I; Szende, B

2000-01-01

Systematic random rectal ultrasound directed map-biopsy of the prostate was performed in 77 RDE (rectal digital examination) positive and 25 RDE negative cases, if applicable. Hypoechoic areas were found in 30% of RDE positive and in 16% of RDE negative cases. The score for carcinoma in the hypoechoic areas was 6.5% in RDE positive and 0% in RDE negative cases, whereas systematic map biopsy detected 62% carcinomas in RDE positive, and 16% carcinomas in RDE negative patients. The probability of positive diagnosis of prostate carcinoma increased in parallel with the number of biopsy samples/case. The importance of systematic map biopsy is emphasized.

Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in prominent medical journals: a methodological review.

PubMed

McCrae, Niall; Purssell, Edward

2015-12-01

Clear and logical eligibility criteria are fundamental to the design and conduct of a systematic review. This methodological review examined the quality of reporting and application of eligibility criteria in systematic reviews published in three leading medical journals. All systematic reviews in the BMJ, JAMA and The Lancet in the years 2013 and 2014 were extracted. These were assessed using a refined version of a checklist previously designed by the authors. A total of 113 papers were eligible, of which 65 were in BMJ, 17 in The Lancet and 31 in JAMA. Although a generally high level of reporting was found, eligibility criteria were often problematic. In 67% of papers, eligibility was specified after the search sources or terms. Unjustified time restrictions were used in 21% of reviews, and unpublished or unspecified data in 27%. Inconsistency between journals was apparent in the requirements for systematic reviews. The quality of reviews in these leading medical journals was high; however, there were issues that reduce the clarity and replicability of the review process. As well as providing a useful checklist, this methodological review informs the continued development of standards for systematic reviews. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Dark Energy Survey Year 1 results: cross-correlation redshifts - methods and systematics characterization

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Gatti, M.; Vielzeuf, P.; Davis, C.; Cawthon, R.; Rau, M. M.; DeRose, J.; De Vicente, J.; Alarcon, A.; Rozo, E.; Gaztanaga, E.; Hoyle, B.; Miquel, R.; Bernstein, G. M.; Bonnett, C.; Carnero Rosell, A.; Castander, F. J.; Chang, C.; da Costa, L. N.; Gruen, D.; Gschwend, J.; Hartley, W. G.; Lin, H.; MacCrann, N.; Maia, M. A. G.; Ogando, R. L. C.; Roodman, A.; Sevilla-Noarbe, I.; Troxel, M. A.; Wechsler, R. H.; Asorey, J.; Davis, T. M.; Glazebrook, K.; Hinton, S. R.; Lewis, G.; Lidman, C.; Macaulay, E.; Möller, A.; O'Neill, C. R.; Sommer, N. E.; Uddin, S. A.; Yuan, F.; Zhang, B.; Abbott, T. M. C.; Allam, S.; Annis, J.; Bechtol, K.; Brooks, D.; Burke, D. L.; Carollo, D.; Carrasco Kind, M.; Carretero, J.; Cunha, C. E.; D'Andrea, C. B.; DePoy, D. L.; Desai, S.; Eifler, T. F.; Evrard, A. E.; Flaugher, B.; Fosalba, P.; Frieman, J.; García-Bellido, J.; Gerdes, D. W.; Goldstein, D. A.; Gruendl, R. A.; Gutierrez, G.; Honscheid, K.; Hoormann, J. K.; Jain, B.; James, D. J.; Jarvis, M.; Jeltema, T.; Johnson, M. W. G.; Johnson, M. D.; Krause, E.; Kuehn, K.; Kuhlmann, S.; Kuropatkin, N.; Li, T. S.; Lima, M.; Marshall, J. L.; Melchior, P.; Menanteau, F.; Nichol, R. C.; Nord, B.; Plazas, A. A.; Reil, K.; Rykoff, E. S.; Sako, M.; Sanchez, E.; Scarpine, V.; Schubnell, M.; Sheldon, E.; Smith, M.; Smith, R. C.; Soares-Santos, M.; Sobreira, F.; Suchyta, E.; Swanson, M. E. C.; Tarle, G.; Thomas, D.; Tucker, B. E.; Tucker, D. L.; Vikram, V.; Walker, A. R.; Weller, J.; Wester, W.; Wolf, R. C.

2018-06-01

We use numerical simulations to characterize the performance of a clustering-based method to calibrate photometric redshift biases. In particular, we cross-correlate the weak lensing source galaxies from the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 sample with redMaGiC galaxies (luminous red galaxies with secure photometric redshifts) to estimate the redshift distribution of the former sample. The recovered redshift distributions are used to calibrate the photometric redshift bias of standard photo-z methods applied to the same source galaxy sample. We apply the method to two photo-z codes run in our simulated data: Bayesian Photometric Redshift and Directional Neighbourhood Fitting. We characterize the systematic uncertainties of our calibration procedure, and find that these systematic uncertainties dominate our error budget. The dominant systematics are due to our assumption of unevolving bias and clustering across each redshift bin, and to differences between the shapes of the redshift distributions derived by clustering versus photo-zs. The systematic uncertainty in the mean redshift bias of the source galaxy sample is Δz ≲ 0.02, though the precise value depends on the redshift bin under consideration. We discuss possible ways to mitigate the impact of our dominant systematics in future analyses.

Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals

PubMed Central

Beronius, Anna; Vandenberg, Laura N.

2016-01-01

The possibility that endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in our environment contribute to hormonally related effects and diseases observed in human and wildlife populations has caused concern among decision makers and researchers alike. EDCs challenge principles traditionally applied in chemical risk assessment and the identification and assessment of these compounds has been a much debated topic during the last decade. State of the science reports and risk assessments of potential EDCs have been criticized for not using systematic and transparent approaches in the evaluation of evidence. In the fields of medicine and health care, systematic review methodologies have been developed and used to enable objectivity and transparency in the evaluation of scientific evidence for decision making. Lately, such approaches have also been promoted for use in the environmental health sciences and risk assessment of chemicals. Systematic review approaches could provide a tool for improving the evaluation of evidence for decision making regarding EDCs, e.g. by enabling systematic and transparent use of academic research data in this process. In this review we discuss the advantages and challenges of applying systematic review methodology in the identification and assessment of EDCs. PMID:26847432

AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 6: PRISMA-CI extension statement and checklist.

PubMed

Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Butler, Mary E; Chang, Christine; Viswanathan, Meera; Pigott, Terri; Tugwell, Peter

2017-10-01

Complex interventions are widely used in health systems, public health, education, and communities and are increasingly the subject of systematic reviews. Oversimplification and inconsistencies in reporting about complex interventions can limit the usability of review findings. Although guidance exists to ensure that reports of individual studies and systematic reviews adhere to accepted scientific standards, their design-specific focus leaves important reporting gaps relative to complex interventions in health care. This paper provides a stand-alone extension to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting tool for complex interventions-PRISMA-CI-to help authors, publishers, and readers understand and apply to systematic reviews of complex interventions. PRISMA-CI development followed the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research Network guidance for extensions and focused on adding or modifying only essential items that are truly unique to complex interventions and are not covered by broader interpretation of current PRISMA guidance. PRISMA-CI provides an important structure and guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses for the highly prevalent and dynamic field of complex interventions. Copyright © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A Systematic Error Correction Method for TOVS Radiances

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Joiner, Joanna; Rokke, Laurie; Einaudi, Franco (Technical Monitor)

2000-01-01

Treatment of systematic errors is crucial for the successful use of satellite data in a data assimilation system. Systematic errors in TOVS radiance measurements and radiative transfer calculations can be as large or larger than random instrument errors. The usual assumption in data assimilation is that observational errors are unbiased. If biases are not effectively removed prior to assimilation, the impact of satellite data will be lessened and can even be detrimental. Treatment of systematic errors is important for short-term forecast skill as well as the creation of climate data sets. A systematic error correction algorithm has been developed as part of a 1D radiance assimilation. This scheme corrects for spectroscopic errors, errors in the instrument response function, and other biases in the forward radiance calculation for TOVS. Such algorithms are often referred to as tuning of the radiances. The scheme is able to account for the complex, air-mass dependent biases that are seen in the differences between TOVS radiance observations and forward model calculations. We will show results of systematic error correction applied to the NOAA 15 Advanced TOVS as well as its predecessors. We will also discuss the ramifications of inter-instrument bias with a focus on stratospheric measurements.

International travel and acquisition of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae: a systematic review.

PubMed

Hassing, Robert Jan; Alsma, Jelmer; Arcilla, Maris S; van Genderen, Perry J; Stricker, Bruno H; Verbon, Annelies

2015-01-01

International travel is considered to be an important risk factor for acquisition of multidrug-resistant Enterobacteriaceae (MRE). The aim of this systematic review was to determine the effect of international travel on the risk of post-travel faecal carriage of MRE. Secondary outcomes were risk factors for acquisition of MRE. A systematic search for relevant literature in seven international databases was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Articles needed to report on (i) foreign travel, (ii) screening of asymptomatic participants, (iii) antimicrobial susceptibility data and (iv) faecal Enterobacteriaceae carriage. Two researchers independently screened the abstracts, assessed the full article texts for eligibility and selected or rejected them for inclusion in the systematic review. In case of disagreement, a third researcher decided on inclusion. Eleven studies were identified. In all studies, a high prevalence (>20%) of carriage of MRE after international travel was found. The highest prevalence was observed in travellers returning from southern Asia. Foreign travel was associated with an increased risk of carriage of MRE. Further research is needed to assess if this leads to an increase in the number of infections with MRE. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42015024973.

Searching for grey literature for systematic reviews: challenges and benefits.

PubMed

Mahood, Quenby; Van Eerd, Dwayne; Irvin, Emma

2014-09-01

There is ongoing interest in including grey literature in systematic reviews. Including grey literature can broaden the scope to more relevant studies, thereby providing a more complete view of available evidence. Searching for grey literature can be challenging despite greater access through the Internet, search engines and online bibliographic databases. There are a number of publications that list sources for finding grey literature in systematic reviews. However, there is scant information about how searches for grey literature are executed and how it is included in the review process. This level of detail is important to ensure that reviews follow explicit methodology to be systematic, transparent and reproducible. The purpose of this paper is to provide a detailed account of one systematic review team's experience in searching for grey literature and including it throughout the review. We provide a brief overview of grey literature before describing our search and review approach. We also discuss the benefits and challenges of including grey literature in our systematic review, as well as the strengths and limitations to our approach. Detailed information about incorporating grey literature in reviews is important in advancing methodology as review teams adapt and build upon the approaches described. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Systematic instruction for individuals with acquired brain injury: Results of a randomized controlled trial

PubMed Central

Powell, Laurie Ehlhardt; Glang, Ann; Ettel, Deborah; Todis, Bonnie; Sohlberg, McKay; Albin, Richard

2012-01-01

The goal of this study was to experimentally evaluate systematic instruction compared with trial-and-error learning (conventional instruction) applied to assistive technology for cognition (ATC), in a double blind, pretest-posttest, randomized controlled trial. Twenty-nine persons with moderate-severe cognitive impairments due to acquired brain injury (15 in systematic instruction group; 14 in conventional instruction) completed the study. Both groups received 12, 45-minute individual training sessions targeting selected skills on the Palm Tungsten E2 personal digital assistant (PDA). A criterion-based assessment of PDA skills was used to evaluate accuracy, fluency/efficiency, maintenance, and generalization of skills. There were no significant differences between groups at immediate posttest with regard to accuracy and fluency. However, significant differences emerged at 30-day follow-up in favor of systematic instruction. Furthermore, systematic instruction participants performed significantly better at immediate posttest generalizing trained PDA skills when interacting with people other than the instructor. These results demonstrate that systematic instruction applied to ATC results in better skill maintenance and generalization than trial-and-error learning for individuals with moderate-severe cognitive impairments due to acquired brain injury. Implications, study limitations, and directions for future research are discussed. PMID:22264146

The librarian's roles in the systematic review process: a case study*

PubMed Central

Harris, Martha R.

2005-01-01

Question/Setting: Although the systematic review has become a research standard, little information addresses the actions of the librarian on a systematic review team. Method: This article is an observational case study that chronicles a librarian's required involvement, skills, and responsibilities in each stage of a real-life systematic review. Main Results: Examining the review process reveals that the librarian's multiple roles as an expert searcher, organizer, and analyzer form an integral part of the Cochrane Collaboration's criteria for conducting systematic reviews. Moreover, the responsibilities of the expert searcher directly reflect the key skills and knowledge depicted in the “Definition of Expert Searching” section of the Medical Library Association's policy statement, “Role of Expert Searching in Health Sciences Libraries.” Conclusion: Although the librarian's multiple roles are important in all forms of medical research, they are crucial in a systematic review. As an expert searcher, the librarian must interact with the investigators to develop the terms required for a comprehensive search strategy in multiple appropriate sources. As an organizer and analyzer, the librarian must effectively manage the articles and document the search, retrieval, and archival processes. PMID:15685279

Using systematic reviews for hazard and risk assessment of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

PubMed

Beronius, Anna; Vandenberg, Laura N

2015-12-01

The possibility that endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) in our environment contribute to hormonally related effects and diseases observed in human and wildlife populations has caused concern among decision makers and researchers alike. EDCs challenge principles traditionally applied in chemical risk assessment and the identification and assessment of these compounds has been a much debated topic during the last decade. State of the science reports and risk assessments of potential EDCs have been criticized for not using systematic and transparent approaches in the evaluation of evidence. In the fields of medicine and health care, systematic review methodologies have been developed and used to enable objectivity and transparency in the evaluation of scientific evidence for decision making. Lately, such approaches have also been promoted for use in the environmental health sciences and risk assessment of chemicals. Systematic review approaches could provide a tool for improving the evaluation of evidence for decision making regarding EDCs, e.g. by enabling systematic and transparent use of academic research data in this process. In this review we discuss the advantages and challenges of applying systematic review methodology in the identification and assessment of EDCs.

BUNDLE OF MEASURES TO SUPPORT INTRAHOSPITAL EXCLUSIVE BREASTFEEDING: EVIDENCE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS.

PubMed

Coca, Kelly Pereira; Pinto, Vânia Lopes; Westphal, Flavia; Mania, Pâmilla Nayara Alves; Abrão, Ana Cristina Freitas de Vilhena

2018-04-23

To identify the main recommendations found in systematic reviews regarding exclusive breastfeeding protective factors. Integrative review based on the guiding question: What evidence is found in literature regarding the protective factors of exclusive breastfeeding during the intrahospital period? A search was conducted in the Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE and LILACS database using the keyword "Breast Feeding" and the word "Breastfeeding". Systematic reviews published from 2007 to 2016 that answered the guiding question were included in the study, whereas systematic reviews that analyzed breastfeeding of preterm infants and breastfeeding of children with orofacial malformation were excluded. The sample included eight systematic reviews. The recommendations related to the protective factors for exclusive in-hospital breastfeeding found in the systematic reviews were: early skin-to-skin contact, rooming-in care, intervention for treating painful nipples during breastfeeding, restriction of infant supplementation, baby-led breastfeeding and educational interventions and support for mothers during hospital stay. The proposed measures included the six practices presented as protective factors. The review enabled the identification of evidence to support the recommended measures from delivery room to hospital discharge, with the aim of encouraging breastfeeding and preventing intrahospital weaning.

Supporting Evidence-Informed Teaching in Biomedical and Health Professions Education Through Knowledge Translation: An Interdisciplinary Literature Review.

PubMed

Tractenberg, Rochelle E; Gordon, Morris

2017-01-01

Phenomenon: The purpose of "systematic" reviews/reviewers of medical and health professions educational research is to identify best practices. This qualitative article explores the question of whether systematic reviews can support "evidence informed" teaching and contrasts traditional systematic reviewing with a knowledge translation (KT) approach to this objective. Degrees of freedom analysis (DOFA) is used to examine the alignment of systematic review methods with educational research and the pedagogical strategies and approaches that might be considered with a decision-making framework developed to support valid assessment. This method is also used to explore how KT can be used to inform teaching and learning. The nature of educational research is not compatible with most (11/14) methods for systematic review. The inconsistency of systematic reviewing with the nature of educational research impedes both the identification and implementation of "best-evidence" pedagogy and teaching. This is primarily because research questions that do support the purposes of review do not support educational decision making. By contrast to systematic reviews of the literature, both a DOFA and KT are fully compatible with informing teaching using evidence. A DOFA supports the translation of theory to a specific teaching or learning case, so could be considered a type of KT. The DOFA results in a test of alignment of decision options with relevant educational theory, and KT leads to interventions in teaching or learning that can be evaluated. Examples of how to structure evaluable interventions are derived from a KT approach that are simply not available from a systematic review. Insights: Systematic reviewing of current empirical educational research is not suitable for deriving or supporting best practices in education. However, both "evidence-informed" and scholarly approaches to teaching can be supported as KT projects, which are inherently evaluable and can generate actionable evidence about whether the decision or intervention worked for students, instructors, and the institution. A DOFA can also support evidence- and theory-informed teaching to develop an understanding of what works, why, and for whom. Thus KT, but not systematic reviewing, can support decision making around pedagogy (and pedagogical innovation) that can also inform new teaching and learning initiatives; it can also point to new avenues of empirical research in education that are informed by, and can inform, theory.

A systematic review of systematic reviews on interventions for caregivers of people with chronic conditions.

PubMed

Corry, Margarita; While, Alison; Neenan, Kathleen; Smith, Valerie

2015-04-01

To evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to support caregivers of people with selected chronic conditions. Informal caregivers provide millions of care hours each week contributing to significant healthcare savings. Despite much research evaluating a range of interventions for caregivers, their impact remains unclear. A systematic review of systematic reviews of interventions to support caregivers of people with selected chronic conditions. The electronic databases of PubMed, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, PsycINFO, Social Science Index (January 1990-May 2014) and The Cochrane Library (Issue 6, June 2014), were searched using Medical Subject Heading and index term combinations of the keywords caregiver, systematic review, intervention and named chronic conditions. Papers were included if they reported a systematic review of interventions for caregivers of people with chronic conditions. The methodological quality of the included reviews was independently assessed by two reviewers using R-AMSTAR. Data were independently extracted by two reviewers using a pre-designed data extraction form. Narrative synthesis of review findings was used to present the results. Eight systematic reviews were included. There was evidence that education and support programme interventions improved caregiver quality of life. Information-giving interventions improved caregiver knowledge for stroke caregivers. Education, support and information-giving interventions warrant further investigation across caregiver groups. A large-scale funded programme for caregiver research is required to ensure that studies are of high quality to inform service development across settings. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

The economics of dentistry: a neglected concern.

PubMed

Shariati, Batoul; MacEntee, Michael I; Yazdizadeh, Maryam

2013-10-01

Demand for economic evaluations in health care is growing with expectations that they will help to develop regional and national policies on health and social programmes. We present here the scope, quality and content of systematic reviews and meta-analyses relating to the economics of dentistry published over the last 15 years. To review the quality and outcome of systematic reviews and meta-analyses relating to the economics of dental treatments, preventions and services. A systematic search was conducted in 14 electronic databases for systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between January 1997 and July 2011 on the economics of oral disorders and oral health care. Review papers were extracted by two independent investigators to identify the characteristics, results and quality of the reviews and to highlight gaps in knowledge about the economics of dentistry. From 3150 unique references, we found 73 systematic reviews or meta-analyses of dental economics as primary or secondary outcomes. The focus of 12 of them was on the cost or cost-effectiveness of dental prevention, 54 on treatment, five on prevention and treatment and two on delivery of dental services. However, only 12 of the systematic reviews drew conclusions from economic data, and four of them constructed an economic model from synthesized data. Overall, the quality was good in the 12 systematic reviews but poor in the original studies. There is very little helpful data published on the economics of dentistry. © 2013 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Efficiently estimating salmon escapement uncertainty using systematically sampled data

USGS Publications Warehouse

Reynolds, Joel H.; Woody, Carol Ann; Gove, Nancy E.; Fair, Lowell F.

2007-01-01

Fish escapement is generally monitored using nonreplicated systematic sampling designs (e.g., via visual counts from towers or hydroacoustic counts). These sampling designs support a variety of methods for estimating the variance of the total escapement. Unfortunately, all the methods give biased results, with the magnitude of the bias being determined by the underlying process patterns. Fish escapement commonly exhibits positive autocorrelation and nonlinear patterns, such as diurnal and seasonal patterns. For these patterns, poor choice of variance estimator can needlessly increase the uncertainty managers have to deal with in sustaining fish populations. We illustrate the effect of sampling design and variance estimator choice on variance estimates of total escapement for anadromous salmonids from systematic samples of fish passage. Using simulated tower counts of sockeye salmon Oncorhynchus nerka escapement on the Kvichak River, Alaska, five variance estimators for nonreplicated systematic samples were compared to determine the least biased. Using the least biased variance estimator, four confidence interval estimators were compared for expected coverage and mean interval width. Finally, five systematic sampling designs were compared to determine the design giving the smallest average variance estimate for total annual escapement. For nonreplicated systematic samples of fish escapement, all variance estimators were positively biased. Compared to the other estimators, the least biased estimator reduced bias by, on average, from 12% to 98%. All confidence intervals gave effectively identical results. Replicated systematic sampling designs consistently provided the smallest average estimated variance among those compared.

Categorial Compositionality III: F-(co)algebras and the Systematicity of Recursive Capacities in Human Cognition

PubMed Central

Phillips, Steven; Wilson, William H.

2012-01-01

Human cognitive capacity includes recursively definable concepts, which are prevalent in domains involving lists, numbers, and languages. Cognitive science currently lacks a satisfactory explanation for the systematic nature of such capacities (i.e., why the capacity for some recursive cognitive abilities–e.g., finding the smallest number in a list–implies the capacity for certain others–finding the largest number, given knowledge of number order). The category-theoretic constructs of initial F-algebra, catamorphism, and their duals, final coalgebra and anamorphism provide a formal, systematic treatment of recursion in computer science. Here, we use this formalism to explain the systematicity of recursive cognitive capacities without ad hoc assumptions (i.e., to the same explanatory standard used in our account of systematicity for non-recursive capacities). The presence of an initial algebra/final coalgebra explains systematicity because all recursive cognitive capacities, in the domain of interest, factor through (are composed of) the same component process. Moreover, this factorization is unique, hence no further (ad hoc) assumptions are required to establish the intrinsic connection between members of a group of systematically-related capacities. This formulation also provides a new perspective on the relationship between recursive cognitive capacities. In particular, the link between number and language does not depend on recursion, as such, but on the underlying functor on which the group of recursive capacities is based. Thus, many species (and infants) can employ recursive processes without having a full-blown capacity for number and language. PMID:22514704

A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension.

PubMed

Rathbone, John; Carter, Matt; Hoffmann, Tammy; Glasziou, Paul

2016-02-09

Bibliographic databases are the primary resource for identifying systematic reviews of health care interventions. Reliable retrieval of systematic reviews depends on the scope of indexing used by database providers. Therefore, searching one database may be insufficient, but it is unclear how many need to be searched. We sought to evaluate the performance of seven major bibliographic databases for the identification of systematic reviews for hypertension. We searched seven databases (Cochrane library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Epistemonikos, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed Health and Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP)) from 2003 to 2015 for systematic reviews of any intervention for hypertension. Citations retrieved were screened for relevance, coded and checked for screening consistency using a fuzzy text matching query. The performance of each database was assessed by calculating its sensitivity, precision, the number of missed reviews and the number of unique records retrieved. Four hundred systematic reviews were identified for inclusion from 11,381 citations retrieved from seven databases. No single database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews for hypertension. EMBASE identified the most reviews (sensitivity 69 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with 7.2 % precision (Pr). The sensitivity of the Cochrane library was 60 %, DARE 57 %, MEDLINE 57 %, PubMed Health 53 %, Epistemonikos 49 % and TRIP 33 %. EMBASE contained the highest number of unique records (n = 43). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records and had the highest precision (Pr = 30 %), followed by Epistemonikos (n = 2, Pr = 19 %). No unique records were found in PubMed Health (Pr = 24 %) DARE (Pr = 21 %), TRIP (Pr = 10 %) or MEDLINE (Pr = 10 %). Searching EMBASE and the Cochrane library identified 88 % of all systematic reviews in the reference set, and searching the freely available databases (Cochrane, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE) identified 83 % of all the reviews. The databases were re-analysed after systematic reviews of non-conventional interventions (e.g. yoga, acupuncture) were removed. Similarly, no database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews. EMBASE identified the most relevant systematic reviews (sensitivity 73 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with Pr = 5 %. The sensitivity of the Cochrane database was 62 %, followed by MEDLINE (60 %), DARE (55 %), PubMed Health (54 %), Epistemonikos (50 %) and TRIP (31 %). The precision of the Cochrane library was the highest (20 %), followed by PubMed Health (Pr = 16 %), DARE (Pr = 13 %), Epistemonikos (Pr = 12 %), MEDLINE (Pr = 6 %), TRIP (Pr = 6 %) and EMBASE (Pr = 5 %). EMBASE contained the most unique records (n = 34). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records. The other databases held no unique records. The coverage of bibliographic databases varies considerably due to differences in their scope and content. Researchers wishing to identify systematic reviews should not rely on one database but search multiple databases.

A review of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer

PubMed Central

Diaby, Vakaramoko; Xiao, Hong; Montero, Alberto J.

2015-01-01

Breast cancer is a global health concern. In fact, breast cancer is the primary cause of death among women worldwide and constitutes the most expensive malignancy to treat. As health care resources are finite, decisions regarding the adoption and coverage of breast cancer treatments are increasingly being based on “value for money,” i.e., cost-effectiveness. As the evidence about the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments is abundant, therefore difficult to navigate, systematic reviews of published systematic reviews offer the advantage of bringing together the results of separate systematic reviews in a single report. As a consequence, this paper presents an overview of systematic reviews of the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer to inform policy and reimbursement decision-making. A systematic review was conducted of published systematic reviews documenting cost-effectiveness analyses of breast cancer treatments from 2000 to 2014. Systematic reviews identified through a literature search of health and economic databases were independently assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. Systematic reviews of original evaluations were included only if they targeted breast cancer patients and specific breast cancer treatments (hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy only), documented incremental cost-effectiveness ratios, and were reported in the English language. The search strategy used a combination of these key words: “breast cancer,” “systematic review/meta-analysis,” and “cost-effectiveness/economics.” Data were extracted using predefined extraction forms and qualitatively appraised using the assessment of multiple systematic reviews (AMSTAR) tool. The literature search resulted in 511 bibliographic records, of which ten met our inclusion criteria. Five reviews were conducted in the early-stage breast cancer setting and five reviews in the metastatic setting. In early-stage breast cancer, evidence about trastuzumab value differed by age. Trastuzumab was cost-effective only in women with HER2-positive breast cancer younger than 65 years and over a life-time horizon. The cost-effectiveness of trastuzumab in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer yielded conflicting results. The same conclusions were reached in comparisons between vinorelbine and taxanes. In both early stage and advanced/metastatic breast cancer, newer aromatase inhibitors (AIs) have proved cost-effective compared to older treatments. This overview of systematic reviews shows that there is heterogeneity in the evidence concerning the cost-effectiveness of hormone therapy, chemotherapy, and targeted therapy for breast cancer. The cost-effectiveness of these treatments depends not only on the comparators but the context, i.e., adjuvant or metastatic setting, subtype of patient population, and perspective adopted. Decisions involving the cost-effectiveness of breast cancer treatments could be made easier and more transparent by better harmonizing the reporting of economic evaluations assessing the value of these treatments. PMID:25893588

Systematization of published research graphics characterizing weakly bound molecular complexes with carbon dioxide

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Lavrentiev, N. A.; Rodimova, O. B.; Fazliev, A. Z.; Vigasin, A. A.

2017-11-01

An approach is suggested to the formation of applied ontologies in subject domains where results are represented in graphical form. An approach to systematization of research graphics is also given which contains information on weakly bound carbon dioxide complexes. The results of systematization of research plots and images that characterize the spectral properties of the CO2 complexes are presented.

Do We Need to Understand the Technology to Get to the Science? A Systematic Review of the Concept of Computer Literacy in Preventive Health Programs

ERIC Educational Resources Information Center

Dominick, Gregory M.; Friedman, Daniela B.; Hoffman-Goetz, Laurie

2009-01-01

Objective: To systematically review definitions and descriptions of computer literacy as related to preventive health education programs. Method: A systematic review of the concept of computer literacy as related to preventive health education was conducted. Empirical studies published between 1994 and 2007 on prevention education programs with a…

The effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Kumar, Saravana; Beaton, Kate; Hughes, Tricia

2013-09-04

The last decade has seen a growth in the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine therapies, and one of the most popular and sought-after complementary and alternative medicine therapies for nonspecific low back pain is massage. Massage may often be perceived as a safe therapeutic modality without any significant risks or side effects. However, despite its popularity, there continues to be ongoing debate on the effectiveness of massage in treating nonspecific low back pain. With a rapidly evolving research evidence base and access to innovative means of synthesizing evidence, it is time to reinvestigate this issue. A systematic, step-by-step approach, underpinned by best practice in reviewing the literature, was utilized as part of the methodology of this umbrella review. A systematic search was conducted in the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE, AMED, ICONDA, Academic Search Premier, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, CINAHL, HealthSource, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Knowledge/Web of Science, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, investigating systematic reviews and meta-analyses from January 2000 to December 2012, and restricted to English-language documents. Methodological quality of included reviews was undertaken using the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine critical appraisal tool. Nine systematic reviews were found. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews varied (from poor to excellent) although, overall, the primary research informing these systematic reviews was generally considered to be weak quality. The findings indicate that massage may be an effective treatment option when compared to placebo and some active treatment options (such as relaxation), especially in the short term. There is conflicting and contradictory findings for the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain when compared against other manual therapies (such as mobilization), standard medical care, and acupuncture. There is an emerging body of evidence, albeit small, that supports the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of non-specific low back pain in the short term. Due to common methodological flaws in the primary research, which informed the systematic reviews, recommendations arising from this evidence base should be interpreted with caution.

Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches.

PubMed

O'Mara-Eves, Alison; Thomas, James; McNaught, John; Miwa, Makoto; Ananiadou, Sophia

2015-01-14

The large and growing number of published studies, and their increasing rate of publication, makes the task of identifying relevant studies in an unbiased way for inclusion in systematic reviews both complex and time consuming. Text mining has been offered as a potential solution: through automating some of the screening process, reviewer time can be saved. The evidence base around the use of text mining for screening has not yet been pulled together systematically; this systematic review fills that research gap. Focusing mainly on non-technical issues, the review aims to increase awareness of the potential of these technologies and promote further collaborative research between the computer science and systematic review communities. Five research questions led our review: what is the state of the evidence base; how has workload reduction been evaluated; what are the purposes of semi-automation and how effective are they; how have key contextual problems of applying text mining to the systematic review field been addressed; and what challenges to implementation have emerged? We answered these questions using standard systematic review methods: systematic and exhaustive searching, quality-assured data extraction and a narrative synthesis to synthesise findings. The evidence base is active and diverse; there is almost no replication between studies or collaboration between research teams and, whilst it is difficult to establish any overall conclusions about best approaches, it is clear that efficiencies and reductions in workload are potentially achievable. On the whole, most suggested that a saving in workload of between 30% and 70% might be possible, though sometimes the saving in workload is accompanied by the loss of 5% of relevant studies (i.e. a 95% recall). Using text mining to prioritise the order in which items are screened should be considered safe and ready for use in 'live' reviews. The use of text mining as a 'second screener' may also be used cautiously. The use of text mining to eliminate studies automatically should be considered promising, but not yet fully proven. In highly technical/clinical areas, it may be used with a high degree of confidence; but more developmental and evaluative work is needed in other disciplines.

Use of programme theory to understand the differential effects of interventions across socio-economic groups in systematic reviews-a systematic methodology review.

PubMed

Maden, Michelle; Cunliffe, Alex; McMahon, Naoimh; Booth, Andrew; Carey, Gina Michelle; Paisley, Suzy; Dickson, Rumona; Gabbay, Mark

2017-12-29

Systematic review guidance recommends the use of programme theory to inform considerations of if and how healthcare interventions may work differently across socio-economic status (SES) groups. This study aimed to address the lack of detail on how reviewers operationalise this in practice. A methodological systematic review was undertaken to assess if, how and the extent to which systematic reviewers operationalise the guidance on the use of programme theory in considerations of socio-economic inequalities in health. Multiple databases were searched from January 2013 to May 2016. Studies were included if they were systematic reviews assessing the effectiveness of an intervention and included data on SES. Two reviewers independently screened all studies, undertook quality assessment and extracted data. A narrative approach to synthesis was adopted. A total of 37 systematic reviews were included, 10 of which were explicit in the use of terminology for 'programme theory'. Twenty-nine studies used programme theory to inform both their a priori assumptions and explain their review findings. Of these, 22 incorporated considerations of both what and how interventions do/do not work in SES groups to both predict and explain their review findings. Thirteen studies acknowledged 24 unique theoretical references to support their assumptions of what or how interventions may have different effects in SES groups. Most reviewers used supplementary evidence to support their considerations of differential effectiveness. The majority of authors outlined a programme theory in the "Introduction" and "Discussion" sections of the review to inform their assumptions or provide explanations of what or how interventions may result in differential effects within or across SES groups. About a third of reviews used programme theory to inform the review analysis and/or synthesis. Few authors used programme theory to inform their inclusion criteria, data extraction or quality assessment. Twenty-one studies tested their a priori programme theory. The use of programme theory to inform considerations of if, what and how interventions lead to differential effects on health in different SES groups in the systematic review process is not yet widely adopted, is used implicitly, is often fragmented and is not implemented in a systematic way.

Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR).

PubMed

Lewin, Simon; Hendry, Maggie; Chandler, Jackie; Oxman, Andrew D; Michie, Susan; Shepperd, Sasha; Reeves, Barnaby C; Tugwell, Peter; Hannes, Karin; Rehfuess, Eva A; Welch, Vivien; Mckenzie, Joanne E; Burford, Belinda; Petkovic, Jennifer; Anderson, Laurie M; Harris, Janet; Noyes, Jane

2017-04-26

Health interventions fall along a spectrum from simple to more complex. There is wide interest in methods for reviewing 'complex interventions', but few transparent approaches for assessing intervention complexity in systematic reviews. Such assessments may assist review authors in, for example, systematically describing interventions and developing logic models. This paper describes the development and application of the intervention Complexity Assessment Tool for Systematic Reviews (iCAT_SR), a new tool to assess and categorise levels of intervention complexity in systematic reviews. We developed the iCAT_SR by adapting and extending an existing complexity assessment tool for randomized trials. We undertook this adaptation using a consensus approach in which possible complexity dimensions were circulated for feedback to a panel of methodologists with expertise in complex interventions and systematic reviews. Based on these inputs, we developed a draft version of the tool. We then invited a second round of feedback from the panel and a wider group of systematic reviewers. This informed further refinement of the tool. The tool comprises ten dimensions: (1) the number of active components in the intervention; (2) the number of behaviours of recipients to which the intervention is directed; (3) the range and number of organizational levels targeted by the intervention; (4) the degree of tailoring intended or flexibility permitted across sites or individuals in applying or implementing the intervention; (5) the level of skill required by those delivering the intervention; (6) the level of skill required by those receiving the intervention; (7) the degree of interaction between intervention components; (8) the degree to which the effects of the intervention are context dependent; (9) the degree to which the effects of the interventions are changed by recipient or provider factors; (10) and the nature of the causal pathway between intervention and outcome. Dimensions 1-6 are considered 'core' dimensions. Dimensions 7-10 are optional and may not be useful for all interventions. The iCAT_SR tool facilitates more in-depth, systematic assessment of the complexity of interventions in systematic reviews and can assist in undertaking reviews and interpreting review findings. Further testing of the tool is now needed.

TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST) framework for development, comparison and evaluation of self-report tools: content analysis and systematic review.

PubMed

Dall, P M; Coulter, E H; Fitzsimons, C F; Skelton, D A; Chastin, Sfm

2017-04-08

Sedentary behaviour (SB) has distinct deleterious health outcomes, yet there is no consensus on best practice for measurement. This study aimed to identify the optimal self-report tool for population surveillance of SB, using a systematic framework. A framework, TAxonomy of Self-reported Sedentary behaviour Tools (TASST), consisting of four domains (type of assessment, recall period, temporal unit and assessment period), was developed based on a systematic inventory of existing tools. The inventory was achieved through a systematic review of studies reporting SB and tracing back to the original description. A systematic review of the accuracy and sensitivity to change of these tools was then mapped against TASST domains. Systematic searches were conducted via EBSCO, reference lists and expert opinion. The inventory included tools measuring SB in adults that could be self-completed at one sitting, and excluded tools measuring SB in specific populations or contexts. The systematic review included studies reporting on the accuracy against an objective measure of SB and/or sensitivity to change of a tool in the inventory. The systematic review initially identified 32 distinct tools (141 questions), which were used to develop the TASST framework. Twenty-two studies evaluated accuracy and/or sensitivity to change representing only eight taxa. Assessing SB as a sum of behaviours and using a previous day recall were the most promising features of existing tools. Accuracy was poor for all existing tools, with underestimation and overestimation of SB. There was a lack of evidence about sensitivity to change. Despite the limited evidence, mapping existing SB tools onto the TASST framework has enabled informed recommendations to be made about the most promising features for a surveillance tool, identified aspects on which future research and development of SB surveillance tools should focus. International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROPSPERO)/CRD42014009851. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/.

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement.

PubMed

McInnes, Matthew D F; Moher, David; Thombs, Brett D; McGrath, Trevor A; Bossuyt, Patrick M; Clifford, Tammy; Cohen, Jérémie F; Deeks, Jonathan J; Gatsonis, Constantine; Hooft, Lotty; Hunt, Harriet A; Hyde, Christopher J; Korevaar, Daniël A; Leeflang, Mariska M G; Macaskill, Petra; Reitsma, Johannes B; Rodin, Rachel; Rutjes, Anne W S; Salameh, Jean-Paul; Stevens, Adrienne; Takwoingi, Yemisi; Tonelli, Marcello; Weeks, Laura; Whiting, Penny; Willis, Brian H

2018-01-23

Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification of sources of variability in test accuracy. To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews. Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group. The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process (provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items) identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27 original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2 were omitted. The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful.

Conflicts of interest and critiques of the use of systematic reviews in policymaking: an analysis of opinion articles

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background Strong opinions for or against the use of systematic reviews to inform policymaking have been published in the medical literature. The purpose of this paper was to examine whether funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest were associated with whether an opinion article was supportive or critical of the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We examined the nature of the arguments within each article, the types of disclosures present, and whether these articles are being cited in the academic literature. Methods We searched for articles that expressed opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We included articles that presented opinions about the use of systematic reviews for policymaking and categorized each article as supportive or critical of such use. We extracted all arguments regarding the use of systematic reviews from each article and inductively coded each as internal or external validity argument, categorized disclosed funding sources, conflicts of interest, and article types, and systematically searched for undisclosed financial ties. We counted the number of times each article has been cited in the “Web of Science.” We report descriptive statistics. Results Articles that were critical of the use of systematic reviews (n = 25) for policymaking had disclosed or undisclosed industry ties 2.3 times more often than articles that were supportive of the use (n = 34). We found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives lacked published disclosures nearly twice as often (60% v. 33%) as other types of articles. We also found that editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives were less frequently cited in the academic literature than other article types (median number of citations = 5 v. 19). Conclusions It is important to consider whether an article has industry ties when evaluating the strength of the argument for or against the use of systematic reviews for policymaking. We found that journal conflict of interest disclosures are often inadequate, particularly for editorials, comments, letters, and perspectives and that these articles are being cited as evidence in the academic literature. Our results further suggest the need for more consistent and complete disclosure for all article types. PMID:25417178

Developing and refining the methods for a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems.

PubMed

Lavis, John N; Wilson, Michael G; Moat, Kaelan A; Hammill, Amanda C; Boyko, Jennifer A; Grimshaw, Jeremy M; Flottorp, Signe

2015-02-25

Policymakers, stakeholders and researchers have not been able to find research evidence about health systems using an easily understood taxonomy of topics, know when they have conducted a comprehensive search of the many types of research evidence relevant to them, or rapidly identify decision-relevant information in their search results. To address these gaps, we developed an approach to building a 'one-stop shop' for research evidence about health systems. We developed a taxonomy of health system topics and iteratively refined it by drawing on existing categorization schemes and by using it to categorize progressively larger bundles of research evidence. We identified systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, and review-derived products through searches of Medline, hand searches of several databases indexing systematic reviews, hand searches of journals, and continuous scanning of listservs and websites. We developed an approach to providing 'added value' to existing content (e.g., coding systematic reviews according to the countries in which included studies were conducted) and to expanding the types of evidence eligible for inclusion (e.g., economic evaluations and health system descriptions). Lastly, we developed an approach to continuously updating the online one-stop shop in seven supported languages. The taxonomy is organized by governance, financial, and delivery arrangements and by implementation strategies. The 'one-stop shop', called Health Systems Evidence, contains a comprehensive inventory of evidence briefs, overviews of systematic reviews, systematic reviews, systematic review protocols, registered systematic review titles, economic evaluations and costing studies, health reform descriptions and health system descriptions, and many types of added-value coding. It is continuously updated and new content is regularly translated into Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Portuguese, Russian, and Spanish. Policymakers and stakeholders can now easily access and use a wide variety of types of research evidence about health systems to inform decision-making and advocacy. Researchers and research funding agencies can use Health Systems Evidence to identify gaps in the current stock of research evidence and domains that could benefit from primary research, systematic reviews, and review overviews.

Revisiting Grodzins systematics of B(E2) values

DOE PAGES

Pritychenko, B.; Birch, M.; Singh, B.

2017-04-03

Using Grodzins formalism, we analyze systematics of our latest evaluated B(E2) data for all the even–even nuclei in Z=2–104. The analysis indicates a low predictive power of systematics for a large number of cases, and a strong correlation between B(E2) fit values and nuclear structure effects. These findings provide a strong rationale for introduction of individual or elemental (grouped by Z) fit parameters. The current estimates of quadrupole collectivities for systematics of even–even nuclei yield complementary values for comparison with experimental results and theoretical calculations. Furthermore, the lists of fit parameters and predicted B(E2) values are given and possible implicationsmore » are discussed.« less

Systematics of isotopic production cross sections from interactions of relativistic 40Ca in hydrogen

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Chen, C.-X.; Albergo, S.; Caccia, Z.; Costa, S.; Crawford, H. J.; Cronqvist, M.; Engelage, J.; Greiner, L.; Guzik, T. G.; Insolia, A.; Knott, C. N.; Lindstrom, P. J.; McMahon, M.; Mitchell, J. W.; Potenza, R.; Russo, G. V.; Soutoul, A.; Testard, O.; Tull, C. E.; Tuvé, C.; Waddington, C. J.; Webber, W. R.; Wefel, J. P.

1997-09-01

The isotopic production cross sections for 40Ca projectiles at 357, 565, and 763 MeV/nucleon interacting in a liquid hydrogen target have been measured by the Transport Collaboration at the LBL HISS facility. The systematics of these cross sections are studied, and the results indicate that nuclear structure effects are present in the isotope production process during the relativistic collisions. The newly measured cross sections are also compared with those predicted by semiempirical and parametric formulas, but the predictions do not fully describe the systematics such as the energy dependence. The consequences of the cross section systematics in galactic cosmic ray studies are also discussed.

Systematic Error Study for ALICE charged-jet v2 Measurement

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Heinz, M.; Soltz, R.

We study the treatment of systematic errors in the determination of v 2 for charged jets in √ sNN = 2:76 TeV Pb-Pb collisions by the ALICE Collaboration. Working with the reported values and errors for the 0-5% centrality data we evaluate the Χ 2 according to the formulas given for the statistical and systematic errors, where the latter are separated into correlated and shape contributions. We reproduce both the Χ 2 and p-values relative to a null (zero) result. We then re-cast the systematic errors into an equivalent co-variance matrix and obtain identical results, demonstrating that the two methodsmore » are equivalent.« less

The systematic review team: contributions of the health sciences librarian.

PubMed

Dudden, Rosalind F; Protzko, Shandra L

2011-01-01

While the role of the librarian as an expert searcher in the systematic review process is widely recognized, librarians also can be enlisted to help systematic review teams with other challenges. This article reviews the contributions of librarians to systematic reviews, including communicating methods of the review process, collaboratively formulating the research question and exclusion criteria, formulating the search strategy on a variety of databases, documenting the searches, record keeping, and writing the search methodology. It also discusses challenges encountered such as irregular timelines, providing education, communication, and learning new technologies for record keeping. Rewards include building relationships with researchers, expanding professional expertise, and receiving recognition for contributions to health care outcomes.

What is the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for tendinopathy? An overview of systematic reviews of clinical effectiveness and systematic review of economic evaluations.

PubMed

Long, Linda; Briscoe, Simon; Cooper, Chris; Hyde, Chris; Crathorne, Louise

2015-01-01

Lateral elbow tendinopathy (LET) is a common complaint causing characteristic pain in the lateral elbow and upper forearm, and tenderness of the forearm extensor muscles. It is thought to be an overuse injury and can have a major impact on the patient's social and professional life. The condition is challenging to treat and prone to recurrent episodes. The average duration of a typical episode ranges from 6 to 24 months, with most (89%) reporting recovery by 1 year. This systematic review aims to summarise the evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET. A comprehensive search was conducted from database inception to 2012 in a range of databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Databases. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to summarise the current evidence concerning the clinical effectiveness and a systematic review for the cost-effectiveness of conservative interventions for LET. We identified additional randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that could contribute further evidence to existing systematic reviews. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and other important databases from inception to January 2013. A total of 29 systematic reviews published since 2003 matched our inclusion criteria. These were quality appraised using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist; five were considered high quality and evaluated using a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. A total of 36 RCTs were identified that were not included in a systematic review and 29 RCTs were identified that had only been evaluated in an included systematic review of intermediate/low quality. These were then mapped to existing systematic reviews where further evidence could provide updates. Two economic evaluations were identified. The summary of findings from the review was based only on high-quality evidence (scoring of > 5 AMSTAR). Other limitations were that identified RCTs were not quality appraised and dichotomous outcomes were also not considered. Economic evaluations took effectiveness estimates from trials that had small sample sizes leading to uncertainty surrounding the effect sizes reported. This, in turn, led to uncertainty of the reported cost-effectiveness and, as such, no robust recommendations could be made in this respect. Clinical effectiveness evidence from the high-quality systematic reviews identified in this overview continues to suggest uncertainty as to the effectiveness of many conservative interventions for the treatment of LET. Although new RCT evidence has been identified with either placebo or active controls, there is uncertainty as to the size of effects reported within them because of the small sample size. Conclusions regarding cost-effectiveness are also unclear. We consider that, although updated or new systematic reviews may also be of value, the primary focus of future work should be on conducting large-scale, good-quality clinical trials using a core set of outcome measures (for defined time points) and appropriate follow-up. Subgroup analysis of existing RCT data may be beneficial to ascertain whether or not certain patient groups are more likely to respond to treatments. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42013003593. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Screening strategies for atrial fibrillation: a systematic review and cost-effectiveness analysis.

PubMed

Welton, Nicky J; McAleenan, Alexandra; Thom, Howard Hz; Davies, Philippa; Hollingworth, Will; Higgins, Julian Pt; Okoli, George; Sterne, Jonathan Ac; Feder, Gene; Eaton, Diane; Hingorani, Aroon; Fawsitt, Christopher; Lobban, Trudie; Bryden, Peter; Richards, Alison; Sofat, Reecha

2017-05-01

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common cardiac arrhythmia that increases the risk of thromboembolic events. Anticoagulation therapy to prevent AF-related stroke has been shown to be cost-effective. A national screening programme for AF may prevent AF-related events, but would involve a substantial investment of NHS resources. To conduct a systematic review of the diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) of screening tests for AF, update a systematic review of comparative studies evaluating screening strategies for AF, develop an economic model to compare the cost-effectiveness of different screening strategies and review observational studies of AF screening to provide inputs to the model. Systematic review, meta-analysis and cost-effectiveness analysis. Primary care. Adults. Screening strategies, defined by screening test, age at initial and final screens, screening interval and format of screening {systematic opportunistic screening [individuals offered screening if they consult with their general practitioner (GP)] or systematic population screening (when all eligible individuals are invited to screening)}. Sensitivity, specificity and diagnostic odds ratios; the odds ratio of detecting new AF cases compared with no screening; and the mean incremental net benefit compared with no screening. Two reviewers screened the search results, extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. A DTA meta-analysis was perfomed, and a decision tree and Markov model was used to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the screening strategies. Diagnostic test accuracy depended on the screening test and how it was interpreted. In general, the screening tests identified in our review had high sensitivity (> 0.9). Systematic population and systematic opportunistic screening strategies were found to be similarly effective, with an estimated 170 individuals needed to be screened to detect one additional AF case compared with no screening. Systematic opportunistic screening was more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening, as long as the uptake of opportunistic screening observed in randomised controlled trials translates to practice. Modified blood pressure monitors, photoplethysmography or nurse pulse palpation were more likely to be cost-effective than other screening tests. A screening strategy with an initial screening age of 65 years and repeated screens every 5 years until age 80 years was likely to be cost-effective, provided that compliance with treatment does not decline with increasing age. A national screening programme for AF is likely to represent a cost-effective use of resources. Systematic opportunistic screening is more likely to be cost-effective than systematic population screening. Nurse pulse palpation or modified blood pressure monitors would be appropriate screening tests, with confirmation by diagnostic 12-lead electrocardiography interpreted by a trained GP, with referral to a specialist in the case of an unclear diagnosis. Implementation strategies to operationalise uptake of systematic opportunistic screening in primary care should accompany any screening recommendations. Many inputs for the economic model relied on a single trial [the Screening for Atrial Fibrillation in the Elderly (SAFE) study] and DTA results were based on a few studies at high risk of bias/of low applicability. Comparative studies measuring long-term outcomes of screening strategies and DTA studies for new, emerging technologies and to replicate the results for photoplethysmography and GP interpretation of 12-lead electrocardiography in a screening population. This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42014013739. The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

Addressing Systematic Errors in Correlation Tracking on HMI Magnetograms

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Mahajan, Sushant S.; Hathaway, David H.; Munoz-Jaramillo, Andres; Martens, Petrus C.

2017-08-01

Correlation tracking in solar magnetograms is an effective method to measure the differential rotation and meridional flow on the solar surface. However, since the tracking accuracy required to successfully measure meridional flow is very high, small systematic errors have a noticeable impact on measured meridional flow profiles. Additionally, the uncertainties of this kind of measurements have been historically underestimated, leading to controversy regarding flow profiles at high latitudes extracted from measurements which are unreliable near the solar limb.Here we present a set of systematic errors we have identified (and potential solutions), including bias caused by physical pixel sizes, center-to-limb systematics, and discrepancies between measurements performed using different time intervals. We have developed numerical techniques to get rid of these systematic errors and in the process improve the accuracy of the measurements by an order of magnitude.We also present a detailed analysis of uncertainties in these measurements using synthetic magnetograms and the quantification of an upper limit below which meridional flow measurements cannot be trusted as a function of latitude.

Cost effectiveness analysis of screening for sight threatening diabetic eye disease

PubMed Central

James, Marilyn; Turner, David A; Broadbent, Deborah M; Vora, Jiten; Harding, Simon P

2000-01-01

Objective To measure the cost effectiveness of systematic photographic screening for sight threatening diabetic eye disease compared with existing practice. Design Cost effectiveness analysis Setting Liverpool. Subjects A target population of 5000 diabetic patients invited for screening. Main outcome measures Cost effectiveness (cost per true positive) of systematic and opportunistic programmes; incremental cost effectiveness of replacing opportunistic with systematic screening. Results Baseline prevalence of sight threatening eye disease was 14.1%. The cost effectiveness of the systematic programme was £209 (sensitivity 89%, specificity 86%, compliance 80%, annual cost £104 996) and of the opportunistic programme was £289 (combined sensitivity 63%, specificity 92%, compliance 78%, annual cost £99 981). The incremental cost effectiveness of completely replacing the opportunistic programme was £32. Absolute values of cost effectiveness were highly sensitive to varying prevalence, sensitivity and specificity, compliance, and programme size. Conclusion Replacing existing programmes with systematic screening for diabetic eye disease is justified. PMID:10856062

A simple and efficient alternative to implementing systematic random sampling in stereological designs without a motorized microscope stage.

PubMed

Melvin, Neal R; Poda, Daniel; Sutherland, Robert J

2007-10-01

When properly applied, stereology is a very robust and efficient method to quantify a variety of parameters from biological material. A common sampling strategy in stereology is systematic random sampling, which involves choosing a random sampling [corrected] start point outside the structure of interest, and sampling relevant objects at [corrected] sites that are placed at pre-determined, equidistant intervals. This has proven to be a very efficient sampling strategy, and is used widely in stereological designs. At the microscopic level, this is most often achieved through the use of a motorized stage that facilitates the systematic random stepping across the structure of interest. Here, we report a simple, precise and cost-effective software-based alternative to accomplishing systematic random sampling under the microscope. We believe that this approach will facilitate the use of stereological designs that employ systematic random sampling in laboratories that lack the resources to acquire costly, fully automated systems.

Systematic and random variations in digital Thematic Mapper data

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Duggin, M. J. (Principal Investigator); Sakhavat, H.

1985-01-01

Radiance recorded by any remote sensing instrument will contain noise which will consist of both systematic and random variations. Systematic variations may be due to sun-target-sensor geometry, atmospheric conditions, and the interaction of the spectral characteristics of the sensor with those of upwelling radiance. Random variations in the data may be caused by variations in the nature and in the heterogeneity of the ground cover, by variations in atmospheric transmission, and by the interaction of these variations with the sensing device. It is important to be aware of the extent of random and systematic errors in recorded radiance data across ostensibly uniform ground areas in order to assess the impact on quantative image analysis procedures for both the single date and the multidate cases. It is the intention here to examine the systematic and the random variations in digital radiance data recorded in each band by the thematic mapper over crop areas which are ostensibly uniform and which are free from visible cloud.

The effects of community pharmacy public health interventions on population health and health inequalities: a systematic review of reviews protocol.

PubMed

Hillier-Brown, Frances; Bambra, Clare; Thomson, Katie; Balaj, Mirza; Walton, Nick; Todd, Adam

2017-08-30

Community pharmacies have great potential to deliver services aimed at promoting health and preventing disease, and are embedded within communities. In the light of a rapid increase in community pharmacy-delivered public health services and an accompanying increase in the evidence base, this systematic review of reviews will synthesise systematic reviews of public health community pharmacy interventions and assess their effects on public health and health inequalities. Systematic review methodology will be used to identify all systematic reviews that describe the health and health equity effects of community pharmacy public health interventions. Twenty databases will be searched using a pre-determined search strategy to evaluate community pharmacy-delivered public health interventions. Findings from the included reviews will be pooled, and a narrative synthesis executed to identify overarching patterns and results. Findings will support future decision-making around how community pharmacy public health services can be used alongside other strategies to promote health, prevent disease and reduce health inequalities. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017056264 .

Systematic trends in photonic reagent induced reactions in a homologous chemical family.

PubMed

Tibbetts, Katharine Moore; Xing, Xi; Rabitz, Herschel

2013-08-29

The growing use of ultrafast laser pulses to induce chemical reactions prompts consideration of these pulses as "photonic reagents" in analogy to chemical reagents. This work explores the prospect that photonic reagents may affect systematic trends in dissociative ionization reactions of a homologous family of halomethanes, much as systematic outcomes are often observed for reactions between homologous families of chemical reagents and chemical substrates. The experiments in this work with photonic reagents of varying pulse energy and linear spectral chirp reveal systematic correlations between observable ion yields and the following set of natural variables describing the substrate molecules: the ionization energy of the parent molecule, the appearance energy of each fragment ion, and the relative strength of carbon-halogen bonds in molecules containing two different halogens. The results suggest that reactions induced by photonic reagents exhibit systematic behavior analogous to that observed in reactions driven by chemical reagents, which provides a basis to consider empirical "rules" for predicting the outcomes of photonic reagent induced reactions.

A Primer on Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

PubMed

Nguyen, Nghia H; Singh, Siddharth

2018-05-01

With the rapid growth of biomedical literature, there is increasing need to make meaningful inferences from a comprehensive and complex body of evidence. Systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses offer an objective and summative approach to synthesize knowledge and critically appraise evidence to inform clinical practice. Systematic reviews also help identify key knowledge gaps for future investigation. In this review, the authors provide a step-by-step approach to conducting a systematic review. These include: (1) formulating a focused and clinically-relevant question; (2) designing a detailed review protocol with explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria; (3) performing a systematic literature search of multiple databases and unpublished data, in consultation with a medical librarian, to identify relevant studies; (4) meticulous data abstraction by at least two sets of investigators independently; (5) assessing risk of bias in individual studies; (6) quantitative synthesis with meta-analysis; and (7) critically and transparently ascertaining quality of evidence. Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Technical Packages in Injury and Violence Prevention to Move Evidence into Practice: Systematic Reviews and Beyond

PubMed Central

Haegerich, Tamara M.; David-Ferdon, Corinne; Noonan, Rita K.; Manns, Brian J.; Billie, Holly C.

2016-01-01

Injury and violence prevention strategies have greater potential for impact when they are based on scientific evidence. Systematic reviews of the scientific evidence can contribute key information about which policies and programs might have the greatest impact when implemented. However, systematic reviews have limitations, such as lack of implementation guidance and contextual information, that can limit the application of knowledge. “Technical packages,” developed by knowledge brokers such as the federal government, nonprofit agencies, and academic institutions, have the potential to be an efficient mechanism for making information from systematic reviews actionable. Technical packages provide information about specific evidence-based prevention strategies, along with the estimated costs and impacts, and include accompanying implementation and evaluation guidance to facilitate adoption, implementation, and performance measurement. We describe how systematic reviews can inform the development of technical packages for practitioners, provide examples of technical packages in injury and violence prevention, and explain how enhancing review methods and reporting could facilitate the use and applicability of scientific evidence. PMID:27604301

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement.

PubMed

Moher, David; Shamseer, Larissa; Clarke, Mike; Ghersi, Davina; Liberati, Alessandro; Petticrew, Mark; Shekelle, Paul; Stewart, Lesley A

2015-01-01

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Systematic and Scalable Testing of Concurrent Programs

DTIC Science & Technology

2013-12-16

The evaluation of CHESS [107] checked eight different programs ranging from process management libraries to a distributed execution engine to a research...tool (§3.1) targets systematic testing of scheduling nondeterminism in multi- threaded components of the Omega cluster management system [129], while...tool for systematic testing of multithreaded com- ponents of the Omega cluster management system [129]. In particular, §3.1.1 defines a model for

Meditation for Depression: A Systematic Review of Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy for Major Depressive Disorder

DTIC Science & Technology

2015-10-01

studies. Physical Therapy Reviews, 13(5), 355-365. Systematic review Piet, J., and Hougaard, E. (2011). The effect of mindfulness-based cognitive...Rutger I. and Probst, M. (2013). A systematic review on physical therapy interventions for patients with binge eating disorder. Disability and...disorder; persistent antisocial behavior; persistent self-injury requiring clinical management/ therapy ; unable to engage with MBCT for physical

Starting a Fee-Based Systematic Review Service.

PubMed

Knehans, Amy; Dell, Esther; Robinson, Cynthia

2016-01-01

The George T. Harrell Health Sciences Library at Penn State College of Medicine began a fee-based systematic review service, a model for cost recovery, in October 2013. This article describes the library's experience in establishing, introducing, and promoting the new service, which follows the Institute of Medicine's recommended standards for performing systematic reviews. The goal is to share this information with librarians who are contemplating starting such a service.

Propagation of stage measurement uncertainties to streamflow time series

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Horner, Ivan; Le Coz, Jérôme; Renard, Benjamin; Branger, Flora; McMillan, Hilary

2016-04-01

Streamflow uncertainties due to stage measurements errors are generally overlooked in the promising probabilistic approaches that have emerged in the last decade. We introduce an original error model for propagating stage uncertainties through a stage-discharge rating curve within a Bayesian probabilistic framework. The method takes into account both rating curve (parametric errors and structural errors) and stage uncertainty (systematic and non-systematic errors). Practical ways to estimate the different types of stage errors are also presented: (1) non-systematic errors due to instrument resolution and precision and non-stationary waves and (2) systematic errors due to gauge calibration against the staff gauge. The method is illustrated at a site where the rating-curve-derived streamflow can be compared with an accurate streamflow reference. The agreement between the two time series is overall satisfying. Moreover, the quantification of uncertainty is also satisfying since the streamflow reference is compatible with the streamflow uncertainty intervals derived from the rating curve and the stage uncertainties. Illustrations from other sites are also presented. Results are much contrasted depending on the site features. In some cases, streamflow uncertainty is mainly due to stage measurement errors. The results also show the importance of discriminating systematic and non-systematic stage errors, especially for long term flow averages. Perspectives for improving and validating the streamflow uncertainty estimates are eventually discussed.

Methodology Series Module 6: Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis

PubMed Central

Setia, Maninder Singh

2016-01-01

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have become an important of biomedical literature, and they provide the “highest level of evidence” for various clinical questions. There are a lot of studies – sometimes with contradictory conclusions – on a particular topic in literature. Hence, as a clinician, which results will you believe? What will you tell your patient? Which drug is better? A systematic review or a meta-analysis may help us answer these questions. In addition, it may also help us understand the quality of the articles in literature or the type of studies that have been conducted and published (example, randomized trials or observational studies). The first step it to identify a research question for systematic review or meta-analysis. The next step is to identify the articles that will be included in the study. This will be done by searching various databases; it is important that the researcher should search for articles in more than one database. It will also be useful to form a group of researchers and statisticians that have expertise in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis before initiating them. We strongly encourage the readers to register their proposed review/meta-analysis with PROSPERO. Finally, these studies should be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis checklist. PMID:27904176

Methodology Series Module 6: Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis.

PubMed

Setia, Maninder Singh

2016-01-01

Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have become an important of biomedical literature, and they provide the "highest level of evidence" for various clinical questions. There are a lot of studies - sometimes with contradictory conclusions - on a particular topic in literature. Hence, as a clinician, which results will you believe? What will you tell your patient? Which drug is better? A systematic review or a meta-analysis may help us answer these questions. In addition, it may also help us understand the quality of the articles in literature or the type of studies that have been conducted and published (example, randomized trials or observational studies). The first step it to identify a research question for systematic review or meta-analysis. The next step is to identify the articles that will be included in the study. This will be done by searching various databases; it is important that the researcher should search for articles in more than one database. It will also be useful to form a group of researchers and statisticians that have expertise in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analysis before initiating them. We strongly encourage the readers to register their proposed review/meta-analysis with PROSPERO. Finally, these studies should be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis checklist.

The application of the heuristic-systematic processing model to treatment decision making about prostate cancer.

PubMed

Steginga, Suzanne K; Occhipinti, Stefano

2004-01-01

The study investigated the utility of the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model as a framework for the investigation of patient decision making. A total of 111 men recently diagnosed with localized prostate cancer were assessed using Verbal Protocol Analysis and self-report measures. Study variables included men's use of nonsystematic and systematic information processing, desire for involvement in decision making, and the individual differences of health locus of control, tolerance of ambiguity, and decision-related uncertainty. Most men (68%) preferred that decision making be shared equally between them and their doctor. Men's use of the expert opinion heuristic was related to men's verbal reports of decisional uncertainty and having a positive orientation to their doctor and medical care; a desire for greater involvement in decision making was predicted by a high internal locus of health control. Trends were observed for systematic information processing to increase when the heuristic strategy used was negatively affect laden and when men were uncertain about the probabilities for cure and side effects. There was a trend for decreased systematic processing when the expert opinion heuristic was used. Findings were consistent with the Heuristic-Systematic Processing Model and suggest that this model has utility for future research in applied decision making about health.

Designing systematic conservation assessments that promote effective implementation: best practice from South Africa.

PubMed

Knight, Andrew T; Driver, Amanda; Cowling, Richard M; Maze, Kristal; Desmet, Philip G; Lombard, Amanda T; Rouget, Mathieu; Botha, Mark A; Boshoff, Andre F; Castley, J Guy; Goodman, Peter S; Mackinnon, Kathy; Pierce, Shirley M; Sims-Castley, Rebecca; Stewart, Warrick I; von Hase, Amrei

2006-06-01

Systematic conservation assessment and conservation planning are two distinct fields of conservation science often confused as one and the same. Systematic conservation assessment is the technical, often computer-based, identification of priority areas for conservation. Conservation planning is composed of a systematic conservation assessment coupled with processes for development of an implementation strategy and stakeholder collaboration. The peer-reviewed conservation biology literature abounds with studies analyzing the performance of assessments (e.g., area-selection techniques). This information alone, however can never deliver effective conservation action; it informs conservation planning. Examples of how to translate systematic assessment outputs into knowledge and then use them for "doing" conservation are rare. South Africa has received generous international and domestic funding for regional conservation planning since the mid-1990s. We reviewed eight South African conservation planning processes and identified key ingredients of best practice for undertaking systematic conservation assessments in a way that facilitates implementing conservation action. These key ingredients include the design of conservation planning processes, skills for conservation assessment teams, collaboration with stakeholders, and interpretation and mainstreaming of products (e.g., maps) for stakeholders. Social learning institutions are critical to the successful operationalization of assessments within broader conservation planning processes and should include not only conservation planners but also diverse interest groups, including rural landowners, politicians, and government employees.

Systematic reviews involving complementary and alternative medicine interventions had higher quality of reporting than conventional medicine reviews.

PubMed

Lawson, Margaret L; Pham, Ba'; Klassen, Terry P; Moher, David

2005-08-01

To compare the quality of systematic reviews reported in English and in languages other than English, and to determine whether there are differences between conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) reports. We used the Oxman and Guyatt (OG) scale to assess the quality of reporting in 130 systematic reviews: 50 were language-restricted, 32 were language-inclusive but only English-language (EL) trials contained (inclusive-EL), and 48 were language-inclusive and included trials published in languages other than English (inclusive-LOE). Of the 130 reviews, 105 addressed CM interventions and 25 addressed CAM interventions. Comparison of the systematic reviews showed that the quality of reporting and reporting characteristics are not affected by inclusion or exclusion of LOE; however, the quality of reporting of systematic reviews involving CAM interventions is higher than that of reviews focusing on CM interventions. Informal comparison of the OG scale with the data collected on quality assessments showed that the OG scale performs well overall but may not identify important differences in comprehensiveness of the search strategy and avoidance of bias in study selection. Further research is required to determine the best methods for assessing quality of systematic reviews and whether the effect of language restrictions is dependent on the type of intervention (CM or CAM).

Systematics-insensitive Periodic Signal Search with K2

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Angus, Ruth; Foreman-Mackey, Daniel; Johnson, John A.

2016-02-01

From pulsating stars to transiting exoplanets, the search for periodic signals in K2 data, Kepler’s two-wheeled extension, is relevant to a long list of scientific goals. Systematics affecting K2 light curves due to the decreased spacecraft pointing precision inhibit the easy extraction of periodic signals from the data. We here develop a method for producing periodograms of K2 light curves that are insensitive to pointing-induced systematics; the Systematics-insensitive Periodogram (SIP). Traditional sine-fitting periodograms use a generative model to find the frequency of a sinusoid that best describes the data. We extend this principle by including systematic trends, based on a set of “eigen light curves,” following Foreman-Mackey et al., in our generative model as well as a sum of sine and cosine functions over a grid of frequencies. Using this method we are able to produce periodograms with vastly reduced systematic features. The quality of the resulting periodograms are such that we can recover acoustic oscillations in giant stars and measure stellar rotation periods without the need for any detrending. The algorithm is also applicable to the detection of other periodic phenomena such as variable stars, eclipsing binaries and short-period exoplanet candidates. The SIP code is available at https://github.com/RuthAngus/SIPK2.

Sm-Nd Isotopic Systematics of Troctolite 76335

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Edmunson, J.; Nyquist, L. E.; Borg, L. E.

2007-01-01

A study of the Sm-Nd isotopic systematics of lunar Mg-suite troctolite 76335 was undertaken to further establish the early chronology of lunar magmatism. Because the Rb-Sr isotopic systematics of similar sample 76535 yielded an age of 4570 +/- 70 Ma [2, lambda = 1.402 x 10(exp -11)], 76335 was expected to yield an old age. In contrast, the Sm-Nd and K-Ar ages of 76535 indicate that the sample is approximately 4260 Ma old, one of the youngest ages obtained for a Mg-suite rock. This study establishes the age of 76335 and discusses the constraints placed on its petrogenesis by its Sm-Nd isotope systematics. The Sm-Nd isotopic system of lunar Mg-suite troctolite 76335 indicates an age of 4278 +/- 60 Ma with an initial epsilon (sup 143)(sub Nd) value of 0.06 +/- 0.39. These values are consistent with the Sm-Nd isotopic systematics of similar sample 76535. Thus, it appears that a robust Sm-Nd age can be determined from a highly brecciated lunar sample. The Sm-Nd isotopic systematics of troctolites 76335 and 76535 appear to be different from those dominating the Mg-suite norites and KREEP basalts. Further analysis of the Mg-suite must be completed to reveal the isotopic relationships of these early lunar rocks.

A proposed approach may help systematic reviews retain needed expertise while minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest.

PubMed

Viswanathan, Meera; Carey, Timothy S; Belinson, Suzanne E; Berliner, Elise; Chang, Stephanie M; Graham, Elaine; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Ip, Stanley; Maglione, Margaret A; McCrory, Douglas C; McPheeters, Melissa; Newberry, Sydne J; Sista, Priyanka; White, C Michael

2014-11-01

Groups such as the Institute of Medicine emphasize the importance of attention to financial conflicts of interest. Little guidance exists, however, on managing the risk of bias for systematic reviews from nonfinancial conflicts of interest. We sought to create practical guidance on ensuring adequate clinical or content expertise while maintaining independence of judgment on systematic review teams. Workgroup members built on existing guidance from international and domestic institutions on managing conflicts of interest. We then developed practical guidance in the form of an instrument for each potential source of conflict. We modified the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest to arrive at a definition specific to nonfinancial conflicts. We propose questions for funders and systematic review principal investigators to evaluate the risk of nonfinancial conflicts of interest. Once risks have been identified, options for managing conflicts include disclosure followed by no change in the systematic review team or activities, inclusion on the team along with other members with differing viewpoints to ensure diverse perspectives, exclusion from certain activities, and exclusion from the project entirely. The feasibility and utility of this approach to ensuring needed expertise on systematic reviews and minimizing bias from nonfinancial conflicts of interest must be investigated. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Information retrieval for the Cochrane systematic reviews: the case of breast cancer surgery.

PubMed

Cognetti, Gaetana; Grossi, Laura; Lucon, Antonio; Solimini, Renata

2015-01-01

Systematic reviews are fundamental sources of knowledge on the state-of-the-art interventions for various clinical problems. One of the essential components in carrying out a systematic review is that of developing a comprehensive literature search. Three Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2012 were retrieved using the MeSH descriptor breast neoplasms/surgery, and analyzed with respect to the information sources used and the search strategies adopted. In March 2014, an update of one of the reviews retrieved was also considered in the study. The number of databases queried for each review ranged between three and seven. All the reviews reported the search strategies adopted, however some only partially. All the reviews explicitly claimed that the searches applied no language restriction although sources such as the free database Lilacs (in Spanish and Portuguese) was not consulted. To improve the quality it is necessary to apply standards in carrying out systematic reviews (as laid down in the MECIR project). To meet these standards concerning literature searching, professional information retrieval specialist staff should be involved. The peer review committee in charge of evaluating the publication of a systematic review should also include specialists in information retrieval for assessing the quality of the literature search.

Qualitative systematic reviews: their importance for our understanding of research relevant to pain.

PubMed

Seers, Kate

2015-02-01

This article outlines what a qualitative systematic review is and explores what it can contribute to our understanding of pain. Many of us use evidence of effectiveness for various interventions when working with people in pain. A good systematic review can be invaluable in bringing together research evidence to help inform our practice and help us understand what works. In addition to evidence of effectiveness, understanding how people with pain experience both their pain and their care can help us when we are working with them to provide care that meets their needs. A rigorous qualitative systematic review can also uncover new understandings, often helping illuminate 'why' and can help build theory. Such a review can answer the question 'What is it like to have chronic pain?' This article presents the different stages of meta-ethnography, which is the most common methodology used for qualitative systematic reviews. It presents evidence from four meta-ethnographies relevant to pain to illustrate the types of findings that can emerge from this approach. It shows how new understandings may emerge and gives an example of chronic musculoskeletal pain being experienced as 'an adversarial struggle' across many aspects of the person's life. This article concludes that evidence from qualitative systematic reviews has its place alongside or integrated with evidence from more quantitative approaches.

A Systematic Overview of Reviews for Complementary and Alternative Therapies in the Treatment of the Fibromyalgia Syndrome

PubMed Central

Häuser, Winfried; Dobos, Gustav; Langhorst, Jost

2015-01-01

Objectives. This systematic overview of reviews aimed to summarize evidence and methodological quality from systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Methods. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were screened from their inception to Sept 2013 to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of CAM interventions for FMS. Methodological quality of reviews was rated using the AMSTAR instrument. Results. Altogether 25 systematic reviews were found; they investigated the evidence of CAM in general, exercised-based CAM therapies, manipulative therapies, Mind/Body therapies, acupuncture, hydrotherapy, phytotherapy, and homeopathy. Methodological quality of reviews ranged from lowest to highest possible quality. Consistently positive results were found for tai chi, yoga, meditation and mindfulness-based interventions, hypnosis or guided imagery, electromyogram (EMG) biofeedback, and balneotherapy/hydrotherapy. Inconsistent results concerned qigong, acupuncture, chiropractic interventions, electroencephalogram (EEG) biofeedback, and nutritional supplements. Inconclusive results were found for homeopathy and phytotherapy. Major methodological flaws included missing details on data extraction process, included or excluded studies, study details, and adaption of conclusions based on quality assessment. Conclusions. Despite a growing body of scientific evidence of CAM therapies for the management of FMS systematic reviews still show methodological flaws limiting definite conclusions about their efficacy and safety. PMID:26246841

A Systematic Overview of Reviews for Complementary and Alternative Therapies in the Treatment of the Fibromyalgia Syndrome.

PubMed

Lauche, Romy; Cramer, Holger; Häuser, Winfried; Dobos, Gustav; Langhorst, Jost

2015-01-01

Objectives. This systematic overview of reviews aimed to summarize evidence and methodological quality from systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for the fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS). Methods. The PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus databases were screened from their inception to Sept 2013 to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of CAM interventions for FMS. Methodological quality of reviews was rated using the AMSTAR instrument. Results. Altogether 25 systematic reviews were found; they investigated the evidence of CAM in general, exercised-based CAM therapies, manipulative therapies, Mind/Body therapies, acupuncture, hydrotherapy, phytotherapy, and homeopathy. Methodological quality of reviews ranged from lowest to highest possible quality. Consistently positive results were found for tai chi, yoga, meditation and mindfulness-based interventions, hypnosis or guided imagery, electromyogram (EMG) biofeedback, and balneotherapy/hydrotherapy. Inconsistent results concerned qigong, acupuncture, chiropractic interventions, electroencephalogram (EEG) biofeedback, and nutritional supplements. Inconclusive results were found for homeopathy and phytotherapy. Major methodological flaws included missing details on data extraction process, included or excluded studies, study details, and adaption of conclusions based on quality assessment. Conclusions. Despite a growing body of scientific evidence of CAM therapies for the management of FMS systematic reviews still show methodological flaws limiting definite conclusions about their efficacy and safety.

Systematic reviews identify important methodological flaws in stroke rehabilitation therapy primary studies: review of reviews.

PubMed

Santaguida, Pasqualina; Oremus, Mark; Walker, Kathryn; Wishart, Laurie R; Siegel, Karen Lohmann; Raina, Parminder

2012-04-01

A "review of reviews" was undertaken to assess methodological issues in studies evaluating nondrug rehabilitation interventions in stroke patients. MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 2000 to January 2008 within the stroke rehabilitation setting. Electronic searches were supplemented by reviews of reference lists and citations identified by experts. Eligible studies were systematic reviews; excluded citations were narrative reviews or reviews of reviews. Review characteristics and criteria for assessing methodological quality of primary studies within them were extracted. The search yielded 949 English-language citations. We included a final set of 38 systematic reviews. Cochrane reviews, which have a standardized methodology, were generally of higher methodological quality than non-Cochrane reviews. Most systematic reviews used standardized quality assessment criteria for primary studies, but not all were comprehensive. Reviews showed that primary studies had problems with randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding. Baseline comparability, adverse events, and co-intervention or contamination were not consistently assessed. Blinding of patients and providers was often not feasible and was not evaluated as a source of bias. The eligible systematic reviews identified important methodological flaws in the evaluated primary studies, suggesting the need for improvement of research methods and reporting. Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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

PubMed Central

Meert, Deborah; Torabi, Nazi; Costella, John

2016-01-01

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. PMID:27822147

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

PubMed

Meert, Deborah; Torabi, Nazi; Costella, John

2016-10-01

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. 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. 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. 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.

Overview of Evidence in Prevention and Aetiology of Food Allergy: A Review of Systematic Reviews

PubMed Central

Lodge, Caroline J.; Allen, Katrina J.; Lowe, Adrian J.; Dharmage, Shyamali C.

2013-01-01

The worldwide prevalence of food allergy appears to be increasing. Early life environmental factors are implicated in the aetiology of this global epidemic. The largest burden of disease is in early childhood, where research efforts aimed at prevention have been focused. Evidence synthesis from good quality systematic reviews is needed. We performed an overview of systematic reviews concerning the prevention and aetiology of food allergy, retrieving 14 systematic reviews, which covered three broad topics: formula (hydrolysed or soy) for the prevention of food allergy or food sensitization; maternal and infant diet and dietary supplements for the prevention of food allergy or food sensitization and hygiene hypothesis-related interventions. Using the AMSTAR criteria for assessment of methodological quality, we found five reviews to be of high quality, seven of medium quality and two of low quality. Overall we found no compelling evidence that any of the interventions that had been systematically reviewed were related to the risk of food allergy. Updating of existing reviews, and production of new systematic reviews, are needed in areas where evidence is emerging for interventions and environmental associations. Furthermore, additional primary studies, with greater numbers of participants and objective food allergy definitions are urgently required. PMID:24192789

Factors contributing to chronic ankle instability: a protocol for a systematic review of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Thompson, Cassandra; Schabrun, Siobhan; Romero, Rick; Bialocerkowski, Andrea; Marshall, Paul

2016-06-07

Ankle sprains are a significant clinical problem. Researchers have identified a multitude of factors contributing to the presence of recurrent ankle sprains including deficits in balance, postural control, kinematics, muscle activity, strength, range of motion, ligament laxity and bone/joint characteristics. Unfortunately, the literature examining the presence of these factors in chronic ankle instability (CAI) is conflicting. As a result, researchers have attempted to integrate this evidence using systematic reviews to reach conclusions; however, readers are now faced with an increasing number of systematic review findings that are also conflicting. The overall aim of this review is to critically appraise the methodological quality of previous systematic reviews and pool this evidence to identify contributing factors to CAI. A systematic review will be conducted on systematic reviews that investigate the presence of various deficits identified in CAI. Databases will be searched using pre-determined search terms. Reviews will then be assessed for inclusion based on the set eligibility criteria. Two independent reviewers will assess the articles for inclusion before evaluating the methodological quality and presence of bias of the included studies; any disagreements will be resolved by discussion between reviewers to reach consensus or by a third reviewer. Data concerning the specific research question, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, population, method and outcomes will be extracted. Findings will be analysed with respect to the methodological quality of the included reviews. It is expected that this review will clarify the cause of contradicting findings in the literature and facilitate future research directions. PROSPERO CRD42016032592 .

Side effects are incompletely reported among systematic reviews in gastroenterology.

PubMed

Mahady, Suzanne E; Schlub, Timothy; Bero, Lisa; Moher, David; Tovey, David; George, Jacob; Craig, Jonathan C

2015-02-01

Systematic reviews are an integral component of evidence-based health care. However, little is known on how well they report the potential harms of interventions. We assessed the reporting of harms in recently published systematic reviews of interventions relevant to clinical gastroenterology. We identified all systematic reviews of randomized trials of gastroenterology interventions published from 2008 to 2012 in highly cited gastroenterology and general medical journals. We adapted the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines for harms and assessed qualitative and quantitative parameters of harms reporting. Regression analyses determined predictors of more comprehensive harms reporting. In total, 78 systematic reviews were identified, with 72 published in gastroenterology journals and six in general medical journals. Overall, one in three systematic reviews (26/78, 33%) did not refer to harms of the intervention anywhere in the article. Less than half of the studies included adverse events as an outcome measure, and data on absolute rates of adverse events were only provided in 28%. Most (65%) did not include any figures or tables on adverse event; however, all included these on efficacy outcomes (mean, 3 and range, 1-7). Regression analyses indicated that the use of reporting guidelines was significantly associated with better harms reporting (P = 0.04). The reporting of harms in gastroenterology systematic reviews is largely inadequate and highly asymmetrical compared with the reporting of benefits. We suggest that review authors routinely assess both efficacy and harms outcomes of an intervention and that reporting guidelines specifically targeting harms reporting be developed. Crown Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The role of systematic inpatient cardiac rehabilitation referral in increasing equitable access and utilization.

PubMed

Grace, Sherry L; Leung, Yvonne W; Reid, Robert; Oh, Paul; Wu, Gilbert; Alter, David A; CRCARE Investigators

2012-01-01

While systematic referral strategies have been shown to significantly increase cardiac rehabilitation (CR) enrollment to approximately 70%, whether utilization rates increase among patient groups who are traditionally underrepresented has yet to be established. This study compared CR utilization based on age, marital status, rurality, socioeconomic indicators, clinical risk, and comorbidities following systematic versus nonsystematic CR referral. Coronary artery disease inpatients (N = 2635) from 11 Ontario hospitals, utilizing either systematic (n = 8 wards) or nonsystematic referral strategies (n = 8 wards), completed a survey including sociodemographics and activity status. Clinical data were extracted from charts. At 1 year, 1680 participants completed a mailed survey that assessed CR utilization. The association of patient characteristics and referral strategy on CR utilization was tested using χ. When compared to nonsystematic referral, systematic strategies resulted in significantly greater CR referral and enrollment among obese (32 vs 27% referred, P = .044; 33 vs 26% enrolled, P = .047) patients of lower socioeconomic status (41 vs 34% referred, P = .026; 42 vs 32% enrolled, P = .005); and lower activity status (63 vs 54% referred, P = .005; 62 vs 51% enrolled, P = .002). There was significantly greater enrollment among those of lower education (P = .04) when systematically referred; however, no significant differences in degree of CR participation based on referral strategy. Up to 11% more socioeconomically disadvantaged patients and those with more risk factors utilized CR where systematic processes were in place. They participated in CR to the same high degree as their nonsystematically referred counterparts. These referral strategies should be implemented to promote equitable access.

Complex systematic review - Perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with dental implant placement.

PubMed

Lund, Bodil; Hultin, Margareta; Tranaeus, Sofia; Naimi-Akbar, Aron; Klinge, Björn

2015-09-01

The aim of this study was to revisit the available scientific literature regarding perioperative antibiotics in conjunction with implant placement by combining the recommended methods for systematic reviews and complex systematic reviews. A search of Medline (OVID), The Cochrane Library (Wiley), EMBASE, PubMed and Health technology assessment (HTA) organizations was performed, in addition to a complementary hand-search. Selected systematic reviews and primary studies were assessed using GRADE and AMSTAR, respectively. A meta-analysis was performed. The literature search identified 846 papers of which 10 primary studies and seven systematic reviews were included. Quality assessment of the systematic reviews revealed two studies of moderate risk of bias and five with high risk of bias. The two systematic reviews of moderate risk of bias stated divergent numbers needed to treat (NNT) to prevent one patient from implant failure. Four of the primary studies comparing antibiotic prophylaxis with placebo were estimated to be of low, or moderate, risk of bias and subjected to meta-analysis. The NNT was 50 (pooled RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.18, 0.84; P = 0.02). None of these four studies individually show a statistical significant benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis. Furthermore, narrative analysis of the studies eligible for meta-analysis reveals clinical heterogeneity regarding intervention and smoking. Antibiotic prophylaxis in conjunction with implant placement reduced the risk for implant loss by 2%. However, the sub-analysis of the primary studies suggests that there is no benefit of antibiotic prophylaxis in uncomplicated implant surgery in healthy patient. © 2015 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration.

PubMed

Welch, Vivian; Petticrew, Mark; Petkovic, Jennifer; Moher, David; Waters, Elizabeth; White, Howard; Tugwell, Peter

2015-10-08

The promotion of health equity, the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes, is a global imperative. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for health decision-makers, but have been found to lack assessments of the intervention effects on health equity. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) is a 27 item checklist intended to improve transparency and reporting of systematic reviews. We developed an equity extension for PRISMA (PRISMA-E 2012) to help systematic reviewers identify, extract, and synthesise evidence on equity in systematic reviews. In this explanation and elaboration paper we provide the rationale for each extension item. These items are additions or modifications to the existing PRISMA Statement items, in order to incorporate a focus on equity. An example of good reporting is provided for each item as well as the original PRISMA item. This explanation and elaboration document is intended to accompany the PRISMA-E 2012 Statement and the PRISMA Statement to improve understanding of the reporting guideline for users. The PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline is intended to improve transparency and completeness of reporting of equity-focused systematic reviews. Improved reporting can lead to better judgement of applicability by policy makers which may result in more appropriate policies and programs and may contribute to reductions in health inequities. To encourage wide dissemination of this article it is accessible on the International Journal for Equity in Health, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Journal of Development Effectiveness web sites.

Use of a brief standardized screening instrument in a primary care setting to enhance detection of social-emotional problems among youth in foster care.

PubMed

Jee, Sandra H; Halterman, Jill S; Szilagyi, Moira; Conn, Anne-Marie; Alpert-Gillis, Linda; Szilagyi, Peter G

2011-01-01

To determine whether systematic use of a validated social-emotional screening instrument in a primary care setting is feasible and improves detection of social-emotional problems among youth in foster care. Before-and-after study design, following a practice intervention to screen all youth in foster care for psychosocial problems using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), a validated instrument with 5 subdomains. After implementation of systematic screening, youth aged 11 to 17 years and their foster parents completed the SDQ at routine health maintenance visits. We assessed feasibility of screening by measuring the completion rates of SDQ by youth and foster parents. We compared the detection of psychosocial problems during a 2-year period before systematic screening to the detection after implementation of systematic screening with the SDQ. We used chart reviews to assess detection at baseline and after implementing systematic screening. Altogether, 92% of 212 youth with routine visits that occurred after initiation of screening had a completed SDQ in the medical record, demonstrating high feasibility of systematic screening. Detection of a potential mental health problem was higher in the screening period than baseline period for the entire population (54% vs 27%, P < .001). More than one-fourth of youth had 2 or more significant social-emotional problem domains on the SDQ. Systematic screening for potential social-emotional problems among youth in foster care was feasible within a primary care setting and doubled the detection rate of potential psychosocial problems. Copyright © 2011 Academic Pediatric Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Adverse events and comparison of systematic and voluntary reporting from a paediatric intensive care unit.

PubMed

Silas, Reshma; Tibballs, James

2010-12-01

Little is known of the incidence of adverse events in the paediatric intensive care unit (PICU). Perceived incidence may be dependent on data-collection methods. To determine the incidence of adverse events by voluntary reporting and systematic enquiry. Adverse events in PICU were recorded contemporaneously by systematic enquiry with bedside nurses and attending doctors, and compared with data submitted voluntarily to the hospital's quality and safety unit. Events were classified as insignificant, minor, moderate, major and catastrophic or lethal, and assigned origins as medical/surgical diagnosis or management, medical/surgical procedures, medication or miscellaneous. Among 740 patients, 524 adverse events (mean 0.71 per patient) occurred in 193 patients (26.1%). Systematic enquiry detected 405 (80%) among 165 patients and were classified by one investigator as insignificant 30 (7%); minor 100 (25%); moderate 160 (37%); major 103(25%) and catastrophic 12 (3%). The coefficient of agreement (kappa) of severity between the two investigators was 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.87). Voluntary reporting detected 166 (32%) adverse events among 100 patients, of which 119 were undetected by systematic reporting. Forty-nine events (9%) were detected by both methods. The number and severity of events reported by the two methods were significantly different (p<0.0001). Voluntary reporting, mainly by nurses, did not capture major, severe or catastrophic events related to medical/surgical diagnosis or management. Neither voluntary reporting nor systematic enquiry captures all adverse events. While the two methods both capture some events, systematic reporting captures serious events, while voluntary reporting captures mainly insignificant and minor events.

Systematic reviews of diagnostic tests in endocrinology: an audit of methods, reporting, and performance.

PubMed

Spencer-Bonilla, Gabriela; Singh Ospina, Naykky; Rodriguez-Gutierrez, Rene; Brito, Juan P; Iñiguez-Ariza, Nicole; Tamhane, Shrikant; Erwin, Patricia J; Murad, M Hassan; Montori, Victor M

2017-07-01

Systematic reviews provide clinicians and policymakers estimates of diagnostic test accuracy and their usefulness in clinical practice. We identified all available systematic reviews of diagnosis in endocrinology, summarized the diagnostic accuracy of the tests included, and assessed the credibility and clinical usefulness of the methods and reporting. We searched Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL from inception to December 2015 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting accuracy measures of diagnostic tests in endocrinology. Experienced reviewers independently screened for eligible studies and collected data. We summarized the results, methods, and reporting of the reviews. We performed subgroup analyses to categorize diagnostic tests as most useful based on their accuracy. We identified 84 systematic reviews; half of the tests included were classified as helpful when positive, one-fourth as helpful when negative. Most authors adequately reported how studies were identified and selected and how their trustworthiness (risk of bias) was judged. Only one in three reviews, however, reported an overall judgment about trustworthiness and one in five reported using adequate meta-analytic methods. One in four reported contacting authors for further information and about half included only patients with diagnostic uncertainty. Up to half of the diagnostic endocrine tests in which the likelihood ratio was calculated or provided are likely to be helpful in practice when positive as are one-quarter when negative. Most diagnostic systematic reviews in endocrine lack methodological rigor, protection against bias, and offer limited credibility. Substantial efforts, therefore, seem necessary to improve the quality of diagnostic systematic reviews in endocrinology.

Ophthalmic adverse drug reactions to systemic drugs: a systematic review.

PubMed

Miguel, Ana; Henriques, Filipe; Azevedo, Luís Filipe; Pereira, Altamiro Costa

2014-03-01

To perform a comprehensive and systematic review regarding ophthalmic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to systemic drugs to: (i) systematically summarize existing evidence, (ii) identify areas, ophthalmic ADRs or drugs that lacked systematization or assessment (namely drugs with original studies characterizing specific ophthalmic ADRs but without causality assessment nor without meta-analysis). Systematic review of several electronic databases (last search 1/7/2012): Medline, SCOPUS, ISI web of knowledge, ISI Conference Proceedings, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts and Google scholar. Search query included: eye, ocular, ophthalmic, ophthalmology, adverse and reaction. Inclusion criteria were: (i) Primary purpose was to assess an ophthalmic ADR to a systemic medication; (ii) Patient evaluation performed by an ophthalmologist; (iii) Studies that specified diagnostic criteria for an ocular ADR. Different types of studies were included and analyzed separately. Two independent reviewers assessed eligibility criteria, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. From 562 studies found, 32 were included (1 systematic review to sildenafil, 11 narrative reviews, 1 trial, 1 prospective study, 6 transversal studies, 6 spontaneous reports and 6 case series). Drugs frequently involved included amiodarone, sildenafil, hydroxychloroquine and biphosphonates. Frequent ophthalmic ADRs included: keratopathy, dry eye and retinopathy. To increase evidence about ophthalmic ADRs, there is a need for performing specific systematic reviews, applying strictly the World Health Organization's (WHO) definition of ADR and WHO causality assessment of ADRs. Some ophthalmic ADRs may be frequent, but require ophthalmological examination; therefore, ophthalmologists' education and protocols of collaboration between other specialties whenever they prescribe high-risk drugs are suggestions for the future. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy allows for equivalent cancer detection with significantly fewer needle cores in biopsy-naive men

PubMed Central

Yarlagadda, Vidhush K.; Lai, Win Shun; Gordetsky, Jennifer B.; Porter, Kristin K.; Nix, Jeffrey W.; Thomas, John V.; Rais-Bahrami, Soroush

2018-01-01

PURPOSE We aimed to investigate the efficiency and cancer detection of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)/ultrasonography (US) fusion-guided prostate biopsy in a cohort of biopsy-naive men compared with standard-of-care systematic extended sextant transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS)-guided biopsy. METHODS From 2014 to 2016, 72 biopsy-naive men referred for initial prostate cancer evaluation who underwent MRI of the prostate were prospectively evaluated. Retrospective review was performed on 69 patients with lesions suspicious for malignancy who underwent MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy in addition to systematic extended sextant biopsy. Biometric, imaging, and pathology data from both the MRI-targeted biopsies and systematic biopsies were analyzed and compared. RESULTS There were no significant differences in overall prostate cancer detection when comparing MRI-targeted biopsies to standard systematic biopsies (P = 0.39). Furthermore, there were no significant differences in the distribution of severity of cancers based on grade groups in cases with cancer detection (P = 0.68). However, significantly fewer needle cores were taken during the MRI/US fusion-guided biopsy compared with systematic biopsy (63% less cores sampled, P < 0.001) CONCLUSION In biopsy-naive men, MRI/US fusion-guided prostate biopsy offers equal prostate cancer detection compared with systematic TRUS-guided biopsy with significantly fewer tissue cores using the targeted technique. This approach can potentially reduce morbidity in the future if used instead of systematic biopsy without sacrificing the ability to detect prostate cancer, particularly in cases with higher grade disease. PMID:29770762

Application of systematic review methodology to the field of nutrition.

PubMed

Lichtenstein, Alice H; Yetley, Elizabeth A; Lau, Joseph

2008-12-01

Systematic reviews represent a rigorous and transparent approach to synthesizing scientific evidence that minimizes bias. They evolved within the medical community to support development of clinical and public health practice guidelines, set research agendas, and formulate scientific consensus statements. The use of systematic reviews for nutrition-related topics is more recent. Systematic reviews provide independently conducted comprehensive and objective assessments of available information addressing precise questions. This approach to summarizing available data is a useful tool for identifying the state of science including knowledge gaps and associated research needs, supporting development of science-based recommendations and guidelines, and serving as the foundation for updates as new data emerge. Our objective is to describe the steps for performing systematic reviews and highlight areas unique to the discipline of nutrition that are important to consider in data assessment. The steps involved in generating systematic reviews include identifying staffing and planning for outside expert input, forming a research team, developing an analytic framework, developing and refining research questions, defining eligibility criteria, identifying search terms, screening abstracts according to eligibility criteria, retrieving articles for evaluation, constructing evidence and summary tables, assessing methodological quality and applicability, and synthesizing results including performing meta-analysis, if appropriate. Unique and at times challenging, nutrition-related considerations include baseline nutrient exposure, nutrient status, bioequivalence of bioactive compounds, bioavailability, multiple and interrelated biological functions, undefined nature of some interventions, and uncertainties in intake assessment. Systematic reviews are a valuable and independent component of decision-making processes by groups responsible for developing science-based recommendations and policies.

Identifying Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Search Terminology: A Systematic Review of Health Systematic Reviews

PubMed Central

Lee, Joseph G. L.; Ylioja, Thomas; Lackey, Mellanye

2016-01-01

Research on the health of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations can provide important information to address existing health inequalities. Finding existing research in LGBT health can prove challenging due to the plethora of terminology used. We sought to describe existing search strategies and to identify more comprehensive LGBT search terminology. We iteratively created a search string to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses about LGBT health and implemented it in Embase, PubMed/MEDLINE, and PsycINFO databases on May 28–29, 2015. We hand-searched the journal LGBT Health. Inclusion criteria were: systematic reviews and meta-analyses that addressed LGBT health, used systematic searching, and used independent coders for inclusion. The published search terminology in each record and search strings provided by authors on request were cross-referenced with our original search to identify additional terminology. Our search process identified 19 systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. The number of search terms used to identify LGBT-related records ranged from 1 to 31. From the included studies, we identified 46 new search terms related to LGBT health. We removed five search terms as inappropriate and added five search terms used in the field. The resulting search string included 82 terms. There is room to improve the quality of searching and reporting in LGBT health systematic reviews. Future work should attempt to enhance the positive predictive value of LGBT health searches. Our findings can assist LGBT health reviewers in capturing the diversity of LGBT terminology when searching. PMID:27219460

The Systematics of Strong Lens Modeling Quantified: The Effects of Constraint Selection and Redshift Information on Magnification, Mass, and Multiple Image Predictability

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Johnson, Traci L.; Sharon, Keren

2016-11-01

Until now, systematic errors in strong gravitational lens modeling have been acknowledged but have never been fully quantified. Here, we launch an investigation into the systematics induced by constraint selection. We model the simulated cluster Ares 362 times using random selections of image systems with and without spectroscopic redshifts and quantify the systematics using several diagnostics: image predictability, accuracy of model-predicted redshifts, enclosed mass, and magnification. We find that for models with >15 image systems, the image plane rms does not decrease significantly when more systems are added; however, the rms values quoted in the literature may be misleading as to the ability of a model to predict new multiple images. The mass is well constrained near the Einstein radius in all cases, and systematic error drops to <2% for models using >10 image systems. Magnification errors are smallest along the straight portions of the critical curve, and the value of the magnification is systematically lower near curved portions. For >15 systems, the systematic error on magnification is ∼2%. We report no trend in magnification error with the fraction of spectroscopic image systems when selecting constraints at random; however, when using the same selection of constraints, increasing this fraction up to ∼0.5 will increase model accuracy. The results suggest that the selection of constraints, rather than quantity alone, determines the accuracy of the magnification. We note that spectroscopic follow-up of at least a few image systems is crucial because models without any spectroscopic redshifts are inaccurate across all of our diagnostics.

Methotrexate-induced toxicity pharmacogenetics: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

PubMed

Campbell, Jared M; Bateman, Emma; Stephenson, Matthew D; Bowen, Joanne M; Keefe, Dorothy M; Peters, Micah D J

2016-07-01

Methotrexate chemotherapy is associated with various toxicities which can result in the interruption or discontinuation of treatment and a subsequently raised risk of relapse. This umbrella systematic review was conducted to synthesize the results of all existing systematic reviews that investigate the pharmacogenetics of methotrexate-induced toxicity, with the aim of developing a comprehensive reference for personalized medicine. Databases searched were PubMed, Embase, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, DARE, and ProQuest. Papers were critically appraised by two reviewers, and data were extracted using a standardized tool. Three systematic reviews on methotrexate-induced toxicity were included in the review. Meta-analyses were reported across Asian, Caucasian, pediatric and adult patients for the MTHFR C677T and A1298C polymorphisms. Toxicity outcomes included different forms of hematologic, ectodermal and hepatic toxicities. Results varied considerably depending on the patient groups and subgroups investigated in the different systematic reviews, as well as the genetic models utilized. However, significant associations were found between the MTHFR C677T allele and; hepatic toxicity, myelosuppression, oral mucositis, gastrointestinal toxicity, and skin toxicity. Additionally, limited evidence suggests that the MTHFR A1298C polymorphism may be associated with decreased risk of skin toxicity and leukopenia. This umbrella systematic review has synthesized the best available evidence on the pharmacogenetics of methotrexate toxicity. The next step in making personalized medicine for methotrexate therapy a clinical reality is research on the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of MTHFR genotype testing to enable the close monitoring of at-risk patients for the timely initiation of rescue therapies.

Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions

PubMed Central

Wallace, John; Nwosu, Bosah; Clarke, Mike

2012-01-01

Objective To review the barriers to the uptake of research evidence from systematic reviews by decision makers. Search strategy We searched 19 databases covering the full range of publication years, utilised three search engines and also personally contacted investigators. Reference lists of primary studies and related reviews were also consulted. Selection criteria Studies were included if they reported on the views and perceptions of decision makers on the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews, meta-analyses and the databases associated with them. All study designs, settings and decision makers were included. One investigator screened titles to identify candidate articles then two reviewers independently assessed the quality and the relevance of retrieved reports. Data extraction Two reviewers described the methods of included studies and extracted data that were summarised in tables and then analysed. Using a pre-established taxonomy, the barriers were organised into a framework according to their effect on knowledge, attitudes or behaviour. Results Of 1726 articles initially identified, we selected 27 unique published studies describing at least one barrier to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews. These studies included a total of 25 surveys and 2 qualitative studies. Overall, the majority of participants (n=10 218) were physicians (64%). The most commonly investigated barriers were lack of use (14/25), lack of awareness (12/25), lack of access (11/25), lack of familiarity (7/25), lack of usefulness (7/25), lack of motivation (4/25) and external barriers (5/25). Conclusions This systematic review reveals that strategies to improve the uptake of evidence from reviews and meta-analyses will need to overcome a wide variety of obstacles. Our review describes the reasons why knowledge users, especially physicians, do not call on systematic reviews. This study can inform future approaches to enhancing systematic review uptake and also suggests potential avenues for future investigation. PMID:22942232

Non-Surgical Interventions for Adolescents with Idiopathic Scoliosis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

PubMed Central

Płaszewski, Maciej; Bettany-Saltikov, Josette

2014-01-01

Background Non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis remain highly controversial. Despite the publication of numerous reviews no explicit methodological evaluation of papers labeled as, or having a layout of, a systematic review, addressing this subject matter, is available. Objectives Analysis and comparison of the content, methodology, and evidence-base from systematic reviews regarding non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Design Systematic overview of systematic reviews. Methods Articles meeting the minimal criteria for a systematic review, regarding any non-surgical intervention for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, with any outcomes measured, were included. Multiple general and systematic review specific databases, guideline registries, reference lists and websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology, and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the Joanna Briggs Institute’s hierarchies were applied to analyze the levels of evidence from included reviews. Results From 469 citations, twenty one papers were included for analysis. Five reviews assessed the effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercise treatments, four assessed manual therapies, five evaluated bracing, four assessed different combinations of interventions, and one evaluated usual physical activity. Two reviews addressed the adverse effects of bracing. Two papers were high quality Cochrane reviews, Three were of moderate, and the remaining sixteen were of low or very low methodological quality. The level of evidence of these reviews ranged from 1 or 1+ to 4, and in some reviews, due to their low methodological quality and/or poor reporting, this could not be established. Conclusions Higher quality reviews indicate that generally there is insufficient evidence to make a judgment on whether non-surgical interventions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are effective. Papers labeled as systematic reviews need to be considered in terms of their methodological rigor; otherwise they may be mistakenly regarded as high quality sources of evidence. Protocol registry number CRD42013003538, PROSPERO PMID:25353954

Alignment of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts and Reviews of Effectiveness with global burden-of-disease data: a bibliographic analysis.

PubMed

Yoong, Sze Lin; Hall, Alix; Williams, Christopher M; Skelton, Eliza; Oldmeadow, Christopher; Wiggers, John; Karimkhani, Chante; Boyers, Lindsay N; Dellavalle, Robert P; Hilton, John; Wolfenden, Luke

2015-07-01

Systematic reviews of high-quality evidence are used to inform policy and practice. To improve community health, the production of such reviews should align with burden of disease. This study aims to assess if the volume of research output from systematic reviews proportionally aligns with burden of disease assessed using percentages of mortality and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs). A cross-sectional audit of reviews published between January 2012 and August 2013 in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) was undertaken. Percentages of mortality and DALYs were obtained from the 2010 Global Burden of Disease study. Standardised residual differences (SRD) based on percentages of mortality and DALYs were calculated, where conditions with SRD of more than or less than three were considered overstudied or understudied, respectively. 1029 reviews from CDSR and 1928 reviews from DARE were examined. There was a significant correlation between percentage DALYs and systematic reviews published in CDSR and DARE databases (CDSR: r=0.68, p=0.001; DARE: r=0.60, p<0.001). There was no significant correlation between percentage mortality and number of systematic reviews published in either database (CDSR: r=0.34, p=0.14; DARE: r=0.22, p=0.34). Relative to percentage of mortality, mental and behavioural disorders, musculoskeletal conditions and other non-communicable diseases were overstudied. Maternal disorders were overstudied relative to percentages of mortality and DALYs in CDSR. The focus of systematic reviews is moderately correlated with DALYs. A number of conditions may be overstudied relative to percentage of mortality particularly in the context of health and medical reviews. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Selective reporting bias of harm outcomes within studies: findings from a cohort of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Saini, Pooja; Loke, Yoon K; Gamble, Carrol; Altman, Douglas G; Williamson, Paula R; Kirkham, Jamie J

2014-11-21

To determine the extent and nature of selective non-reporting of harm outcomes in clinical studies that were eligible for inclusion in a cohort of systematic reviews. Cohort study of systematic reviews from two databases. Outcome reporting bias in trials for harm outcomes (ORBIT II) in systematic reviews from the Cochrane Library and a separate cohort of systematic reviews of adverse events. 92 systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies published in the Cochrane Library between issue 9, 2012 and issue 2, 2013 (Cochrane cohort) and 230 systematic reviews published between 1 January 2007 and 31 December 2011 in other publications, synthesising data on harm outcomes (adverse event cohort). A 13 point classification system for missing outcome data on harm was developed and applied to the studies. 86% (79/92) of reviews in the Cochrane cohort did not include full data from the main harm outcome of interest of each review for all of the eligible studies included within that review; 76% (173/230) for the adverse event cohort. Overall, the single primary harm outcome was inadequately reported in 76% (705/931) of the studies included in the 92 reviews from the Cochrane cohort and not reported in 47% (4159/8837) of the 230 reviews in the adverse event cohort. In a sample of primary studies not reporting on the single primary harm outcome in the review, scrutiny of the study publication revealed that outcome reporting bias was suspected in nearly two thirds (63%, 248/393). The number of reviews suspected of outcome reporting bias as a result of missing or partially reported harm related outcomes from at least one eligible study is high. The declaration of important harms and the quality of the reporting of harm outcomes must be improved in both primary studies and systematic reviews. © Saini et al 2014.

Impact of ambient temperature on morbidity and mortality: An overview of reviews.

PubMed

Song, Xuping; Wang, Shigong; Hu, Yuling; Yue, Man; Zhang, Tingting; Liu, Yu; Tian, Jinhui; Shang, Kezheng

2017-05-15

The objectives were (i) to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to summarize evidence from and evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews assessing the impact of ambient temperature on morbidity and mortality; and (ii) to reanalyse meta-analyses of cold-induced cardiovascular morbidity in different age groups. The registration number is PROSPERO-CRD42016047179. PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and Global Health were systematically searched to identify systematic reviews. Two reviewers independently selected studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed quality. The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist was used to assess the methodological quality of included systematic reviews. Estimates of morbidity and mortality risk in association with heat exposure, cold exposure, heatwaves, cold spells and diurnal temperature ranges (DTRs) were the primary outcomes. Twenty-eight systematic reviews were included in the overview of systematic reviews. (i) The median (interquartile range) AMSTAR scores were 7 (1.75) for quantitative reviews and 3.5 (1.75) for qualitative reviews. (ii) Heat exposure was identified to be associated with increased risk of cardiovascular, cerebrovascular and respiratory mortality, but was not found to have an impact on cardiovascular or cerebrovascular morbidity. (iii) Reanalysis of the meta-analyses indicated that cold-induced cardiovascular morbidity increased in youth and middle-age (RR=1.009, 95% CI: 1.004-1.015) as well as the elderly (RR=1.013, 95% CI: 1.007-1.018). (iv) The definitions of temperature exposure adopted by different studies included various temperature indicators and thresholds. In conclusion, heat exposure seemed to have an adverse effect on mortality and cold-induced cardiovascular morbidity increased in the elderly. Developing definitions of temperature exposure at the regional level may contribute to more accurate evaluations of the health effects of temperature. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Interventions to promote healthy eating choices when dining out: A systematic review of reviews.

PubMed

Wright, Breanna; Bragge, Peter

2018-05-01

To synthesize review research pertaining to the effectiveness of interventions in dining-out settings to reduce food/calorie consumption. A rapid review methodology was employed to focus on synthesized research. A comprehensive search for peer-reviewed systematic reviews from 2010 to 2015 yielded 1,847 citations. Following screening, ten systematic reviews were included. The 10 included systematic reviews identified 183 primary studies evaluating evidence in three behavioural intervention areas: social models/norms, manipulation of size, and provision of health information. Three systematic reviews evaluating the use of social models/norms found this was an effective intervention for influencing food intake. Five systematic reviews that assessed manipulation of portion/dishware/cutlery size found a small-to-moderate effect on food consumption. Three systematic reviews looked at the provision of health information, which was not effective alone; however, in combination with contextual or interpretive material such as traffic lights or exercise equivalence, this was shown to reduce calorie consumption. One systematic review covered two topic areas. The results indicate that policies or interventions that aim to improve healthy choices or consumption when dining out would benefit from harnessing social norms and positive positioning of social identity. Furthermore, provision of health information should always be accompanied by an interpretative guide, such as traffic lights. Manipulation of plate/portion/cutlery size may be effective; however, the effect size is small and further research is required to investigate whether this effect is retained in overweight or obese populations. Statement of contribution What is already known on this subject? Eating behaviours (food choices, consumption) have played a role in the obesity epidemic. Behavioural 'nudges' have tried to increase healthier eating choices. What does this study add? Social norms and modelling have a strong influence in both directions on how much people consume. Provision of nutritional information needs to be paired with interpretative aids (e.g., traffic lights). Manipulation of portion size is less effective in overweight populations. © 2017 The British Psychological Society.

Seeing the forests and the trees—innovative approaches to exploring heterogeneity in systematic reviews of complex interventions to enhance health system decision-making: a protocol

PubMed Central

2014-01-01

Background To improve quality of care and patient outcomes, health system decision-makers need to identify and implement effective interventions. An increasing number of systematic reviews document the effects of quality improvement programs to assist decision-makers in developing new initiatives. However, limitations in the reporting of primary studies and current meta-analysis methods (including approaches for exploring heterogeneity) reduce the utility of existing syntheses for health system decision-makers. This study will explore the role of innovative meta-analysis approaches and the added value of enriched and updated data for increasing the utility of systematic reviews of complex interventions. Methods/Design We will use the dataset from our recent systematic review of 142 randomized trials of diabetes quality improvement programs to evaluate novel approaches for exploring heterogeneity. These will include exploratory methods, such as multivariate meta-regression analyses and all-subsets combinatorial meta-analysis. We will then update our systematic review to include new trials and enrich the dataset by surveying authors of all included trials. In doing so, we will explore the impact of variables not, reported in previous publications, such as details of study context, on the effectiveness of the intervention. We will use innovative analytical methods on the enriched and updated dataset to identify key success factors in the implementation of quality improvement interventions for diabetes. Decision-makers will be involved throughout to help identify and prioritize variables to be explored and to aid in the interpretation and dissemination of results. Discussion This study will inform future systematic reviews of complex interventions and describe the value of enriching and updating data for exploring heterogeneity in meta-analysis. It will also result in an updated comprehensive systematic review of diabetes quality improvement interventions that will be useful to health system decision-makers in developing interventions to improve outcomes for people with diabetes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration no. CRD42013005165 PMID:25115289

Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature.

PubMed

Radhakrishnan, Srinivasan; Erbis, Serkan; Isaacs, Jacqueline A; Kamarthi, Sagar

2017-01-01

Systematic reviews of scientific literature are important for mapping the existing state of research and highlighting further growth channels in a field of study, but systematic reviews are inherently tedious, time consuming, and manual in nature. In recent years, keyword co-occurrence networks (KCNs) are exploited for knowledge mapping. In a KCN, each keyword is represented as a node and each co-occurrence of a pair of words is represented as a link. The number of times that a pair of words co-occurs in multiple articles constitutes the weight of the link connecting the pair. The network constructed in this manner represents cumulative knowledge of a domain and helps to uncover meaningful knowledge components and insights based on the patterns and strength of links between keywords that appear in the literature. In this work, we propose a KCN-based approach that can be implemented prior to undertaking a systematic review to guide and accelerate the review process. The novelty of this method lies in the new metrics used for statistical analysis of a KCN that differ from those typically used for KCN analysis. The approach is demonstrated through its application to nano-related Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) risk literature. The KCN approach identified the knowledge components, knowledge structure, and research trends that match with those discovered through a traditional systematic review of the nanoEHS field. Because KCN-based analyses can be conducted more quickly to explore a vast amount of literature, this method can provide a knowledge map and insights prior to undertaking a rigorous traditional systematic review. This two-step approach can significantly reduce the effort and time required for a traditional systematic literature review. The proposed KCN-based pre-systematic review method is universal. It can be applied to any scientific field of study to prepare a knowledge map.

Novel keyword co-occurrence network-based methods to foster systematic reviews of scientific literature

PubMed Central

Isaacs, Jacqueline A.

2017-01-01

Systematic reviews of scientific literature are important for mapping the existing state of research and highlighting further growth channels in a field of study, but systematic reviews are inherently tedious, time consuming, and manual in nature. In recent years, keyword co-occurrence networks (KCNs) are exploited for knowledge mapping. In a KCN, each keyword is represented as a node and each co-occurrence of a pair of words is represented as a link. The number of times that a pair of words co-occurs in multiple articles constitutes the weight of the link connecting the pair. The network constructed in this manner represents cumulative knowledge of a domain and helps to uncover meaningful knowledge components and insights based on the patterns and strength of links between keywords that appear in the literature. In this work, we propose a KCN-based approach that can be implemented prior to undertaking a systematic review to guide and accelerate the review process. The novelty of this method lies in the new metrics used for statistical analysis of a KCN that differ from those typically used for KCN analysis. The approach is demonstrated through its application to nano-related Environmental, Health, and Safety (EHS) risk literature. The KCN approach identified the knowledge components, knowledge structure, and research trends that match with those discovered through a traditional systematic review of the nanoEHS field. Because KCN-based analyses can be conducted more quickly to explore a vast amount of literature, this method can provide a knowledge map and insights prior to undertaking a rigorous traditional systematic review. This two-step approach can significantly reduce the effort and time required for a traditional systematic literature review. The proposed KCN-based pre-systematic review method is universal. It can be applied to any scientific field of study to prepare a knowledge map. PMID:28328983

Association between prospective registration and overall reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.

PubMed

Ge, Long; Tian, Jin-Hui; Li, Ya-Nan; Pan, Jia-Xue; Li, Ge; Wei, Dang; Xing, Xin; Pan, Bei; Chen, Yao-Long; Song, Fu-Jian; Yang, Ke-Hu

2018-01-01

The aim of this study was to investigate the differences in main characteristics, reporting and methodological quality between prospectively registered and nonregistered systematic reviews. PubMed was searched to identify systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials published in 2015 in English. After title and abstract screening, potentially relevant reviews were divided into three groups: registered non-Cochrane reviews, Cochrane reviews, and nonregistered reviews. For each group, random number tables were generated in Microsoft Excel, and the first 50 eligible studies from each group were randomly selected. Data of interest from systematic reviews were extracted. Regression analyses were conducted to explore the association between total Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review (R-AMSTAR) or Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) scores and the selected characteristics of systematic reviews. The conducting and reporting of literature search in registered reviews were superior to nonregistered reviews. Differences in 9 of the 11 R-AMSTAR items were statistically significant between registered and nonregistered reviews. The total R-AMSTAR score of registered reviews was higher than nonregistered reviews [mean difference (MD) = 4.82, 95% confidence interval (CI): 3.70, 5.94]. Sensitivity analysis by excluding the registration-related item presented similar result (MD = 4.34, 95% CI: 3.28, 5.40). Total PRISMA scores of registered reviews were significantly higher than nonregistered reviews (all reviews: MD = 1.47, 95% CI: 0.64-2.30; non-Cochrane reviews: MD = 1.49, 95% CI: 0.56-2.42). However, the difference in the total PRISMA score was no longer statistically significant after excluding the item related to registration (item 5). Regression analyses showed similar results. Prospective registration may at least indirectly improve the overall methodological quality of systematic reviews, although its impact on the overall reporting quality was not significant. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Asteroseismic modelling of solar-type stars: internal systematics from input physics and surface correction methods

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Nsamba, B.; Campante, T. L.; Monteiro, M. J. P. F. G.; Cunha, M. S.; Rendle, B. M.; Reese, D. R.; Verma, K.

2018-07-01

Asteroseismic forward modelling techniques are being used to determine fundamental properties (e.g. mass, radius, and age) of solar-type stars. The need to take into account all possible sources of error is of paramount importance towards a robust determination of stellar properties. We present a study of 34 solar-type stars for which high signal-to-noise asteroseismic data are available from multiyear Kepler photometry. We explore the internal systematics on the stellar properties, that is associated with the uncertainty in the input physics used to construct the stellar models. In particular, we explore the systematics arising from (i) the inclusion of the diffusion of helium and heavy elements; (ii) the uncertainty in solar metallicity mixture; and (iii) different surface correction methods used in optimization/fitting procedures. The systematics arising from comparing results of models with and without diffusion are found to be 0.5 per cent, 0.8 per cent, 2.1 per cent, and 16 per cent in mean density, radius, mass, and age, respectively. The internal systematics in age are significantly larger than the statistical uncertainties. We find the internal systematics resulting from the uncertainty in solar metallicity mixture to be 0.7 per cent in mean density, 0.5 per cent in radius, 1.4 per cent in mass, and 6.7 per cent in age. The surface correction method by Sonoi et al. and Ball & Gizon's two-term correction produce the lowest internal systematics among the different correction methods, namely, ˜1 per cent, ˜1 per cent, ˜2 per cent, and ˜8 per cent in mean density, radius, mass, and age, respectively. Stellar masses obtained using the surface correction methods by Kjeldsen et al. and Ball & Gizon's one-term correction are systematically higher than those obtained using frequency ratios.

Use of regularized principal component analysis to model anatomical changes during head and neck radiation therapy for treatment adaptation and response assessment

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Chetvertkov, Mikhail A., E-mail: chetvertkov@wayne

2016-10-15

Purpose: To develop standard (SPCA) and regularized (RPCA) principal component analysis models of anatomical changes from daily cone beam CTs (CBCTs) of head and neck (H&N) patients and assess their potential use in adaptive radiation therapy, and for extracting quantitative information for treatment response assessment. Methods: Planning CT images of ten H&N patients were artificially deformed to create “digital phantom” images, which modeled systematic anatomical changes during radiation therapy. Artificial deformations closely mirrored patients’ actual deformations and were interpolated to generate 35 synthetic CBCTs, representing evolving anatomy over 35 fractions. Deformation vector fields (DVFs) were acquired between pCT and syntheticmore » CBCTs (i.e., digital phantoms) and between pCT and clinical CBCTs. Patient-specific SPCA and RPCA models were built from these synthetic and clinical DVF sets. EigenDVFs (EDVFs) having the largest eigenvalues were hypothesized to capture the major anatomical deformations during treatment. Results: Principal component analysis (PCA) models achieve variable results, depending on the size and location of anatomical change. Random changes prevent or degrade PCA’s ability to detect underlying systematic change. RPCA is able to detect smaller systematic changes against the background of random fraction-to-fraction changes and is therefore more successful than SPCA at capturing systematic changes early in treatment. SPCA models were less successful at modeling systematic changes in clinical patient images, which contain a wider range of random motion than synthetic CBCTs, while the regularized approach was able to extract major modes of motion. Conclusions: Leading EDVFs from the both PCA approaches have the potential to capture systematic anatomical change during H&N radiotherapy when systematic changes are large enough with respect to random fraction-to-fraction changes. In all cases the RPCA approach appears to be more reliable at capturing systematic changes, enabling dosimetric consequences to be projected once trends are established early in a treatment course, or based on population models.« less

Development and evaluation of 'briefing notes' as a novel knowledge translation tool to aid the implementation of sex/gender analysis in systematic reviews: a pilot study.

PubMed

Doull, Marion; Welch, Vivian; Puil, Lorri; Runnels, Vivien; Coen, Stephanie E; Shea, Beverley; O'Neill, Jennifer; Borkhoff, Cornelia; Tudiver, Sari; Boscoe, Madeline

2014-01-01

There is increasing recognition of sex/gender differences in health and the importance of identifying differential effects of interventions for men and women. Yet, to whom the research evidence does or does not apply, with regard to sex/gender, is often insufficiently answered. This is also true for systematic reviews which synthesize results of primary studies. A lack of analysis and reporting of evidence on sex/gender raises concerns about the applicability of systematic reviews. To bridge this gap, this pilot study aimed to translate knowledge about sex/gender analysis (SGA) into a user-friendly 'briefing note' format and evaluate its potential in aiding the implementation of SGA in systematic reviews. Our Sex/Gender Methods Group used an interactive process to translate knowledge about sex/gender into briefing notes, a concise communication tool used by policy and decision makers. The briefing notes were developed in collaboration with three Cochrane Collaboration review groups (HIV/AIDS, Hypertension, and Musculoskeletal) who were also the target knowledge users of the briefing notes. Briefing note development was informed by existing systematic review checklists, literature on sex/gender, in-person and virtual meetings, and consultation with topic experts. Finally, we held a workshop for potential users to evaluate the notes. Each briefing note provides tailored guidance on considering sex/gender to reviewers who are planning or conducting systematic reviews and includes the rationale for considering sex/gender, with examples specific to each review group's focus. Review authors found that the briefing notes provided welcome guidance on implementing SGA that was clear and concise, but also identified conceptual and implementation challenges. Sex/gender briefing notes are a promising knowledge translation tool. By encouraging sex/gender analysis and equity considerations in systematic reviews, the briefing notes can assist systematic reviewers in ensuring the applicability of research evidence, with the goal of improved health outcomes for diverse populations.

Non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis: an overview of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Płaszewski, Maciej; Bettany-Saltikov, Josette

2014-01-01

Non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis remain highly controversial. Despite the publication of numerous reviews no explicit methodological evaluation of papers labeled as, or having a layout of, a systematic review, addressing this subject matter, is available. Analysis and comparison of the content, methodology, and evidence-base from systematic reviews regarding non-surgical interventions for adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis. Systematic overview of systematic reviews. Articles meeting the minimal criteria for a systematic review, regarding any non-surgical intervention for adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, with any outcomes measured, were included. Multiple general and systematic review specific databases, guideline registries, reference lists and websites of institutions were searched. The AMSTAR tool was used to critically appraise the methodology, and the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine and the Joanna Briggs Institute's hierarchies were applied to analyze the levels of evidence from included reviews. From 469 citations, twenty one papers were included for analysis. Five reviews assessed the effectiveness of scoliosis-specific exercise treatments, four assessed manual therapies, five evaluated bracing, four assessed different combinations of interventions, and one evaluated usual physical activity. Two reviews addressed the adverse effects of bracing. Two papers were high quality Cochrane reviews, Three were of moderate, and the remaining sixteen were of low or very low methodological quality. The level of evidence of these reviews ranged from 1 or 1+ to 4, and in some reviews, due to their low methodological quality and/or poor reporting, this could not be established. Higher quality reviews indicate that generally there is insufficient evidence to make a judgment on whether non-surgical interventions in adolescent idiopathic scoliosis are effective. Papers labeled as systematic reviews need to be considered in terms of their methodological rigor; otherwise they may be mistakenly regarded as high quality sources of evidence. CRD42013003538, PROSPERO.

5 CFR 1312.10 - Systematic review guidelines.

Code of Federal Regulations, 2011 CFR

2011-01-01

..., DOWNGRADING, DECLASSIFICATION AND SAFEGUARDING OF NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION Classification and Declassification of National Security Information § 1312.10 Systematic review guidelines. The EOP Security Officer...

Interpretation of atomic mass systematics in terms of the valence shells and a simple scheme for predicting masses

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Haustein, P.E.; Brenner, D.S.; Casten, R.F.

1988-07-01

A new semiempirical method that significantly simplifies atomic mass systematics and which provides a method for making mass predictions by linear interpolation is discussed in the context of the nuclear valence space. In certain regions complicated patterns of mass systematics in traditional plots versus Z, N, or isospin are consolidated and transformed into linear ones extending over long isotopic and isotonic sequences.

Commonality and Variability Analysis for Xenon Family of Separation Virtual Machine Monitors (CVAX)

DTIC Science & Technology

2017-07-18

technical approach is a systematic application of Software Product Line Engineering (SPLE). A systematic application requires describing the family and... engineering Software family September 2016 – October 2016 OSD/OUSD/ATL/ASD(R&E)/RDOffice of Information Systems & Cyber Security RD / ASD(R&E) / AT&L...by the evolving open-source Xen hypervisor. The technical approach is a systematic application of Software Product Line Engineering (SPLE). A

The Systematic Bias of Ingestible Core Temperature Sensors Requires a Correction by Linear Regression.

PubMed

Hunt, Andrew P; Bach, Aaron J E; Borg, David N; Costello, Joseph T; Stewart, Ian B

2017-01-01

An accurate measure of core body temperature is critical for monitoring individuals, groups and teams undertaking physical activity in situations of high heat stress or prolonged cold exposure. This study examined the range in systematic bias of ingestible temperature sensors compared to a certified and traceable reference thermometer. A total of 119 ingestible temperature sensors were immersed in a circulated water bath at five water temperatures (TEMP A: 35.12 ± 0.60°C, TEMP B: 37.33 ± 0.56°C, TEMP C: 39.48 ± 0.73°C, TEMP D: 41.58 ± 0.97°C, and TEMP E: 43.47 ± 1.07°C) along with a certified traceable reference thermometer. Thirteen sensors (10.9%) demonstrated a systematic bias > ±0.1°C, of which 4 (3.3%) were > ± 0.5°C. Limits of agreement (95%) indicated that systematic bias would likely fall in the range of -0.14 to 0.26°C, highlighting that it is possible for temperatures measured between sensors to differ by more than 0.4°C. The proportion of sensors with systematic bias > ±0.1°C (10.9%) confirms that ingestible temperature sensors require correction to ensure their accuracy. An individualized linear correction achieved a mean systematic bias of 0.00°C, and limits of agreement (95%) to 0.00-0.00°C, with 100% of sensors achieving ±0.1°C accuracy. Alternatively, a generalized linear function (Corrected Temperature (°C) = 1.00375 × Sensor Temperature (°C) - 0.205549), produced as the average slope and intercept of a sub-set of 51 sensors and excluding sensors with accuracy outside ±0.5°C, reduced the systematic bias to < ±0.1°C in 98.4% of the remaining sensors ( n = 64). In conclusion, these data show that using an uncalibrated ingestible temperature sensor may provide inaccurate data that still appears to be statistically, physiologically, and clinically meaningful. Correction of sensor temperature to a reference thermometer by linear function eliminates this systematic bias (individualized functions) or ensures systematic bias is within ±0.1°C in 98% of the sensors (generalized function).

Evaluation of risk of bias assessment of trials in systematic reviews of oral health interventions, 1991-2014: A methodology study.

PubMed

Saltaji, Humam; Ospina, Maria B; Armijo-Olivo, Susan; Agarwal, Shruti; Cummings, Greta G; Amin, Maryam; Flores-Mir, Carlos

2016-09-01

The authors aimed to describe how often and by what means investigators assessed the risk of bias of clinical trials in systematic reviews of oral health interventions and to identify factors associated with risk of bias assessments. The authors selected therapeutic oral health systematic reviews published from 1991 through 2014. They extracted data related to the tools used for risk of bias assessment of primary studies and data related to other review characteristics. They descriptively analyzed the data and used multivariate logistic regression. The authors identified 1,114 oral health systematic reviews (130 Cochrane reviews and 984 non-Cochrane reviews). The investigators of the primary studies assessed risk of bias in 61.4% of the reviews, and the risk of bias assessments occurred more often in Cochrane reviews than in non-Cochrane reviews (100% versus 56.3%; P < .001) and in reviews published after the dissemination of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement (odds ratio [OR], 1.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.17-2.06). Compared with the investigators of reviews of public oral health interventions, investigators of reviews of oral surgery were less likely to assess risk of bias (OR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.25-0.67). Furthermore, the investigators of systematic reviews published in dental journals were less likely to assess risk of bias of individual trials (OR, 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.41) compared with the investigators of reviews published in nondental journals. The investigators of primary studies did not undertake risk of bias assessment in a considerable portion of non-Cochrane oral health systematic reviews. The investigators of reviews published in dental journals were less likely to assess risk of bias than the investigators of reviews published in nondental journals. The results of this study provide evidence of the need for improving the conduct and reporting of oral health systematic reviews with respect to risk of bias assessment. Clinicians should determine to what extent the findings of a systematic review are valid on the basis of whether the investigators assessed and considered risk of bias during the interpretation of findings. Copyright © 2016 American Dental Association. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

The effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews

PubMed Central

Kumar, Saravana; Beaton, Kate; Hughes, Tricia

2013-01-01

Introduction The last decade has seen a growth in the utilization of complementary and alternative medicine therapies, and one of the most popular and sought-after complementary and alternative medicine therapies for nonspecific low back pain is massage. Massage may often be perceived as a safe therapeutic modality without any significant risks or side effects. However, despite its popularity, there continues to be ongoing debate on the effectiveness of massage in treating nonspecific low back pain. With a rapidly evolving research evidence base and access to innovative means of synthesizing evidence, it is time to reinvestigate this issue. Methods A systematic, step-by-step approach, underpinned by best practice in reviewing the literature, was utilized as part of the methodology of this umbrella review. A systematic search was conducted in the following databases: Embase, MEDLINE, AMED, ICONDA, Academic Search Premier, Australia/New Zealand Reference Centre, CINAHL, HealthSource, SPORTDiscus, PubMed, The Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Knowledge/Web of Science, PsycINFO, and ProQuest Nursing and Allied Health Source, investigating systematic reviews and meta-analyses from January 2000 to December 2012, and restricted to English-language documents. Methodological quality of included reviews was undertaken using the Centre for Evidence Based Medicine critical appraisal tool. Results Nine systematic reviews were found. The methodological quality of the systematic reviews varied (from poor to excellent) although, overall, the primary research informing these systematic reviews was generally considered to be weak quality. The findings indicate that massage may be an effective treatment option when compared to placebo and some active treatment options (such as relaxation), especially in the short term. There is conflicting and contradictory findings for the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of nonspecific low back pain when compared against other manual therapies (such as mobilization), standard medical care, and acupuncture. Conclusion There is an emerging body of evidence, albeit small, that supports the effectiveness of massage therapy for the treatment of non-specific low back pain in the short term. Due to common methodological flaws in the primary research, which informed the systematic reviews, recommendations arising from this evidence base should be interpreted with caution. PMID:24043951

The SPARK Tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in health policy and systems research: development and initial validation.

PubMed

Akl, Elie A; Fadlallah, Racha; Ghandour, Lilian; Kdouh, Ola; Langlois, Etienne; Lavis, John N; Schünemann, Holger; El-Jardali, Fadi

2017-09-04

Groups or institutions funding or conducting systematic reviews in health policy and systems research (HPSR) should prioritise topics according to the needs of policymakers and stakeholders. The aim of this study was to develop and validate a tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR. We developed the tool following a four-step approach consisting of (1) the definition of the purpose and scope of tool, (2) item generation and reduction, (3) testing for content and face validity, (4) and pilot testing of the tool. The research team involved international experts in HPSR, systematic review methodology and tool development, led by the Center for Systematic Reviews on Health Policy and Systems Research (SPARK). We followed an inclusive approach in determining the final selection of items to allow customisation to the user's needs. The purpose of the SPARK tool was to prioritise questions in HPSR in order to address them in systematic reviews. In the item generation and reduction phase, an extensive literature search yielded 40 relevant articles, which were reviewed by the research team to create a preliminary list of 19 candidate items for inclusion in the tool. As part of testing for content and face validity, input from international experts led to the refining, changing, merging and addition of new items, and to organisation of the tool into two modules. Following pilot testing, we finalised the tool, with 22 items organised in two modules - the first module including 13 items to be rated by policymakers and stakeholders, and the second including 9 items to be rated by systematic review teams. Users can customise the tool to their needs, by omitting items that may not be applicable to their settings. We also developed a user manual that provides guidance on how to use the SPARK tool, along with signaling questions. We have developed and conducted initial validation of the SPARK tool to prioritise questions for systematic reviews in HPSR, along with a user manual. By aligning systematic review production to policy priorities, the tool will help support evidence-informed policymaking and reduce research waste. We invite others to contribute with additional real-life implementation of the tool.

Planck 2015 results. III. LFI systematic uncertainties

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Planck Collaboration; Ade, P. A. R.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; Banday, A. J.; Barreiro, R. B.; Bartolo, N.; Basak, S.; Battaglia, P.; Battaner, E.; Benabed, K.; Benoit-Lévy, A.; Bernard, J.-P.; Bersanelli, M.; Bielewicz, P.; Bonaldi, A.; Bonavera, L.; Bond, J. R.; Borrill, J.; Burigana, C.; Butler, R. C.; Calabrese, E.; Catalano, A.; Christensen, P. R.; Colombo, L. P. L.; Cruz, M.; Curto, A.; Cuttaia, F.; Danese, L.; Davies, R. D.; Davis, R. J.; de Bernardis, P.; de Rosa, A.; de Zotti, G.; Delabrouille, J.; Dickinson, C.; Diego, J. M.; Doré, O.; Ducout, A.; Dupac, X.; Elsner, F.; Enßlin, T. A.; Eriksen, H. K.; Finelli, F.; Frailis, M.; Franceschet, C.; Franceschi, E.; Galeotta, S.; Galli, S.; Ganga, K.; Ghosh, T.; Giard, M.; Giraud-Héraud, Y.; Gjerløw, E.; González-Nuevo, J.; Górski, K. M.; Gregorio, A.; Gruppuso, A.; Hansen, F. K.; Harrison, D. L.; Hernández-Monteagudo, C.; Herranz, D.; Hildebrandt, S. R.; Hivon, E.; Hobson, M.; Hornstrup, A.; Hovest, W.; Huffenberger, K. M.; Hurier, G.; Jaffe, A. H.; Jaffe, T. R.; Keihänen, E.; Keskitalo, R.; Kiiveri, K.; Kisner, T. S.; Knoche, J.; Krachmalnicoff, N.; Kunz, M.; Kurki-Suonio, H.; Lagache, G.; Lamarre, J.-M.; Lasenby, A.; Lattanzi, M.; Lawrence, C. R.; Leahy, J. P.; Leonardi, R.; Levrier, F.; Liguori, M.; Lilje, P. B.; Linden-Vørnle, M.; Lindholm, V.; López-Caniego, M.; Lubin, P. M.; Macías-Pérez, J. F.; Maffei, B.; Maggio, G.; Maino, D.; Mandolesi, N.; Mangilli, A.; Maris, M.; Martin, P. G.; Martínez-González, E.; Masi, S.; Matarrese, S.; Meinhold, P. R.; Mennella, A.; Migliaccio, M.; Mitra, S.; Montier, L.; Morgante, G.; Mortlock, D.; Munshi, D.; Murphy, J. A.; Nati, F.; Natoli, P.; Noviello, F.; Paci, F.; Pagano, L.; Pajot, F.; Paoletti, D.; Partridge, B.; Pasian, F.; Pearson, T. J.; Perdereau, O.; Pettorino, V.; Piacentini, F.; Pointecouteau, E.; Polenta, G.; Pratt, G. W.; Puget, J.-L.; Rachen, J. P.; Reinecke, M.; Remazeilles, M.; Renzi, A.; Ristorcelli, I.; Rocha, G.; Rosset, C.; Rossetti, M.; Roudier, G.; Rubiño-Martín, J. A.; Rusholme, B.; Sandri, M.; Santos, D.; Savelainen, M.; Scott, D.; Stolyarov, V.; Stompor, R.; Suur-Uski, A.-S.; Sygnet, J.-F.; Tauber, J. A.; Tavagnacco, D.; Terenzi, L.; Toffolatti, L.; Tomasi, M.; Tristram, M.; Tucci, M.; Umana, G.; Valenziano, L.; Valiviita, J.; Van Tent, B.; Vassallo, T.; Vielva, P.; Villa, F.; Wade, L. A.; Wandelt, B. D.; Watson, R.; Wehus, I. K.; Yvon, D.; Zacchei, A.; Zibin, J. P.; Zonca, A.

2016-09-01

We present the current accounting of systematic effect uncertainties for the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI) that are relevant to the 2015 release of the Planck cosmological results, showing the robustness and consistency of our data set, especially for polarization analysis. We use two complementary approaches: (I) simulations based on measured data and physical models of the known systematic effects; and (II) analysis of difference maps containing the same sky signal ("null-maps"). The LFI temperature data are limited by instrumental noise. At large angular scales the systematic effects are below the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature power spectrum by several orders of magnitude. In polarization the systematic uncertainties are dominated by calibration uncertainties and compete with the CMB E-modes in the multipole range 10-20. Based on our model of all known systematic effects, we show that these effects introduce a slight bias of around 0.2σ on the reionization optical depth derived from the 70GHz EE spectrum using the 30 and 353GHz channels as foreground templates. At 30GHz the systematic effects are smaller than the Galactic foreground at all scales in temperature and polarization, which allows us to consider this channel as a reliable template of synchrotron emission. We assess the residual uncertainties due to LFI effects on CMB maps and power spectra after component separation and show that these effects are smaller than the CMB amplitude at all scales. We also assess the impact on non-Gaussianity studies and find it to be negligible. Some residuals still appear in null maps from particular sky survey pairs, particularly at 30 GHz, suggesting possible straylight contamination due to an imperfect knowledge of the beam far sidelobes.

Health literacy in type 2 diabetes patients: a systematic review of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Caruso, Rosario; Magon, Arianna; Baroni, Irene; Dellafiore, Federica; Arrigoni, Cristina; Pittella, Francesco; Ausili, Davide

2018-01-01

Aim To summarize, critically review, and interpret the evidence related to the systematic reviews on health literacy (HL) amongst type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods The methodology for this study consisted of a systematic review of systematic reviews, using the PRISMA statement and flowchart to select studies, and searching on PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus, and Cochrane. The search covered the period between January 2006 and June 2016. Results From the 115 identified record by the queries, only six systematic reviews were included, following a quality evaluation using AMSTAR. The included systematic reviews content was analyzed by the independent work of two authors, using a narrative synthesis approach. The findings of this study (i.e., main themes) are areas of consensus and gaps in knowledge. Areas of consensus are HL definition, HL measurement tools, and the relationship between T2DM patient knowledge (or literacy) and his/her HL. The gaps in knowledge were the assessment of the relations between HL and health outcomes and self-efficacy, the gender differences, the effectiveness of interventions to improve HL, the cost-effectiveness study of interventions to improve HL, and the understanding of the influence of organizational environment on HL. Conclusion This review provides a current state of knowledge to address clinical practice and research proposals. HL could be useful to personalize patients' follow-up and it should be routinely assessed in its three dimensions (i.e. functional, interactive and critical) to enhance patients' ability to cope with clinical recommendations. Future research should be mainly aimed to test the effectiveness of evidence-based interventions to improve HL amongst T2DM patients.

A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care.

PubMed

Butler, Ashleigh; Hall, Helen; Copnell, Beverley

2016-06-01

The qualitative systematic review is a rapidly developing area of nursing research. In order to present trustworthy, high-quality recommendations, such reviews should be based on a review protocol to minimize bias and enhance transparency and reproducibility. Although there are a number of resources available to guide researchers in developing a quantitative review protocol, very few resources exist for qualitative reviews. To guide researchers through the process of developing a qualitative systematic review protocol, using an example review question. The key elements required in a systematic review protocol are discussed, with a focus on application to qualitative reviews: Development of a research question; formulation of key search terms and strategies; designing a multistage review process; critical appraisal of qualitative literature; development of data extraction techniques; and data synthesis. The paper highlights important considerations during the protocol development process, and uses a previously developed review question as a working example. This paper will assist novice researchers in developing a qualitative systematic review protocol. By providing a worked example of a protocol, the paper encourages the development of review protocols, enhancing the trustworthiness and value of the completed qualitative systematic review findings. Qualitative systematic reviews should be based on well planned, peer reviewed protocols to enhance the trustworthiness of results and thus their usefulness in clinical practice. Protocols should outline, in detail, the processes which will be used to undertake the review, including key search terms, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and the methods used for critical appraisal, data extraction and data analysis to facilitate transparency of the review process. Additionally, journals should encourage and support the publication of review protocols, and should require reference to a protocol prior to publication of the review results. © 2016 Sigma Theta Tau International.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews referenced in clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of opioid use disorder.

PubMed

Ross, Andrew; Rankin, Justin; Beaman, Jason; Murray, Kelly; Sinnett, Philip; Riddle, Ross; Haskins, Jordan; Vassar, Matt

2017-01-01

With efforts to combat opioid use disorder, there is an increased interest in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for opioid use disorder treatments. No literature exists examining the quality of systematic reviews used in opioid use disorder CPGs. This study aims to describe the methodological quality and reporting clarity of systematic reviews (SRs) used to create CPGs for opioid use disorder. From June to July 2016 guideline clearinghouses and medical literature databases were searched for relevant CPGs used in the treatment of opioid use disorder. Included CPGs must have been recognized by a national organization. SRs from the reference section of each CPG was scored by using AMSTAR (a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews) tool and PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) checklist. Seventeen CPGs from 2006-2016 were included in the review. From these, 57 unique SRs were extracted. SRS comprised 0.28% to 17.92% of all references found in the CPGs. All SRs obtained moderate or high methodological quality score on the AMSTAR tool. All reviews met at least 70% of PRISMA criteria. In PRISMA, underperforming areas included accurate title labeling, protocol registration, and risk of bias. Underperforming areas in AMSTAR included conflicts of interest, funding, and publication bias. A positive correlation was found between AMSTAR and PRISMA scores (r = .79). Although the SRs in the CPGs were of good quality, there are still areas for improvement. Systematic reviewers should consult PRISMA and AMSTAR when conducting and reporting reviews. It is important for CPG developers to consider methodological quality as a factor when developing CPG recommendations, recognizing that the quality of systematic reviews underpinning guidelines does not necessarily correspond to the quality of the guideline itself.

Results and Systematic Studies of the UCN Lifetime Experiment at NIST

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Huffer, Craig Reeves

The neutron beta-decay lifetime is important in understanding weak interactions in the framework of the Standard Model, and it is an input to nuclear astrophysics and Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. Current measurements of the neutron beta-decay lifetime disagree, which has motivated additional experiments that are sensitive to different sets of systematic effects. An effort continues at the NIST Center for Neutron Research (NCNR) to improve the statistical and systematic limitations of an experiment to measure the neutron beta-decay lifetime using magnetically trapped UCN. In the experiment, a monoenergetic 0:89 nm cold neutron is incident on a superfluid 4He target within the minimum field region of an Ioffe type magnetic trap. Some of the neutrons are subsequently downscattered by single phonons in the helium to low energies (≈ 200 neV), and those in the appropriate spin state become trapped. The inverse process, upscattering of UCN, is suppressed by the low phonon density in the < 300 mK helium. When the neutron decays, the energetic electron creates EUV scintillation light, which is down-converted and transported out of the cell to PMTs operated at room temperature. With this method, the decay of the UCN population can be monitored in situ. The apparatus, analysis, data, and systematics will be discussed. After accounting for the systematic effects the measured lifetime disagrees with the current PDG mean neutron beta-decay lifetime by about 9 of our standard deviations, which is a strong indication of unaccounted for systematic effects. Additional 3He contamination will be shown to be the most likely candidate for the additional systematic shift, which motivated the commissioning and initial operation of a heat flush purifier for purifying additional 4He. This work ends with a description of the 4He purifier and its performance.

Comparative analysis of whole mount processing and systematic sampling of radical prostatectomy specimens: pathological outcomes and risk of biochemical recurrence.

PubMed

Salem, Shady; Chang, Sam S; Clark, Peter E; Davis, Rodney; Herrell, S Duke; Kordan, Yakup; Wills, Marcia L; Shappell, Scott B; Baumgartner, Roxelyn; Phillips, Sharon; Smith, Joseph A; Cookson, Michael S; Barocas, Daniel A

2010-10-01

Whole mount processing is more resource intensive than routine systematic sampling of radical retropubic prostatectomy specimens. We compared whole mount and systematic sampling for detecting pathological outcomes, and compared the prognostic value of pathological findings across pathological methods. We included men (608 whole mount and 525 systematic sampling samples) with no prior treatment who underwent radical retropubic prostatectomy at Vanderbilt University Medical Center between January 2000 and June 2008. We used univariate and multivariate analysis to compare the pathological outcome detection rate between pathological methods. Kaplan-Meier curves and the log rank test were used to compare the prognostic value of pathological findings across pathological methods. There were no significant differences between the whole mount and the systematic sampling groups in detecting extraprostatic extension (25% vs 30%), positive surgical margins (31% vs 31%), pathological Gleason score less than 7 (49% vs 43%), 7 (39% vs 43%) or greater than 7 (12% vs 13%), seminal vesicle invasion (8% vs 10%) or lymph node involvement (3% vs 5%). Tumor volume was higher in the systematic sampling group and whole mount detected more multiple surgical margins (each p <0.01). There were no significant differences in the likelihood of biochemical recurrence between the pathological methods when patients were stratified by pathological outcome. Except for estimated tumor volume and multiple margins whole mount and systematic sampling yield similar pathological information. Each method stratifies patients into comparable risk groups for biochemical recurrence. Thus, while whole mount is more resource intensive, it does not appear to result in improved detection of clinically important pathological outcomes or prognostication. Copyright © 2010 American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Recent meta-analyses neglect previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses about the same topic: a systematic examination.

PubMed

Helfer, Bartosz; Prosser, Aaron; Samara, Myrto T; Geddes, John R; Cipriani, Andrea; Davis, John M; Mavridis, Dimitris; Salanti, Georgia; Leucht, Stefan

2015-04-14

As the number of systematic reviews is growing rapidly, we systematically investigate whether meta-analyses published in leading medical journals present an outline of available evidence by referring to previous meta-analyses and systematic reviews. We searched PubMed for recent meta-analyses of pharmacological treatments published in high impact factor journals. Previous systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified with electronic searches of keywords and by searching reference sections. We analyzed the number of meta-analyses and systematic reviews that were cited, described and discussed in each recent meta-analysis. Moreover, we investigated publication characteristics that potentially influence the referencing practices. We identified 52 recent meta-analyses and 242 previous meta-analyses on the same topics. Of these, 66% of identified previous meta-analyses were cited, 36% described, and only 20% discussed by recent meta-analyses. The probability of citing a previous meta-analysis was positively associated with its publication in a journal with a higher impact factor (odds ratio, 1.49; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 2.10) and more recent publication year (odds ratio, 1.19; 95% confidence interval 1.03 to 1.37). Additionally, the probability of a previous study being described by the recent meta-analysis was inversely associated with the concordance of results (odds ratio, 0.38; 95% confidence interval, 0.17 to 0.88), and the probability of being discussed was increased for previous studies that employed meta-analytic methods (odds ratio, 32.36; 95% confidence interval, 2.00 to 522.85). Meta-analyses on pharmacological treatments do not consistently refer to and discuss findings of previous meta-analyses on the same topic. Such neglect can lead to research waste and be confusing for readers. Journals should make the discussion of related meta-analyses mandatory.

Compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) literature search reporting guidelines.

PubMed

Toews, Lorraine C

2017-07-01

Complete, accurate reporting of systematic reviews facilitates assessment of how well reviews have been conducted. The primary objective of this study was to examine compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for literature search reporting and to examine the completeness, bias, and reproducibility of the searches in these reviews from what was reported. The second objective was to examine reporting of the credentials and contributions of those involved in the search process. A sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in veterinary journals between 2011 and 2015 was obtained by searching PubMed. Reporting in the full text of each review was checked against certain PRISMA checklist items. Over one-third of reviews (37%) did not search the CAB Abstracts database, and 9% of reviews searched only 1 database. Over two-thirds of reviews (65%) did not report any search for grey literature or stated that they excluded grey literature. The majority of reviews (95%) did not report a reproducible search strategy. Most reviews had significant deficiencies in reporting the search process that raise questions about how these searches were conducted and ultimately cast serious doubts on the validity and reliability of reviews based on a potentially biased and incomplete body of literature. These deficiencies also highlight the need for veterinary journal editors and publishers to be more rigorous in requiring adherence to PRISMA guidelines and to encourage veterinary researchers to include librarians or information specialists on systematic review teams to improve the quality and reporting of searches.

Scientific publications on systematic review and meta-analysis from Chinese authors: a 10-year survey of the English literature.

PubMed

Yang, Zhiping; Wu, Qiong; Wu, Kaichun; Fan, Daiming

2012-03-01

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are playing an increasingly important role in clinical research and practice. This study aimed to measure the scientific production of systematic review and meta-analysis from the three major regions of China: the Mainland (ML), Hong Kong (HK), and Taiwan (TW). English articles on systematic review and meta-analysis from ML, HK, and TW from 2001 to 2010 were retrieved from the PubMed database. The total number of articles, impact factors (IF), and articles published in high-impact journals were conducted for quantity and quality comparisons among the three regions. There were 1 587 published articles from ML (1 292), HK (203), and TW (92) during the past ten years. The annual total numbers of articles in the three regions increased significantly from 2001 to 2010 (from 13 to 677). The number of articles from ML has exceeded that from TW since 2001, and surpassed that from HK in 2003. The accumulated IF of articles from ML (3 488.24) was higher than those from HK (493.16) and TW (216.39). HK had the highest average IF of 3.31, followed by ML of 2.90 and TW of 2.85. Researchers from HK published a larger proportion of papers in high-impact journals than those from ML and TW. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was the most popular journal in China. Chinese authors have been very active to enhance the systematic review and meta-analysis research over the past ten years, especially in ML. The gap between ML and the other two regions has been narrowed. But there is still considerable room for Chinese authors to improve their studies on systematic review and meta-analysis.

Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

Background Systematic reviews have been challenged to consider effects on disadvantaged groups. A priori specification of subgroup analyses is recommended to increase the credibility of these analyses. This study aimed to develop and assess inter-rater agreement for an algorithm for systematic review authors to predict whether differences in effect measures are likely for disadvantaged populations relative to advantaged populations (only relative effect measures were addressed). Methods A health equity plausibility algorithm was developed using clinimetric methods with three items based on literature review, key informant interviews and methodology studies. The three items dealt with the plausibility of differences in relative effects across sex or socioeconomic status (SES) due to: 1) patient characteristics; 2) intervention delivery (i.e., implementation); and 3) comparators. Thirty-five respondents (consisting of clinicians, methodologists and research users) assessed the likelihood of differences across sex and SES for ten systematic reviews with these questions. We assessed inter-rater reliability using Fleiss multi-rater kappa. Results The proportion agreement was 66% for patient characteristics (95% confidence interval: 61%-71%), 67% for intervention delivery (95% confidence interval: 62% to 72%) and 55% for the comparator (95% confidence interval: 50% to 60%). Inter-rater kappa, assessed with Fleiss kappa, ranged from 0 to 0.199, representing very low agreement beyond chance. Conclusions Users of systematic reviews rated that important differences in relative effects across sex and socioeconomic status were plausible for a range of individual and population-level interventions. However, there was very low inter-rater agreement for these assessments. There is an unmet need for discussion of plausibility of differential effects in systematic reviews. Increased consideration of external validity and applicability to different populations and settings is warranted in systematic reviews to meet this need. PMID:23253632

Planck 2015 results: III. LFI systematic uncertainties

DOE PAGES

Ade, P. A. R.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.; ...

2016-09-20

In this paper, we present the current accounting of systematic effect uncertainties for the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI) that are relevant to the 2015 release of the Planck cosmological results, showing the robustness and consistency of our data set, especially for polarization analysis. We use two complementary approaches: (i) simulations based on measured data and physical models of the known systematic effects; and (ii) analysis of difference maps containing the same sky signal (“null-maps”). The LFI temperature data are limited by instrumental noise. At large angular scales the systematic effects are below the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature power spectrummore » by several orders of magnitude. In polarization the systematic uncertainties are dominated by calibration uncertainties and compete with the CMB E-modes in the multipole range 10–20. Based on our model of all known systematic effects, we show that these effects introduce a slight bias of around 0.2σ on the reionization optical depth derived from the 70GHz EE spectrum using the 30 and 353GHz channels as foreground templates. At 30GHz the systematic effects are smaller than the Galactic foreground at all scales in temperature and polarization, which allows us to consider this channel as a reliable template of synchrotron emission. We assess the residual uncertainties due to LFI effects on CMB maps and power spectra after component separation and show that these effects are smaller than the CMB amplitude at all scales. We also assess the impact on non-Gaussianity studies and find it to be negligible. Finally, some residuals still appear in null maps from particular sky survey pairs, particularly at 30 GHz, suggesting possible straylight contamination due to an imperfect knowledge of the beam far sidelobes.« less

Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians

PubMed Central

Nicholson, Joey; McCrillis, Aileen; Williams, Jeff D.

2017-01-01

Objective: While many librarians have been asked to participate in systematic reviews with researchers, often these researchers are not familiar with the systematic review process or the appropriate role for librarians. The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges and barriers that librarians face when collaborating on systematic reviews. To take a wider view of the whole process of collaborating on systematic reviews, the authors deliberately focused on interpersonal and methodological issues other than searching itself. Methods: To characterize the biggest challenges that librarians face while collaborating on systematic review projects, we used a web-based survey. The thirteen-item survey included seventeen challenges grouped into two categories: methodological and interpersonal. Participants were required to indicate the frequency and difficulty of the challenges listed. Open-ended questions allowed survey participants to describe challenges not listed in the survey and to describe strategies used to overcome challenges. Results: Of the 17 challenges listed in the survey, 8 were reported as common by over 40% of respondents. These included methodological issues around having too broad or narrow research questions, lacking eligibility criteria, having unclear research questions, and not following established methods. The remaining challenges were interpersonal, including issues around student-led projects and the size of the research team. Of the top 8 most frequent challenges, 5 were also ranked as most difficult to handle. Open-ended responses underscored many of the challenges included in the survey and revealed several additional challenges. Conclusions: These results suggest that the most frequent and challenging issues relate to development of the research question and general communication with team members. Clear protocols for collaboration on systematic reviews, as well as a culture of mentorship, can help librarians prevent and address these challenges. PMID:28983202

The difficulties of systematic reviews.

PubMed

Westgate, Martin J; Lindenmayer, David B

2017-10-01

The need for robust evidence to support conservation actions has driven the adoption of systematic approaches to research synthesis in ecology. However, applying systematic review to complex or open questions remains challenging, and this task is becoming more difficult as the quantity of scientific literature increases. We drew on the science of linguistics for guidance as to why the process of identifying and sorting information during systematic review remains so labor intensive, and to provide potential solutions. Several linguistic properties of peer-reviewed corpora-including nonrandom selection of review topics, small-world properties of semantic networks, and spatiotemporal variation in word meaning-greatly increase the effort needed to complete the systematic review process. Conversely, the resolution of these semantic complexities is a common motivation for narrative reviews, but this process is rarely enacted with the rigor applied during linguistic analysis. Therefore, linguistics provides a unifying framework for understanding some key challenges of systematic review and highlights 2 useful directions for future research. First, in cases where semantic complexity generates barriers to synthesis, ecologists should consider drawing on existing methods-such as natural language processing or the construction of research thesauri and ontologies-that provide tools for mapping and resolving that complexity. These tools could help individual researchers classify research material in a more robust manner and provide valuable guidance for future researchers on that topic. Second, a linguistic perspective highlights that scientific writing is a rich resource worthy of detailed study, an observation that can sometimes be lost during the search for data during systematic review or meta-analysis. For example, mapping semantic networks can reveal redundancy and complementarity among scientific concepts, leading to new insights and research questions. Consequently, wider adoption of linguistic approaches may facilitate improved rigor and richness in research synthesis. © 2017 Society for Conservation Biology.

Systematic reviews need to consider applicability to disadvantaged populations: inter-rater agreement for a health equity plausibility algorithm.

PubMed

Welch, Vivian; Brand, Kevin; Kristjansson, Elizabeth; Smylie, Janet; Wells, George; Tugwell, Peter

2012-12-19

Systematic reviews have been challenged to consider effects on disadvantaged groups. A priori specification of subgroup analyses is recommended to increase the credibility of these analyses. This study aimed to develop and assess inter-rater agreement for an algorithm for systematic review authors to predict whether differences in effect measures are likely for disadvantaged populations relative to advantaged populations (only relative effect measures were addressed). A health equity plausibility algorithm was developed using clinimetric methods with three items based on literature review, key informant interviews and methodology studies. The three items dealt with the plausibility of differences in relative effects across sex or socioeconomic status (SES) due to: 1) patient characteristics; 2) intervention delivery (i.e., implementation); and 3) comparators. Thirty-five respondents (consisting of clinicians, methodologists and research users) assessed the likelihood of differences across sex and SES for ten systematic reviews with these questions. We assessed inter-rater reliability using Fleiss multi-rater kappa. The proportion agreement was 66% for patient characteristics (95% confidence interval: 61%-71%), 67% for intervention delivery (95% confidence interval: 62% to 72%) and 55% for the comparator (95% confidence interval: 50% to 60%). Inter-rater kappa, assessed with Fleiss kappa, ranged from 0 to 0.199, representing very low agreement beyond chance. Users of systematic reviews rated that important differences in relative effects across sex and socioeconomic status were plausible for a range of individual and population-level interventions. However, there was very low inter-rater agreement for these assessments. There is an unmet need for discussion of plausibility of differential effects in systematic reviews. Increased consideration of external validity and applicability to different populations and settings is warranted in systematic reviews to meet this need.

Planck 2015 results: III. LFI systematic uncertainties

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Ade, P. A. R.; Aumont, J.; Baccigalupi, C.

In this paper, we present the current accounting of systematic effect uncertainties for the Low Frequency Instrument (LFI) that are relevant to the 2015 release of the Planck cosmological results, showing the robustness and consistency of our data set, especially for polarization analysis. We use two complementary approaches: (i) simulations based on measured data and physical models of the known systematic effects; and (ii) analysis of difference maps containing the same sky signal (“null-maps”). The LFI temperature data are limited by instrumental noise. At large angular scales the systematic effects are below the cosmic microwave background (CMB) temperature power spectrummore » by several orders of magnitude. In polarization the systematic uncertainties are dominated by calibration uncertainties and compete with the CMB E-modes in the multipole range 10–20. Based on our model of all known systematic effects, we show that these effects introduce a slight bias of around 0.2σ on the reionization optical depth derived from the 70GHz EE spectrum using the 30 and 353GHz channels as foreground templates. At 30GHz the systematic effects are smaller than the Galactic foreground at all scales in temperature and polarization, which allows us to consider this channel as a reliable template of synchrotron emission. We assess the residual uncertainties due to LFI effects on CMB maps and power spectra after component separation and show that these effects are smaller than the CMB amplitude at all scales. We also assess the impact on non-Gaussianity studies and find it to be negligible. Finally, some residuals still appear in null maps from particular sky survey pairs, particularly at 30 GHz, suggesting possible straylight contamination due to an imperfect knowledge of the beam far sidelobes.« less

Assessment of Systematic Chromatic Errors that Impact Sub-1% Photometric Precision in Large-Area Sky Surveys

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Li, T. S.

Meeting the science goals for many current and future ground-based optical large-area sky surveys requires that the calibrated broadband photometry is stable in time and uniform over the sky to 1% precision or better. Past surveys have achieved photometric precision of 1-2% by calibrating the survey's stellar photometry with repeated measurements of a large number of stars observed in multiple epochs. The calibration techniques employed by these surveys only consider the relative frame-by-frame photometric zeropoint offset and the focal plane position-dependent illumination corrections, which are independent of the source color. However, variations in the wavelength dependence of the atmospheric transmissionmore » and the instrumental throughput induce source color-dependent systematic errors. These systematic errors must also be considered to achieve the most precise photometric measurements. In this paper, we examine such systematic chromatic errors using photometry from the Dark Energy Survey (DES) as an example. We define a natural magnitude system for DES and calculate the systematic errors on stellar magnitudes, when the atmospheric transmission and instrumental throughput deviate from the natural system. We conclude that the systematic chromatic errors caused by the change of airmass in each exposure, the change of the precipitable water vapor and aerosol in the atmosphere over time, and the non-uniformity of instrumental throughput over the focal plane, can be up to 2% in some bandpasses. We compare the calculated systematic chromatic errors with the observed DES data. For the test sample data, we correct these errors using measurements of the atmospheric transmission and instrumental throughput. The residual after correction is less than 0.3%. We also find that the errors for non-stellar objects are redshift-dependent and can be larger than those for stars at certain redshifts.« less

An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and meta-analyses

PubMed Central

2012-01-01

Background Health-evidence.ca is an online registry of systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions. Extensive searching of bibliographic databases is required to keep the registry up to date. However, search filters have been developed to assist in searching the extensive amount of published literature indexed. Search filters can be designed to find literature related to a certain subject (i.e. content-specific filter) or particular study designs (i.e. methodological filter). The objective of this paper is to describe the development and validation of the health-evidence.ca Systematic Review search filter and to compare its performance to other available systematic review filters. Methods This analysis of search filters was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL. The performance of thirty-one search filters in total was assessed. A validation data set of 219 articles indexed between January 2004 and December 2005 was used to evaluate performance on sensitivity, specificity, precision and the number needed to read for each filter. Results Nineteen of 31 search filters were effective in retrieving a high level of relevant articles (sensitivity scores greater than 85%). The majority achieved a high degree of sensitivity at the expense of precision and yielded large result sets. The main advantage of the health-evidence.ca Systematic Review search filter in comparison to the other filters was that it maintained the same level of sensitivity while reducing the number of articles that needed to be screened. Conclusions The health-evidence.ca Systematic Review search filter is a useful tool for identifying published systematic reviews, with further screening to identify those evaluating the effectiveness of public health interventions. The filter that narrows the focus saves considerable time and resources during updates of this online resource, without sacrificing sensitivity. PMID:22512835

Research Questions and Priorities for Tuberculosis: A Survey of Published Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PubMed Central

Nicolau, Ioana; Ling, Daphne; Tian, Lulu; Lienhardt, Christian; Pai, Madhukar

2012-01-01

Background Systematic reviews are increasingly informing policies in tuberculosis (TB) care and control. They may also be a source of questions for future research. As part of the process of developing the International Roadmap for TB Research, we did a systematic review of published systematic reviews on TB, to identify research priorities that are most frequently suggested in reviews. Methodology/Principal Findings We searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for systematic reviews and meta-analyses on any aspect of TB published between 2005 and 2010. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer independently extracted data from a random subset of included studies. In total, 137 systematic reviews, with 141 research questions, were included in this review. We used the UK Health Research Classification System (HRCS) to help us classify the research questions and priorities. The three most common research topics were in the area of detection, screening and diagnosis of TB (32.6%), development and evaluation of treatments and therapeutic interventions (23.4%), and TB aetiology and risk factors (19.9%). The research priorities determined were mainly focused on the discovery and evaluation of bacteriological TB tests and drug-resistant TB tests and immunological tests. Other important topics of future research were genetic susceptibility linked to TB and disease determinants attributed to HIV/TB. Evaluation of drug treatments for TB, drug-resistant TB and HIV/TB were also frequently proposed research topics. Conclusions Systematic reviews are a good source of key research priorities. Findings from our survey have informed the development of the International Roadmap for TB Research by the TB Research Movement. PMID:22848764

THE SYSTEMATICS OF STRONG LENS MODELING QUANTIFIED: THE EFFECTS OF CONSTRAINT SELECTION AND REDSHIFT INFORMATION ON MAGNIFICATION, MASS, AND MULTIPLE IMAGE PREDICTABILITY

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Johnson, Traci L.; Sharon, Keren, E-mail: tljohn@umich.edu

Until now, systematic errors in strong gravitational lens modeling have been acknowledged but have never been fully quantified. Here, we launch an investigation into the systematics induced by constraint selection. We model the simulated cluster Ares 362 times using random selections of image systems with and without spectroscopic redshifts and quantify the systematics using several diagnostics: image predictability, accuracy of model-predicted redshifts, enclosed mass, and magnification. We find that for models with >15 image systems, the image plane rms does not decrease significantly when more systems are added; however, the rms values quoted in the literature may be misleading asmore » to the ability of a model to predict new multiple images. The mass is well constrained near the Einstein radius in all cases, and systematic error drops to <2% for models using >10 image systems. Magnification errors are smallest along the straight portions of the critical curve, and the value of the magnification is systematically lower near curved portions. For >15 systems, the systematic error on magnification is ∼2%. We report no trend in magnification error with the fraction of spectroscopic image systems when selecting constraints at random; however, when using the same selection of constraints, increasing this fraction up to ∼0.5 will increase model accuracy. The results suggest that the selection of constraints, rather than quantity alone, determines the accuracy of the magnification. We note that spectroscopic follow-up of at least a few image systems is crucial because models without any spectroscopic redshifts are inaccurate across all of our diagnostics.« less

Current state of ethics literature synthesis: a systematic review of reviews.

PubMed

Mertz, Marcel; Kahrass, Hannes; Strech, Daniel

2016-10-03

Modern standards for evidence-based decision making in clinical care and public health still rely solely on eminence-based input when it comes to normative ethical considerations. Manuals for clinical guideline development or health technology assessment (HTA) do not explain how to search, analyze, and synthesize relevant normative information in a systematic and transparent manner. In the scientific literature, however, systematic or semi-systematic reviews of ethics literature already exist, and scholarly debate on their opportunities and limitations has recently bloomed. A systematic review was performed of all existing systematic or semi-systematic reviews for normative ethics literature on medical topics. The study further assessed how these reviews report on their methods for search, selection, analysis, and synthesis of ethics literature. We identified 84 reviews published between 1997 and 2015 in 65 different journals and demonstrated an increasing publication rate for this type of review. While most reviews reported on different aspects of search and selection methods, reporting was much less explicit for aspects of analysis and synthesis methods: 31 % did not fulfill any criteria related to the reporting of analysis methods; for example, only 25 % of the reviews reported the ethical approach needed to analyze and synthesize normative information. While reviews of ethics literature are increasingly published, their reporting quality for analysis and synthesis of normative information should be improved. Guiding questions are: What was the applied ethical approach and technical procedure for identifying and extracting the relevant normative information units? What method and procedure was employed for synthesizing normative information? Experts and stakeholders from bioethics, HTA, guideline development, health care professionals, and patient organizations should work together to further develop this area of evidence-based health care.

Do health technology assessments comply with QUOROM diagram guidance? An empirical study.

PubMed

Hind, Daniel; Booth, Andrew

2007-11-20

The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement provides guidance for improving the quality of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. To make the process of study selection transparent it recommends "a flow diagram providing information about the number of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for excluding them". We undertook an empirical study to identify the extent of compliance in the UK Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. We searched Medline to retrieve all systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions in the HTA monograph series published from 2001 to 2005. Two researchers recorded whether each study contained a meta-analysis of controlled trials, whether a QUOROM flow diagram was presented and, if so, whether it expressed the relationship between the number of citations and the number of studies. We used Cohen's kappa to test inter-rater reliability. 87 systematic reviews were retrieved. There was good and excellent inter-rater reliability for, respectively, whether a review contained a meta-analysis and whether each diagram contained a citation-to-study relationship. 49% of systematic reviews used a study selection flow diagram. When only systematic reviews containing a meta-analysis were analysed, compliance was only 32%. Only 20 studies (23% of all systematic reviews; 43% of those having a study selection diagram) had a diagram which expressed the relationship between citations and studies. Compliance with the recommendations of the QUOROM statement is not universal in systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Flow diagrams make the conduct of study selection transparent only if the relationship between citations and studies is clearly expressed. Reviewers should understand what they are counting: citations, papers, studies and trials are fundamentally different concepts which should not be confused in a diagram.

Oral Chinese proprietary medicine for angina pectoris: an overview of systematic reviews/meta-analyses.

PubMed

Luo, Jing; Xu, Hao; Yang, Guoyan; Qiu, Yu; Liu, Jianping; Chen, Keji

2014-08-01

Oral Chinese proprietary medicine (CPM) is commonly used to treat angina pectoris, and many relevant systematic reviews/meta-analyses are available. However, these reviews have not been systematically summarized and evaluated. We conducted an overview of these reviews, and explored their methodological and reporting quality to inform both practice and further research. We included systematic reviews/meta-analyses on oral CPM in treating angina until March 2013 by searching PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and four Chinese databases. We extracted data according to a pre-designed form, and assessed the methodological and reporting characteristics of the reviews in terms of AMSTAR and PRISMA respectively. Most of the data analyses were descriptive. 36 systematic reviews/meta-analyses involving over 82,105 participants with angina reviewing 13 kinds of oral CPM were included. The main outcomes assessed in the reviews were surrogate outcomes (34/36, 94.4%), adverse events (31/36, 86.1%), and symptoms (30/36, 83.3%). Six reviews (6/36, 16.7%) drew definitely positive conclusions, while the others suggested potential benefits in the symptoms, electrocardiogram, and adverse events. The overall methodological and reporting quality of the reviews was limited, with many serious flaws such as the lack of review protocol and incomprehensive literature searches. Though many systematic reviews/meta-analyses on oral CPM for angina suggested potential benefits or definitely positive effects, stakeholders should interpret the findings of these reviews with caution, considering the overall limited methodological and reporting quality. We recommend further studies should be appropriately conducted and systematic reviews reported according to PRISMA standard. Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Collaboration challenges in systematic reviews: a survey of health sciences librarians.

PubMed

Nicholson, Joey; McCrillis, Aileen; Williams, Jeff D

2017-10-01

While many librarians have been asked to participate in systematic reviews with researchers, often these researchers are not familiar with the systematic review process or the appropriate role for librarians. The purpose of this study was to identify the challenges and barriers that librarians face when collaborating on systematic reviews. To take a wider view of the whole process of collaborating on systematic reviews, the authors deliberately focused on interpersonal and methodological issues other than searching itself. To characterize the biggest challenges that librarians face while collaborating on systematic review projects, we used a web-based survey. The thirteen-item survey included seventeen challenges grouped into two categories: methodological and interpersonal. Participants were required to indicate the frequency and difficulty of the challenges listed. Open-ended questions allowed survey participants to describe challenges not listed in the survey and to describe strategies used to overcome challenges. Of the 17 challenges listed in the survey, 8 were reported as common by over 40% of respondents. These included methodological issues around having too broad or narrow research questions, lacking eligibility criteria, having unclear research questions, and not following established methods. The remaining challenges were interpersonal, including issues around student-led projects and the size of the research team. Of the top 8 most frequent challenges, 5 were also ranked as most difficult to handle. Open-ended responses underscored many of the challenges included in the survey and revealed several additional challenges. These results suggest that the most frequent and challenging issues relate to development of the research question and general communication with team members. Clear protocols for collaboration on systematic reviews, as well as a culture of mentorship, can help librarians prevent and address these challenges.

The discovery of the body: human dissection and its cultural contexts in ancient Greece.

PubMed Central

von Staden, H.

1992-01-01

In the first half of the third century B.C, two Greeks, Herophilus of Chalcedon and his younger contemporary Erasistratus of Ceos, became the first and last ancient scientists to perform systematic dissections of human cadavers. In all probability, they also conducted vivisections of condemned criminals. Their anatomical and physiological discoveries were extraordinary. The uniqueness of these events presents an intriguing historical puzzle. Animals had been dissected by Aristotle in the preceding century (and partly dissected by other Greeks in earlier centuries), and, later, Galen (second century A.D.) and others again systematically dissected numerous animals. But no ancient scientists ever seem to have resumed systematic human dissection. This paper explores, first, the cultural factors--including traditional Greek attitudes to the corpse and to the skin, also as manifested in Greek sacred laws--that may have prevented systematic human dissection during almost all of Greek antiquity, from the Pre-Socratic philosopher-scientists of the sixth and fifth centuries B.C. to distinguished Greek physicians of the later Roman Empire. Second, the exceptional constellation of cultural, political, and social circumstances in early Alexandria that might have emboldened Herophilus to overcome the pressures of cultural traditions and to initiate systematic human dissection, is analyzed. Finally, the paper explores possible reasons for the mysteriously abrupt disappearance of systematic human dissection from Greek science after the death of Erasistratus and Herophilus. PMID:1285450

The effects of clinical supervision on supervisees and patients in cognitive-behavioral therapy: a study protocol for a systematic review.

PubMed

Alfonsson, Sven; Spännargård, Åsa; Parling, Thomas; Andersson, Gerhard; Lundgren, Tobias

2017-05-11

Clinical supervision by a senior therapist is a very common practice in psychotherapist training and psychiatric care settings. Though clinical supervision is advocated by most educational and governing institutions, the effects of clinical supervision on the supervisees' competence, e.g., attitudes, behaviors, and skills, as well as on treatment outcomes and other patient variables are debated and largely unknown. Evidence-based practice is advocated in clinical settings but has not yet been fully implemented in educational or clinical training settings. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize and present the empirical literature regarding effects of clinical supervision in cognitive-behavioral therapy. This study will include a systematic review of the literature to identify studies that have empirically investigated the effects of supervision on supervised psychotherapists and/or the supervisees' patients. A comprehensive search strategy will be conducted to identify published controlled studies indexed in the MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library databases. Data on supervision outcomes in both psychotherapists and their patients will be extracted, synthesized, and reported. Risk of bias and quality of the included studies will be assessed systematically. This systematic review will rigorously follow established guidelines for systematic reviews in order to summarize and present the evidence base for clinical supervision in cognitive-behavioral therapy and may aid further research and discussion in this area. PROSPERO CRD42016046834.

Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cross-Correlation Redshifts - Methods and Systematics Characterization

DOE PAGES

Gatti, M.

2018-02-22

We use numerical simulations to characterize the performance of a clustering-based method to calibrate photometric redshift biases. In particular, we cross-correlate the weak lensing (WL) source galaxies from the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 (DES Y1) sample with redMaGiC galaxies (luminous red galaxies with secure photometric red- shifts) to estimate the redshift distribution of the former sample. The recovered redshift distributions are used to calibrate the photometric redshift bias of standard photo-z methods applied to the same source galaxy sample. We also apply the method to three photo-z codes run in our simulated data: Bayesian Photometric Redshift (BPZ), Directional Neighborhoodmore » Fitting (DNF), and Random Forest-based photo-z (RF). We characterize the systematic uncertainties of our calibration procedure, and find that these systematic uncertainties dominate our error budget. The dominant systematics are due to our assumption of unevolving bias and clustering across each redshift bin, and to differences between the shapes of the redshift distributions derived by clustering vs photo-z's. The systematic uncertainty in the mean redshift bias of the source galaxy sample is z ≲ 0.02, though the precise value depends on the redshift bin under consideration. Here, we discuss possible ways to mitigate the impact of our dominant systematics in future analyses.« less

Dark Energy Survey Year 1 Results: Cross-Correlation Redshifts - Methods and Systematics Characterization

DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI.GOV)

Gatti, M.

We use numerical simulations to characterize the performance of a clustering-based method to calibrate photometric redshift biases. In particular, we cross-correlate the weak lensing (WL) source galaxies from the Dark Energy Survey Year 1 (DES Y1) sample with redMaGiC galaxies (luminous red galaxies with secure photometric red- shifts) to estimate the redshift distribution of the former sample. The recovered redshift distributions are used to calibrate the photometric redshift bias of standard photo-z methods applied to the same source galaxy sample. We also apply the method to three photo-z codes run in our simulated data: Bayesian Photometric Redshift (BPZ), Directional Neighborhoodmore » Fitting (DNF), and Random Forest-based photo-z (RF). We characterize the systematic uncertainties of our calibration procedure, and find that these systematic uncertainties dominate our error budget. The dominant systematics are due to our assumption of unevolving bias and clustering across each redshift bin, and to differences between the shapes of the redshift distributions derived by clustering vs photo-z's. The systematic uncertainty in the mean redshift bias of the source galaxy sample is z ≲ 0.02, though the precise value depends on the redshift bin under consideration. Here, we discuss possible ways to mitigate the impact of our dominant systematics in future analyses.« less

Linear Models for Systematics and Nuisances

NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)

Luger, Rodrigo; Foreman-Mackey, Daniel; Hogg, David W.

2017-12-01

The target of many astronomical studies is the recovery of tiny astrophysical signals living in a sea of uninteresting (but usually dominant) noise. In many contexts (i.e., stellar time-series, or high-contrast imaging, or stellar spectroscopy), there are structured components in this noise caused by systematic effects in the astronomical source, the atmosphere, the telescope, or the detector. More often than not, evaluation of the true physical model for these nuisances is computationally intractable and dependent on too many (unknown) parameters to allow rigorous probabilistic inference. Sometimes, housekeeping data---and often the science data themselves---can be used as predictors of the systematic noise. Linear combinations of simple functions of these predictors are often used as computationally tractable models that can capture the nuisances. These models can be used to fit and subtract systematics prior to investigation of the signals of interest, or they can be used in a simultaneous fit of the systematics and the signals. In this Note, we show that if a Gaussian prior is placed on the weights of the linear components, the weights can be marginalized out with an operation in pure linear algebra, which can (often) be made fast. We illustrate this model by demonstrating the applicability of a linear model for the non-linear systematics in K2 time-series data, where the dominant noise source for many stars is spacecraft motion and variability.

Cross Deployment Networking and Systematic Performance Analysis of Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks.

PubMed

Wei, Zhengxian; Song, Min; Yin, Guisheng; Wang, Hongbin; Ma, Xuefei; Song, Houbing

2017-07-12

Underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) have become a new hot research area. However, due to the work dynamics and harsh ocean environment, how to obtain an UWSN with the best systematic performance while deploying as few sensor nodes as possible and setting up self-adaptive networking is an urgent problem that needs to be solved. Consequently, sensor deployment, networking, and performance calculation of UWSNs are challenging issues, hence the study in this paper centers on this topic and three relevant methods and models are put forward. Firstly, the normal body-centered cubic lattice to cross body-centered cubic lattice (CBCL) has been improved, and a deployment process and topology generation method are built. Then most importantly, a cross deployment networking method (CDNM) for UWSNs suitable for the underwater environment is proposed. Furthermore, a systematic quar-performance calculation model (SQPCM) is proposed from an integrated perspective, in which the systematic performance of a UWSN includes coverage, connectivity, durability and rapid-reactivity. Besides, measurement models are established based on the relationship between systematic performance and influencing parameters. Finally, the influencing parameters are divided into three types, namely, constraint parameters, device performance and networking parameters. Based on these, a networking parameters adjustment method (NPAM) for optimized systematic performance of UWSNs has been presented. The simulation results demonstrate that the approach proposed in this paper is feasible and efficient in networking and performance calculation of UWSNs.

The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

PubMed

Hutton, Brian; Salanti, Georgia; Caldwell, Deborah M; Chaimani, Anna; Schmid, Christopher H; Cameron, Chris; Ioannidis, John P A; Straus, Sharon; Thorlund, Kristian; Jansen, Jeroen P; Mulrow, Cynthia; Catalá-López, Ferrán; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Dickersin, Kay; Boutron, Isabelle; Altman, Douglas G; Moher, David

2015-06-02

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

The Use of Systematic Reviews and Reporting Guidelines to Advance the Implementation of the 3Rs

PubMed Central

Avey, Marc T; Fenwick, Nicole; Griffin, Gilly

2015-01-01

In 1959, Russell and Burch published The Principles of Humane Experimental Technique, which included concrete advice on factors that they considered would govern progress in the implementation of these principles (enunciated as the 3Rs [Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement in animal-based studies]). One challenge to the implementation of the 3Rs was identified as information retrieval. Here, we further explore this challenge—the need for ‘research on research’—and the role that systematic reviews and reporting guidelines can play in implementation of the 3Rs. First, we examine the 2-fold nature of the challenge of information retrieval: 1) the identification of relevant publications spread throughout a large population of nonrelevant publications and 2) the incomplete reporting of relevant details within those publications. Second, we evaluate how systematic reviews and reporting guidelines can be used generally to address this challenge. Third, we assess the explicit reporting of the 3Rs in a cohort of preclinical animal systematic reviews. Our results show that Reduction methods are the most commonly reported by authors of systematic reviews but that, in general, reporting on how findings relate to the 3Rs is limited at best. Although systematic reviews are excellent tools for resolving the challenge of information retrieval, their utility for making progress in implementation of the 3Rs may be limited unless authors improve their reporting of these principles. PMID:25836961

The risk of bias in systematic reviews tool showed fair reliability and good construct validity.

PubMed

Bühn, Stefanie; Mathes, Tim; Prengel, Peggy; Wegewitz, Uta; Ostermann, Thomas; Robens, Sibylle; Pieper, Dawid

2017-11-01

There is a movement from generic quality checklists toward a more domain-based approach in critical appraisal tools. This study aimed to report on a first experience with the newly developed risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool and compare it with A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR), that is, the most common used tool to assess methodological quality of systematic reviews while assessing validity, reliability, and applicability. Validation study with four reviewers based on 16 systematic reviews in the field of occupational health. Interrater reliability (IRR) of all four raters was highest for domain 2 (Fleiss' kappa κ = 0.56) and lowest for domain 4 (κ = 0.04). For ROBIS, median IRR was κ = 0.52 (range 0.13-0.88) for the experienced pair of raters compared to κ = 0.32 (range 0.12-0.76) for the less experienced pair of raters. The percentage of "yes" scores of each review of ROBIS ratings was strongly correlated with the AMSTAR ratings (r s  = 0.76; P = 0.01). ROBIS has fair reliability and good construct validity to assess the risk of bias in systematic reviews. More validation studies are needed to investigate reliability and applicability, in particular. Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews.

PubMed

Briscoe, Simon

2018-03-01

The literature searches that are used to identify studies for inclusion in a systematic review should be comprehensively reported. This ensures that the literature searches are transparent and reproducible, which is important for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a systematic review and re-running the literature searches when conducting an update review. Web searching using search engines and the websites of topically relevant organisations is sometimes used as a supplementary literature search method. Previous research has shown that the reporting of web searching in systematic reviews often lacks important details and is thus not transparent or reproducible. Useful details to report about web searching include the name of the search engine or website, the URL, the date searched, the search strategy, and the number of results. This study reviews the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews published in the 6-month period August 2016 to January 2017 (n = 423). Of these reviews, 61 reviews reported using web searching using a search engine or website as a literature search method. In the majority of reviews, the reporting of web searching was found to lack essential detail for ensuring transparency and reproducibility, such as the search terms. Recommendations are made on how to improve the reporting of web searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Cross Deployment Networking and Systematic Performance Analysis of Underwater Wireless Sensor Networks

PubMed Central

Wei, Zhengxian; Song, Min; Yin, Guisheng; Wang, Hongbin; Ma, Xuefei

2017-01-01

Underwater wireless sensor networks (UWSNs) have become a new hot research area. However, due to the work dynamics and harsh ocean environment, how to obtain an UWSN with the best systematic performance while deploying as few sensor nodes as possible and setting up self-adaptive networking is an urgent problem that needs to be solved. Consequently, sensor deployment, networking, and performance calculation of UWSNs are challenging issues, hence the study in this paper centers on this topic and three relevant methods and models are put forward. Firstly, the normal body-centered cubic lattice to cross body-centered cubic lattice (CBCL) has been improved, and a deployment process and topology generation method are built. Then most importantly, a cross deployment networking method (CDNM) for UWSNs suitable for the underwater environment is proposed. Furthermore, a systematic quar-performance calculation model (SQPCM) is proposed from an integrated perspective, in which the systematic performance of a UWSN includes coverage, connectivity, durability and rapid-reactivity. Besides, measurement models are established based on the relationship between systematic performance and influencing parameters. Finally, the influencing parameters are divided into three types, namely, constraint parameters, device performance and networking parameters. Based on these, a networking parameters adjustment method (NPAM) for optimized systematic performance of UWSNs has been presented. The simulation results demonstrate that the approach proposed in this paper is feasible and efficient in networking and performance calculation of UWSNs. PMID:28704959

Roles for librarians in systematic reviews: a scoping review

PubMed Central

Spencer, Angela J.; Eldredge, Jonathan D.

2018-01-01

Objective What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians’ systematic reviews services. Methods For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. Results We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. Conclusion Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations. PMID:29339933

Stakeholder engagement opportunities in systematic reviews: knowledge transfer for policy and practice.

PubMed

Keown, Kiera; Van Eerd, Dwayne; Irvin, Emma

2008-01-01

Knowledge transfer and exchange is the process of increasing the awareness and use of research evidence in policy or practice decision making by nonresearch audiences or stakeholders. One way to accomplish this end is through ongoing interaction between researchers and interested nonresearch audiences, which provides an opportunity for the two groups to learn more about one another. The purpose of this article is to describe and discuss various stakeholder engagement opportunities that we employ throughout the stages of conducting a systematic review, to increase knowledge utilization within these audiences. Systematic reviews of the literature on a particular topic can provide an unbiased overview of the state of the literature. The engagement opportunities we have identified are topic consultation, feedback meetings during the review, member of review team, and involvement in dissemination. The potential benefits of including stakeholders in the process of a systematic review include increased relevance, clarity, and awareness of systematic review findings. A further benefit is the potential for increased dissemination of the findings. Challenges that researchers face are that stakeholder interactions can be time- and resource-intensive, it can be difficult balancing stakeholder desires with scientific rigor, and stakeholders may have difficulties accepting findings with which they do not agree. Despite these challenges we have included stakeholder involvement as a permanent step in the procedure of conducting a systematic review.

Evaluation of Role of Myofibroblasts in Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review.

PubMed

Sekhon, Harjeet K; Sircar, Keya; Kaur, Gurbani; Marwah, Muneet

2016-01-01

To conduct a systematic review on the role of myofibroblasts in progression of oral cancer. The myofibroblast is essential for the integrity of the mammalian body by virtue of its role in wound healing, but it also plays a negative role due to their role in promoting tumor development. Systematic review. Bibliographic searches were conducted in several electronic databases using all publications in PubMed, PubMed central, EMBASE, CancerLit, Google scholar, and Cochrane CCTR between 1990 and June 2015. The search of all publications from various electronic databases revealed 1,371 citations. The total number of studies considered for systematic review was 43. The total number of patients included in the studies was 990. Myofibroblasts are a significant component in stroma of oral cancer cases, though not identified in all cases. This systematic review shows that clinical, pathological, and immunohistochemistry tests have correlated the presence of high myofibroblast count in oral cancer cell stroma. Myofibroblasts play a significant role in oral cancer invasion and progression. Various studies have demonstrated their association with oral cancer. This review tends to highlight their role in the pathogenesis of oral cancer over the decade. Sekhon HK, Sircar K, Kaur G, Marwah M. Evaluation of Role of Myofibroblasts in Oral Cancer: A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(3):233-239.

A systematic meta-review of evaluations of youth violence prevention programs: Common and divergent findings from 25 years of meta-analyses and systematic reviews☆

PubMed Central

Matjasko, Jennifer L.; Vivolo-Kantor, Alana M.; Massetti, Greta M.; Holland, Kristin M.; Holt, Melissa K.; Cruz, Jason Dela

2018-01-01

Violence among youth is a pervasive public health problem. In order to make progress in reducing the burden of injury and mortality that result from youth violence, it is imperative to identify evidence-based programs and strategies that have a significant impact on violence. There have been many rigorous evaluations of youth violence prevention programs. However, the literature is large, and it is difficult to draw conclusions about what works across evaluations from different disciplines, contexts, and types of programs. The current study reviews the meta-analyses and systematic reviews published prior to 2009 that synthesize evaluations of youth violence prevention programs. This meta-review reports the findings from 37 meta-analyses and 15 systematic reviews; the included reviews were coded on measures of the social ecology, prevention approach, program type, and study design. A majority of the meta-analyses and systematic reviews were found to demonstrate moderate program effects. Meta-analyses yielded marginally smaller effect sizes compared to systematic reviews, and those that included programs targeting family factors showed marginally larger effects than those that did not. In addition, there are a wide range of individual/family, program, and study moderators of program effect sizes. Implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed. PMID:29503594

Systematic Review of the Literature on Pain in Patients with Polytrauma Including Traumatic Brain Injury

PubMed Central

Dobscha, Steven K.; Clark, Michael E.; Morasco, Benjamin J.; Freeman, Michele; Campbell, Rose; Helfand, Mark

2010-01-01

Objective To review the literature addressing the assessment and management of pain in patients with polytraumatic injuries including traumatic brain injury (TBI) and blast-related headache, and to identify patient, clinician and systems factors associated with pain-related outcomes. Design Systematic review. Methods We conducted searches in MEDLINE of literature published from 1950 through July 2008. Due to a limited number of studies using controls or comparators, we included observational and rigorous qualitative studies. We systematically rated the quality of systematic reviews, cohort, and case-control design studies. Results One systematic review, 93 observational studies, and one qualitative research study met inclusion criteria. The literature search yielded no published studies that assessed measures of pain intensity or pain-related functional interference among patients with cognitive deficits due to TBI, that compared patients with blast-related headache with patients with other types of headache, or that assessed treatments for blast-related headache pain. Studies on the association between TBI severity and pain reported mixed findings. There was limited evidence that the following factors are associated with pain among TBI patients: severity, location, and multiplicity of injuries; insomnia; fatigue; depression; and post-traumatic stress disorder. Conclusions Very little evidence is currently available to guide pain assessment and treatment approaches in patients with polytrauma. Further research employing systematic observational as well as controlled intervention designs is clearly indicated. PMID:19818031

Differences in handgrip strength protocols to identify sarcopenia and frailty - a systematic review.

PubMed

Sousa-Santos, A R; Amaral, T F

2017-10-16

Hand grip strength (HGS) is used for the diagnosis of sarcopenia and frailty. Several factors have been shown to influence HGS values during measurement. Therefore, variations in the protocols used to assess HGS, as part of the diagnosis of sarcopenia and frailty, may lead to the identification of different individuals with low HGS, introducing bias. The aim of this systematic review is to gather all the relevant studies that measured HGS to diagnose sarcopenia and frailty and to identify the differences between the protocols used. A systematic review was carried out following the recommendations of The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement. PubMed and Web of Science were systematically searched, until August 16, 2016. The evidence regarding HGS measurement protocols used to diagnose sarcopenia and frailty was summarised and the most recent protocols regarding the procedure were compared. From the described search 4393 articles were identified. Seventy-two studies were included in this systematic review, in which 37 referred to sarcopenia articles, 33 to frailty and two evaluated both conditions. Most studies presented limited information regarding the protocols used. The majority of the studies included did not describe a complete procedure of HGS measurement. The high heterogeneity between the protocols used, in sarcopenia and frailty studies, create an enormous difficulty in drawing comparative conclusions among them.

Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians.

PubMed

Murthy, Lakshmi; Shepperd, Sasha; Clarke, Mike J; Garner, Sarah E; Lavis, John N; Perrier, Laure; Roberts, Nia W; Straus, Sharon E

2012-09-12

Systematic reviews provide a transparent and robust summary of existing research. However, health system managers, national and local policy makers and healthcare professionals can face several obstacles when attempting to utilise this evidence. These include constraints operating within the health system, dealing with a large volume of research evidence and difficulties in adapting evidence from systematic reviews so that it is locally relevant. In an attempt to increase the use of systematic review evidence in decision-making a number of interventions have been developed. These include summaries of systematic review evidence that are designed to improve the accessibility of the findings of systematic reviews (often referred to as information products) and changes to organisational structures, such as employing specialist groups to synthesise the evidence to inform local decision-making. To identify and assess the effects of information products based on the findings of systematic review evidence and organisational supports and processes designed to support the uptake of systematic review evidence by health system managers, policy makers and healthcare professionals. We searched The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Health Economic Evaluations Database. We also handsearched two journals (Implementation Science and Evidence and Policy), Cochrane Colloquium abstracts, websites of key organisations and reference lists of studies considered for inclusion. Searches were run from 1992 to March 2011 on all databases, an update search to March 2012 was run on MEDLINE only. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs), interrupted time-series (ITS) and controlled before-after studies (CBA) of interventions designed to aid the use of systematic reviews in healthcare decision-making were considered. Two review authors independently extracted the data and assessed the study quality. We extracted the median value across similar outcomes for each study and reported the range of values for each median value. We calculated the median of the two middlemost values if an even number of outcomes were reported. We included eight studies evaluating the effectiveness of different interventions designed to support the uptake of systematic review evidence. The overall quality of the evidence was very low to moderate.Two cluster RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions, which contained access to systematic reviews relevant to reproductive health, to change obstetric care; the high baseline performance in some of the key clinical indicators limited the findings of these studies. There were no statistically significant effects on clinical practice for all but one of the clinical indicators in selected obstetric units in Thailand (median effect size 4.2%, range -11.2% to 18.2%) and none in Mexico (median effect size 3.5%, range 0.1% to 19.0%). In the second cluster RCT there were no statistically significant differences in selected obstetric units in the UK (median effect RR 0.92; range RR 0.57 to RR 1.10). One RCT evaluated the perceived understanding and ease of use of summary of findings tables in Cochrane Reviews. The median effect of the differences in responses for the acceptability of including summary of findings tables in Cochrane Reviews versus not including them was 16%, range 1% to 28%. One RCT evaluated the effect of an analgesic league table, derived from systematic review evidence, and there was no statistically significant effect on self-reported pain. Only one RCT evaluated an organisational intervention (which included a knowledge broker, access to a repository of systematic reviews and provision of tailored messages), and reported no statistically significant difference in evidence informed programme planning.Three interrupted time series studies evaluated the dissemination of printed bulletins based on evidence from systematic reviews. A statistically significant reduction in the rates of surgery for glue ear in children under 10 years (mean annual decline of -10.1%; 95% CI -7.9 to -12.3) and in children under 15 years (quarterly reduction -0.044; 95% CI -0.080 to -0.011) was reported. The distribution to general practitioners of a bulletin on the treatment of depression was associated with a statistically significant lower prescribing rate each quarter than that predicted by the rates of prescribing observed before the distribution of the bulletin (8.2%; P = 0.005). Mass mailing a printed bulletin which summarises systematic review evidence may improve evidence-based practice when there is a single clear message, if the change is relatively simple to accomplish, and there is a growing awareness by users of the evidence that a change in practice is required. If the intention is to develop awareness and knowledge of systematic review evidence, and the skills for implementing this evidence, a multifaceted intervention that addresses each of these aims may be required, though there is insufficient evidence to support this approach.

Systematic review and meta-analysis: tools for the information age.

PubMed

Weatherall, Mark

2017-11-01

The amount of available biomedical information is vast and growing. Natural limitations of the way clinicians and researchers approach this treasure trove of information comprise difficulties locating the information, and once located, cognitive biases may lead to inappropriate use of the information. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses represent important tools in the information age to improve knowledge and action. Systematic reviews represent a census approach to identifying literature to avoid non-response bias. They are a necessary prelude to producing combined quantitative summaries of associations or treatment effects. Meta-analysis comprises the arithmetical techniques for producing combined summaries from individual study reports. Careful, thoughtful and rigorous use of these tools is likely to enhance knowledge and action. Use of standard guidelines, such as the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, or embedding these activities within collaborative groups such as the Cochrane Collaboration, are likely to lead to more useful systematic review and meta-analysis reporting. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

A mixed-methods approach to systematic reviews.

PubMed

Pearson, Alan; White, Heath; Bath-Hextall, Fiona; Salmond, Susan; Apostolo, Joao; Kirkpatrick, Pamela

2015-09-01

There are an increasing number of published single-method systematic reviews that focus on different types of evidence related to a particular topic. As policy makers and practitioners seek clear directions for decision-making from systematic reviews, it is likely that it will be increasingly difficult for them to identify 'what to do' if they are required to find and understand a plethora of syntheses related to a particular topic.Mixed-methods systematic reviews are designed to address this issue and have the potential to produce systematic reviews of direct relevance to policy makers and practitioners.On the basis of the recommendations of the Joanna Briggs Institute International Mixed Methods Reviews Methodology Group in 2012, the Institute adopted a segregated approach to mixed-methods synthesis as described by Sandelowski et al., which consists of separate syntheses of each component method of the review. Joanna Briggs Institute's mixed-methods synthesis of the findings of the separate syntheses uses a Bayesian approach to translate the findings of the initial quantitative synthesis into qualitative themes and pooling these with the findings of the initial qualitative synthesis.

[Prognosis and treatment of dry mouth. Systematic review].

PubMed

López-López, José; Jané Salas, Enric; Chimenos Küstner, Eduardo

2014-02-04

There are no clearly established protocols for the treatment of dry mouth. The aim of this paper is a systematic review of the literature of the past 10 years using the words « dry mouth », « prognosis », « treatment » and « dentistry ». The initial search found 1,450 entries and within the restriction « clinical trials OR randomized controlled trial OR systemic reviews » it has been reduced to 522, which 145 were meta-analysis and systematic reviews. Papers not relevant to the issue were removed reducing the entries to 53. Twenty-four were dismissed (8 irrelevant, 7 reviews without adequate information and 9 personal opinions). Of the 29 items tested, 15 were controlled trials, 2 uncontrolled trials, 4 observational studies, 2 systematic reviews and 5 non systematic reviews. The most studied patients were Sjögren's syndrome and the irradiated patients. Treatments are focused on the etiology, prevention, symptomatic, local salivary stimulation and systemic treatments. It can be concluded that treatment must be individualized, salivary substitutes and mechanical stimulation techniques can be applied. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier España, S.L. All rights reserved.

Aromatherapy for managing menopausal symptoms: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.

PubMed

Choi, Jiae; Lee, Hye Won; Lee, Ju Ah; Lim, Hyun-Ja; Lee, Myeong Soo

2018-02-01

Aromatherapy is often used as a complementary therapy for women's health. This systematic review aims to evaluate the therapeutic effects of aromatherapy as a management for menopausal symptoms. Eleven electronic databases will be searched from inception to February 2018. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated any type of aromatherapy against any type of control in individuals with menopausal symptoms will be eligible. The methodological quality will be assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Two authors will independently assess each study for eligibility and risk of bias and to extract data. This study will provide a high quality synthesis of current evidence of aromatherapy for menopausal symptoms measured with Menopause Rating Scale, the Kupperman Index, the Greene Climacteric Scale, or other validated questionnaires. The conclusion of our systematic review will provide evidence to judge whether aromatherapy is an effective intervention for patient with menopausal women. Ethical approval will not be required, given that this protocol is for a systematic review. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The review will also be disseminated electronically and in print. PROSPERO CRD42017079191.

SKATE: a docking program that decouples systematic sampling from scoring.

PubMed

Feng, Jianwen A; Marshall, Garland R

2010-11-15

SKATE is a docking prototype that decouples systematic sampling from scoring. This novel approach removes any interdependence between sampling and scoring functions to achieve better sampling and, thus, improves docking accuracy. SKATE systematically samples a ligand's conformational, rotational and translational degrees of freedom, as constrained by a receptor pocket, to find sterically allowed poses. Efficient systematic sampling is achieved by pruning the combinatorial tree using aggregate assembly, discriminant analysis, adaptive sampling, radial sampling, and clustering. Because systematic sampling is decoupled from scoring, the poses generated by SKATE can be ranked by any published, or in-house, scoring function. To test the performance of SKATE, ligands from the Asetex/CDCC set, the Surflex set, and the Vertex set, a total of 266 complexes, were redocked to their respective receptors. The results show that SKATE was able to sample poses within 2 A RMSD of the native structure for 98, 95, and 98% of the cases in the Astex/CDCC, Surflex, and Vertex sets, respectively. Cross-docking accuracy of SKATE was also assessed by docking 10 ligands to thymidine kinase and 73 ligands to cyclin-dependent kinase. 2010 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

[Commitment and community participation towards health: knowledge creation from the systematization of social experiences].

PubMed

López-Bolaños, Lizbeth; Campos-Rivera, Marisol; Villanueva-Borbolla, María Ángeles

2018-01-01

Objective. To reflect on the process of committing to participation in the implementation of a health strategic plan, using Participative Systematization of Social Experiences as a tool. Our study was a qualitative research-intervention study, based on the Dialectical Methodological Conception approach. We designed and implemented a two-day workshop, six hours daily, using Systematization methodology with a Community Work Group (CWG). During the workshop, women systematized their experience, with compromise as axis of the process. Using Grounded Theory techniques, we applied micro-analysis to data in order to identify and strengthen categories that emerged during the systematization process. We completed open and axial coding. The CWG identified that commitment and participation itself is influenced by group dynamics and structural determinants. They also reconsidered the way they understood and exercised commitment and participation, and generated knowledge, empowering them to improve their future practice. Commitment and participation were determined by group dynamics and structural factors such as socioeconomic conditions and gender roles. These determinants must be visible and understood in order to generate proposals that are aimed at strengthening the participation and organization of groups.

[Function of the present systematic evaluation in establishment of guidance for clinical practice].

PubMed

Yang, Jin-Hong; Hu, Jing; Yang, Feng-Chun; Zhang, Ning; Wang, Bing; Li, Xin

2012-07-01

Treatment of insomnia with acupuncture is taken as an example to explore the significance and problems existed in the present systematic evaluation in establishment of guidance for clinical practice. Fifteen articles on systematic evaluation of both English and Chinese were retrieved and studied carefully, their basic information was analyzed. Through study on the establishing process of the guidance of clinical practice, researches were focused on the possible significance of the articles to the guidance as well as the notes in the reuse of those articles since problem still existed. It is held that the systematic evaluation has great significance on the establishment of the guidance from the aspects of applicable people, recommended standards of diagnosis and therapeutic evaluation, extended recommendation and methodology. Great importance should also be attached to the direct application of the research result and understanding of the evaluation result. The data should be rechecked when necessary. Great guiding function can be found on the systematic evaluation of articles to the guidance. Moreover, if information needed to be taken into a full play, specific analysis should also be done on the concrete research targets.

Tackling the wider social determinants of health and health inequalities: evidence from systematic reviews

PubMed Central

Gibson, M; Sowden, A; Wright, K; Whitehead, M; Petticrew, M

2010-01-01

Background There is increasing pressure to tackle the wider social determinants of health through the implementation of appropriate interventions. However, turning these demands for better evidence about interventions around the social determinants of health into action requires identifying what we already know and highlighting areas for further development. Methods Systematic review methodology was used to identify systematic reviews (from 2000 to 2007, developed countries only) that described the health effects of any intervention based on the wider social determinants of health: water and sanitation, agriculture and food, access to health and social care services, unemployment and welfare, working conditions, housing and living environment, education, and transport. Results Thirty systematic reviews were identified. Generally, the effects of interventions on health inequalities were unclear. However, there is suggestive systematic review evidence that certain categories of intervention may impact positively on inequalities or on the health of specific disadvantaged groups, particularly interventions in the fields of housing and the work environment. Conclusion Intervention studies that address inequalities in health are a priority area for future public health research. PMID:19692738

A Practical Methodology for Quantifying Random and Systematic Components of Unexplained Variance in a Wind Tunnel

NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)

Deloach, Richard; Obara, Clifford J.; Goodman, Wesley L.

2012-01-01

This paper documents a check standard wind tunnel test conducted in the Langley 0.3-Meter Transonic Cryogenic Tunnel (0.3M TCT) that was designed and analyzed using the Modern Design of Experiments (MDOE). The test designed to partition the unexplained variance of typical wind tunnel data samples into two constituent components, one attributable to ordinary random error, and one attributable to systematic error induced by covariate effects. Covariate effects in wind tunnel testing are discussed, with examples. The impact of systematic (non-random) unexplained variance on the statistical independence of sequential measurements is reviewed. The corresponding correlation among experimental errors is discussed, as is the impact of such correlation on experimental results generally. The specific experiment documented herein was organized as a formal test for the presence of unexplained variance in representative samples of wind tunnel data, in order to quantify the frequency with which such systematic error was detected, and its magnitude relative to ordinary random error. Levels of systematic and random error reported here are representative of those quantified in other facilities, as cited in the references.

Can Systematic Reviews Inform GMO Risk Assessment and Risk Management?

PubMed

Kohl, Christian; Frampton, Geoff; Sweet, Jeremy; Spök, Armin; Haddaway, Neal Robert; Wilhelm, Ralf; Unger, Stefan; Schiemann, Joachim

2015-01-01

Systematic reviews represent powerful tools to identify, collect, synthesize, and evaluate primary research data on specific research questions in a highly standardized and reproducible manner. They enable the defensible synthesis of outcomes by increasing precision and minimizing bias whilst ensuring transparency of the methods used. This makes them especially valuable to inform evidence-based risk analysis and decision making in various topics and research disciplines. Although seen as a "gold standard" for synthesizing primary research data, systematic reviews are not without limitations as they are often cost, labor and time intensive and the utility of synthesis outcomes depends upon the availability of sufficient and robust primary research data. In this paper, we (1) consider the added value systematic reviews could provide when synthesizing primary research data on genetically modified organisms (GMO) and (2) critically assess the adequacy and feasibility of systematic review for collating and analyzing data on potential impacts of GMOs in order to better inform specific steps within GMO risk assessment and risk management. The regulatory framework of the EU is used as an example, although the issues we discuss are likely to be more widely applicable.

Technical Packages in Injury and Violence Prevention to Move Evidence Into Practice: Systematic Reviews and Beyond.

PubMed

Haegerich, Tamara M; David-Ferdon, Corinne; Noonan, Rita K; Manns, Brian J; Billie, Holly C

2016-09-07

Injury and violence prevention strategies have greater potential for impact when they are based on scientific evidence. Systematic reviews of the scientific evidence can contribute key information about which policies and programs might have the greatest impact when implemented. However, systematic reviews have limitations, such as lack of implementation guidance and contextual information, that can limit the application of knowledge. "Technical packages," developed by knowledge brokers such as the federal government, nonprofit agencies, and academic institutions, have the potential to be an efficient mechanism for making information from systematic reviews actionable. Technical packages provide information about specific evidence-based prevention strategies, along with the estimated costs and impacts, and include accompanying implementation and evaluation guidance to facilitate adoption, implementation, and performance measurement. We describe how systematic reviews can inform the development of technical packages for practitioners, provide examples of technical packages in injury and violence prevention, and explain how enhancing review methods and reporting could facilitate the use and applicability of scientific evidence. © The Author(s) 2016.

Systematic Review Workshop (August 2013)

EPA Pesticide Factsheets

The goal for this workshop is to receive scientific input regarding approaches for different steps within a systematic review, such as evaluating individual studies, synthesizing evidence within a particular discipline, etc.

Exploring issues in the conduct of website searching and other online sources for systematic reviews: how can we be systematic?

PubMed

Stansfield, Claire; Dickson, Kelly; Bangpan, Mukdarut

2016-11-15

Websites and online resources outside academic bibliographic databases can be significant sources for identifying literature, though there are challenges in searching and managing the results. These are pertinent to systematic reviews that are underpinned by principles of transparency, accountability and reproducibility. We consider how the conduct of searching these resources can be compatible with the principles of a systematic search. We present an approach to address some of the challenges. This is particularly relevant when websites are relied upon to identify important literature for a review. We recommend considering the process as three stages and having a considered rationale and sufficient recordkeeping at each stage that balances transparency with practicality of purpose. Advances in technology and recommendations for website providers are briefly discussed.

Cutaneous lichen planus: A systematic review of treatments.

PubMed

Fazel, Nasim

2015-06-01

Various treatment modalities are available for cutaneous lichen planus. Pubmed, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, and Health Technology Assessment Database were searched for all the systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials related to cutaneous lichen planus. Two systematic reviews and nine relevant randomized controlled trials were identified. Acitretin, griseofulvin, hydroxychloroquine and narrow band ultraviolet B are demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of cutaneous lichen planus. Sulfasalazine is effective, but has an unfavorable safety profile. KH1060, a vitamin D analogue, is not beneficial in the management of cutaneous lichen planus. Evidence from large scale randomized trials demonstrating the safety and efficacy for many other treatment modalities used to treat cutaneous lichen planus is simply not available.

Descriptive analysis of cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews: an update and comparison between 2009 and 2013.

PubMed

Crick, Katelynn; Thomson, Denise; Fernandes, Ricardo M; Nuspl, Megan; Eurich, Dean T; Rowe, Brian H; Hartling, Lisa

2017-07-11

Systematic reviews support health systems and clinical decision-making by identifying and summarizing all existing studies on a particular topic. In 2009, a comprehensive description of child-relevant systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was compiled. This study aims to provide an update, and to describe these systematic reviews according to their content and methodological approaches. All child-relevant systematic reviews published by the Cochrane Collaboration in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) as of March, 2013 were identified and described in relation to their content and methodological approaches. This step equated to an update of the Child Health Field Review Register (CHFRR). The content of the updated CHFRR was compared to the published 2009 CHFRR description regarding clinical and methodological characteristics, using bivariate analyses. As the Cochrane Collaboration has recognized that disease burden should guide research prioritization, we extracted data from the Global and National Burden of Diseases and Injuries Among Children and Adolescents Between 1990 and 2013 study in order to map the distribution of the burden of disease in child health to the distribution of evidence across Review Groups in the CHFRR. Of the 5,520 potential Cochrane systematic reviews identified, 1,293 (23.4%) were child-relevant (an increase of 24% since 2009). Overall, these reviews included 16,738 primary studies. The most commonly represented Review Groups were Airways (11.5%), Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Diseases (7.9%), Acute Respiratory Infections (7.8%), Developmental, Psychological and Learning Problems (6.7%), and Infectious Diseases (6.2%). Corresponding authors were most often from Europe (51%), North America (15%), and Australia (15%). The majority of systematic reviews examined pharmacological interventions alone (52% compared to 59% in 2009). Out of 611 reviews that were assessed as up-to-date, GRADE was used in 204 (35%) reviews to assess the overall quality of the evidence, which was often moderate (35.6%) or low (37.8%) for primary outcomes. Ninety percent of reviews that were assessed as up to date used the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, or a modified version, to assess methodological quality. Most reviews conducted one or more meta-analyses (73%). Among the 25 leading causes of death globally, the Review Groups associated with the largest number of causes were: 1) Infectious Diseases, 2) Anaesthesia, Critical, and Emergency Care, 3) Injuries, 4) Pregnancy and Childbirth (PC), and 5) Neonatal. There were large discrepancies between the number of causes of mortality that each Review Group was associated with and the total amount of evidence each Review Group contributed to the CHFRR. Ninety-eight percent of the causes of mortality in 2013 were from developing nations, but only 224 (17.3%) reviews had corresponding authors from developing countries. The content and methodological characteristics of child-relevant systematic reviews in the Cochrane CHFRR have been described in detail. There were modest advances in methods between 2009 and 2013. Systematic reviews contained in the CDSR offer an important resource for researcher's, clinicians and policy makers by synthesizing an extensive body of primary research. Further content analysis will allow the identification of clinical topics of greatest priority for future systematic reviews in child health.