Recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews in medical literature: a scoping review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Penedones A
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6907169 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews in medical literature: a scoping review.
Penedones Ana A Alves Carlos C Batel-Marques Francisco F
BMC medical research methodology 20191211 1
<h4>Background</h4>This scoping review aims to identify, review and characterize the published recommendations to conduct and/or to report a systematic review in medical interventions area.<h4>Methods</h4>A search was carried out in PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases, using systematic reviews search filters. The search comprises all recommendations to conduct and/or report a systematic review. Data on methods were extracted from each recommendation. A descriptive analysis was performe ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BACKGROUND:Several recommendations are available to conduct and report a systematic review of adverse drug reactions. This study is aimed at identifying and comparing the methodologies of the two most commonly used recommendations to conduct and report systematic reviews on drug's safety. METHODS:Two systematic reviews were conducted following the recommendations "Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions" and "Systematic Reviews' Centre for Reviews and Dissemination guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare." The methods of each recommendation were characterized, and the results and the discussion of each systematic review were also evaluated. RESULTS:The methodologies of both recommendations are similar. The review question was structured. Both recommendations suggest to include pre- and post-marketing data. The recommended data sources differed and, consequently, the results of the systematic reviews (37 vs. 35 studies). Other aspects of search literature were identical. Different tools are suggested to evaluate the methodological quality of the included studies. For case reports, both recommendations only report some questions that may be helpful to assess risk of bias. The reporting of the results and discussion is also identical for both recommendations. CONCLUSIONS:Few methodological differences were observed between the analyzed recommendations to conduct a systematic review on drug's safety. Combining their methods into a single and recognized recommendation could be of great value.
| S-EPMC6796334 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo identify published closed-loop Bayesian mixed treatment comparisons (MTCs) and to summarise characteristics regarding their conduct and reporting.DesignSystematic review.MethodsWe searched multiple bibliographic databases (January 2006-31 July 2011) for full-text, English language publications of Bayesian MTCs comparing the effectiveness or safety of ?3 interventions based on randomised controlled trials and having at least one closed loop. Methodological and reporting characteristics of MTCs were extracted in duplicate and summarised descriptively.ResultsWe identified 34 Bayesian MTCs spanning 13 clinical areas. Publication of MTCs increased over the 5-year period; with 76.5% published during or after 2009. MTCs included a mean (±SD) of 35.9±30.1 trials (n=33 459±71 233 participants) and 8.5±4.3 interventions (85.7% pharmacological). Non-informative and informative prior distributions were reported to be used in 44.1% and 8.8% of MTCs, respectively, with the remainder failing to specify the prior used. A random-effects model was used to analyse the networks of trials in 58.5% of MTCs, all using WinBUGS; however, code was infrequently provided (20.6%). More than two-thirds of MTCs (76.5%) also conducted traditional meta-analysis. Methods used to evaluate convergence, heterogeneity and inconsistency were infrequently reported, but from those providing detail, methods appeared varied. MTCs most often used a binary effect measure (85.3%) and ranking of interventions based on probability was common (61.8%), although rarely displayed in a figure (8.8% of MTCs). MTCs were published in 24 different journals with a mean impact factor of 9.20±8.71. While 70.8% of journals imposed limits on word counts and 45.8% limits on the number of tables/figures, online supplements/appendices were allowed in 79.2% of journals. Publication of closed-loop Bayesian MTCs is increasing in frequency, but details regarding their methodology are often poorly described. Efforts in clarifying the appropriate methods and reporting of Bayesian MTCs should be of priority.
| S-EPMC3717466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesOver the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities.MethodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review.ResultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal.ConclusionsScoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.
| S-EPMC8247025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere has been increased interest in the role of cannabis for treating medical conditions. The availability of different cannabis-based products can make the side effects of exposure unpredictable. We sought to conduct a scoping review of systematic reviews assessing benefits and harms of cannabis-based medicines for any condition.MethodsA protocol was followed throughout the conduct of this scoping review. A protocol-guided scoping review conduct. Searches of bibliographic databases (e.g., MEDLINE®, Embase, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Library) and gray literature were performed. Two people selected and charted data from systematic reviews. Categorizations emerged during data synthesis. The reporting of results from systematic reviews was performed at a high level appropriate for a scoping review.ResultsAfter screening 1975 citations, 72 systematic reviews were included. The reviews covered many conditions, the most common being pain management. Several reviews focused on management of pain as a symptom of conditions such as multiple sclerosis (MS), injury, and cancer. After pain, the most common symptoms treated were spasticity in MS, movement disturbances, nausea/vomiting, and mental health symptoms. An assessment of review findings lends to the understanding that, although in a small number of reviews results showed a benefit for reducing pain, the analysis approach and reporting in other reviews was sub-optimal, making it difficult to know how consistent findings are when considering pain in general. Adverse effects were reported in most reviews comparing cannabis with placebo (49/59, 83%) and in 20/24 (83%) of the reviews comparing cannabis to active drugs. Minor adverse effects (e.g., drowsiness, dizziness) were common and reported in over half of the reviews. Serious harms were not as common, but were reported in 21/59 (36%) reviews that reported on adverse effects. Overall, safety data was generally reported study-by-study, with few reviews synthesizing data. Only one review was rated as high quality, while the remaining were rated of moderate (n = 36) or low/critically low (n = 35) quality.ConclusionsResults from the included reviews were mixed, with most reporting an inability to draw conclusions due to inconsistent findings and a lack of rigorous evidence. Mild harms were frequently reported, and it is possible the harms of cannabis-based medicines may outweigh benefits.Systematic review registrationThe protocol for this scoping review was posted in the Open Access (https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/37247).
| S-EPMC6905063 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe demand for high-quality systematic literature reviews (SRs) for evidence-based medical decision-making is growing. SRs are costly and require the scarce resource of highly skilled reviewers. Automation technology has been proposed to save workload and expedite the SR workflow. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of SR automation studies indexed in PubMed, focusing on the applicability of these technologies in real world practice.MethodsIn November 2022, we extracted, combined, and ran an integrated PubMed search for SRs on SR automation. Full-text English peer-reviewed articles were included if they reported studies on SR automation methods (SSAM), or automated SRs (ASR). Bibliographic analyses and knowledge-discovery studies were excluded. Record screening was performed by single reviewers, and the selection of full text papers was performed in duplicate. We summarized the publication details, automated review stages, automation goals, applied tools, data sources, methods, results, and Google Scholar citations of SR automation studies.ResultsFrom 5321 records screened by title and abstract, we included 123 full text articles, of which 108 were SSAM and 15 ASR. Automation was applied for search (19/123, 15.4%), record screening (89/123, 72.4%), full-text selection (6/123, 4.9%), data extraction (13/123, 10.6%), risk of bias assessment (9/123, 7.3%), evidence synthesis (2/123, 1.6%), assessment of evidence quality (2/123, 1.6%), and reporting (2/123, 1.6%). Multiple SR stages were automated by 11 (8.9%) studies. The performance of automated record screening varied largely across SR topics. In published ASR, we found examples of automated search, record screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. In some ASRs, automation fully complemented manual reviews to increase sensitivity rather than to save workload. Reporting of automation details was often incomplete in ASRs.ConclusionsAutomation techniques are being developed for all SR stages, but with limited real-world adoption. Most SR automation tools target single SR stages, with modest time savings for the entire SR process and varying sensitivity and specificity across studies. Therefore, the real-world benefits of SR automation remain uncertain. Standardizing the terminology, reporting, and metrics of study reports could enhance the adoption of SR automation techniques in real-world practice.
| S-EPMC11229257 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is consensus that health services commissioning and clinical practice should be driven by scientific evidence. However, workload pressures, accessibility of peer reviewed publications and skills to find, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence are often cited as barriers to uptake of research evidence by practitioners and commissioners alike. In recent years a growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis to inform commissioning decisions about healthcare service delivery and provision of care contributed to an increasing popularity of scoping literature reviews (SLRs). Yet, comprehensive guidelines for conducting and reporting SLRs are still relatively scarce.MethodsThe exemplar review used as a worked example aimed to provide a readily available, comprehensive, and user-friendly repository of research evidence for local commissioners to help them make evidence-informed decisions about redesigning East of England Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In conducting the review, we were broadly guided by Arksey and O'Malley's framework, however some modifications were made at different stages to better reflect the largely pragmatic objective of this review. This paper compares the methodology used with existing methodological frameworks for scoping studies, to add to the existing knowledge base.ResultsWe proposed the following advancements to the existing SLR frameworks: (i) Assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise; (ii); Draw on expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice; (iii) Pre-register the review protocol. Keep a detailed record of all steps and decisions and consider how they would impact on generalisability and utility of review findings; (iv) Use systematic procedures for literature searchers, selection of studies, data extraction and analysis; (v) If feasible, appraise the quality of included evidence; (vi) Be transparent about limitations of findings.ConclusionsDespite some methodological limitations, scoping literature reviews are a useful method of rapidly synthesising a large body of evidence to inform commissioning and transformation of CAMHS. SLRs allow researchers to start with a broader questions, to explore the issue from different perspectives and perhaps find more comprehensive solutions that are not only effective, but also accounted for their feasibility and acceptability to key stakeholders.
| S-EPMC7526176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. METHODS:We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. RESULTS:We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ??4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .
| S-EPMC6260873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Bullous pemphigoid (BP) is a rare, life-threatening autoimmune blistering disease with pruritus and tension blisters/bullous as the main clinical manifestations. Glucocorticosteroids are the main therapeutic agents for it, but their efficacy is poor in some patients. Tofacitinib, a small molecule agent that inhibits JAK1/3, has shown incredible efficacy in a wide range of autoimmune diseases and maybe a new valuable treatment option for refractory BP. To report a case of refractory BP successfully treated with tofacitinib, then explore the underlying mechanism behind the treatment, and finally review similarities to other cases reported in the literature. Case report and literature review of published cases of successful BP treatment with JAK inhibitors. The case report describes a 73-year-old male with refractory BP that was successfully managed with the combination therapy of tofacitinib and low-dose glucocorticoids for 28 weeks. Immunohistochemistry and RNA sequencing were performed to analyze the underlying mechanism of tofacitinib therapy. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify other cases of treatment with JAK inhibitors. Throughout the 28-week treatment period, the patient experienced clinical, autoantibody and histologic resolution. Immunohistochemical analysis showed tofacitinib significantly decreased the pSTAT3 and pSTAT6 levels in the skin lesions of this patient. RNA sequencing and immunohistochemical testing of lesion samples from other BP patients identified activation of the JAK-STAT signaling pathway. Literature review revealed 17 previously reported cases of BP treated with four kinds of JAK inhibitors successfully, including tofacitinib (10), baricitinib (1), upadacitinib (3) and abrocitinib (3). Our findings support the potential of tofacitinib as a safe and effective treatment option for BP. Larger studies are underway to better understand this efficacy and safety.
2024-11-13 | GSE278926 | GEO
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC5764593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSensors and digital devices have revolutionized the measurement, collection, and storage of behavioral and physiological data, leading to the new term digital biomarkers.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the scope of clinical evidence covered by systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials involving digital biomarkers.MethodsThis scoping review was organized using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. With the search limited to English publications, full-text SRs of digital biomarkers included randomized controlled trials that involved a human population and reported changes in participants' health status. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched with time frames limited to 2019 and 2020. The World Health Organization's classification systems for diseases (International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision), health interventions (International Classification of Health Interventions), and bodily functions (International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health [ICF]) were used to classify populations, interventions, and outcomes, respectively.ResultsA total of 31 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The majority of SRs studied patients with circulatory system diseases (19/31, 61%) and respiratory system diseases (9/31, 29%). Most of the prevalent interventions focused on physical activity behavior (16/31, 52%) and conversion of cardiac rhythm (4/31, 13%). Looking after one's health (physical activity; 15/31, 48%), walking (12/31, 39%), heart rhythm functions (8/31, 26%), and mortality (7/31, 23%) were the most commonly reported outcomes. In total, 16 physiological and behavioral data groups were identified using the ICF tool, such as looking after one's health (physical activity; 14/31, 45%), walking (11/31, 36%), heart rhythm (7/31, 23%), and weight maintenance functions (7/31, 23%). Various digital devices were also studied to collect these data in the included reviews, such as smart glasses, smartwatches, smart bracelets, smart shoes, and smart socks for measuring heart functions, gait pattern functions, and temperature. A substantial number (24/31, 77%) of digital biomarkers were used as interventions. Moreover, wearables (22/31, 71%) were the most common types of digital devices. Position sensors (21/31, 68%) and heart rate sensors and pulse rate sensors (12/31, 39%) were the most prevalent types of sensors used to acquire behavioral and physiological data in the SRs.ConclusionsIn recent years, the clinical evidence concerning digital biomarkers has been systematically reviewed in a wide range of study populations, interventions, digital devices, and sensor technologies, with the dominance of physical activity and cardiac monitors. We used the World Health Organization's ICF tool for classifying behavioral and physiological data, which seemed to be an applicable tool to categorize the broad scope of digital biomarkers identified in this review. To understand the clinical value of digital biomarkers, the strength and quality of the evidence on their health consequences need to be systematically evaluated.
| S-EPMC9641516 | biostudies-literature