Dataset Information

Writing a Systematic Review for Publication in a Health-Related Degree Program.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The protocol in this manuscript was designed to help graduate students publish. It is the result of a challenge from our provost in 2013. I developed this protocol over the last 6 years and have exercised the protocol for the last 5 years. The current version of the protocol has remained mostly static for the last 2 years-only small changes have been made to the process.

Objective

The objective of this protocol is to enable students to learn a valuable skill of conducting a systematic review and to write the review in a way that can be published. I have designed the protocol to fit into the schedule of a traditional semester, but also used it in compressed semesters.

Methods

An image map was created in HTML 5.0 and imported into a learning management system. It augments traditional instruction by providing references to published articles, examples, and previously recorded instructional videos. Students use the image map outside the classroom after traditional instruction. The image map helps students create manuscripts that follow established practice and are reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and whose authorship follows guidelines by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors.

Results

Since its inception, this protocol has helped 77 students publish 27 systematic reviews in nine journals worldwide. Some manuscripts take multiple years to progress through multiple review processes at multiple journals submitted in sequence. Two other professors in the School of Health Administration have used this protocol in their classes.

Conclusions

So far, this method has helped 51% of graduate students who used it in my graduate courses publish articles (with more manuscripts under consideration whose numbers have remained uncounted in this sum). I wish success to others who might use this protocol.

SUBMITTER: Kruse CS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6914304 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Writing a Systematic Review for Publication in a Health-Related Degree Program.

Kruse Clemens Scott CS

JMIR research protocols 20191014 10

<h4>Background</h4>The protocol in this manuscript was designed to help graduate students publish. It is the result of a challenge from our provost in 2013. I developed this protocol over the last 6 years and have exercised the protocol for the last 5 years. The current version of the protocol has remained mostly static for the last 2 years-only small changes have been made to the process.<h4>Objective</h4>The objective of this protocol is to enable students to learn a valuable skill of conducti ...[more]

PMID: 31527018

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Publication and related biases (including publication bias, time-lag bias, outcome reporting bias and p-hacking) have been well documented in clinical research, but relatively little is known about their presence and extent in health services research (HSR). This paper aims to systematically review evidence concerning publication and related bias in quantitative HSR. METHODS:Databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, HMIC, CINAHL, Web of Science, Health Systems Evidence, Cochrane EPOC Review Group and several websites were searched to July 2018. Information was obtained from: (1) Methodological studies that set out to investigate publication and related biases in HSR; (2) Systematic reviews of HSR topics which examined such biases as part of the review process. Relevant information was extracted from included studies by one reviewer and checked by another. Studies were appraised according to commonly accepted scientific principles due to lack of suitable checklists. Data were synthesised narratively. RESULTS:After screening 6155 citations, four methodological studies investigating publication bias in HSR and 184 systematic reviews of HSR topics (including three comparing published with unpublished evidence) were examined. Evidence suggestive of publication bias was reported in some of the methodological studies, but evidence presented was very weak, limited in both quality and scope. Reliable data on outcome reporting bias and p-hacking were scant. HSR systematic reviews in which published literature was compared with unpublished evidence found significant differences in the estimated intervention effects or association in some but not all cases. CONCLUSIONS:Methodological research on publication and related biases in HSR is sparse. Evidence from available literature suggests that such biases may exist in HSR but their scale and impact are difficult to estimate for various reasons discussed in this paper. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO 2016 CRD42016052333.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular.Methods/designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Collaborative writing applications (eg, wikis and Google Documents) hold the potential to improve the use of evidence in both public health and health care. The rapid rise in their use has created the need for a systematic synthesis of the evidence of their impact as knowledge translation (KT) tools in the health care sector and for an inventory of the factors that affect their use. OBJECTIVE:Through the Levac six-stage methodology, a scoping review was undertaken to explore the depth and breadth of evidence about the effective, safe, and ethical use of wikis and collaborative writing applications (CWAs) in health care. METHODS:Multiple strategies were used to locate studies. Seven scientific databases and 6 grey literature sources were queried for articles on wikis and CWAs published between 2001 and September 16, 2011. In total, 4436 citations and 1921 grey literature items were screened. Two reviewers independently reviewed citations, selected eligible studies, and extracted data using a standardized form. We included any paper presenting qualitative or quantitative empirical evidence concerning health care and CWAs. We defined a CWA as any technology that enables the joint and simultaneous editing of a webpage or an online document by many end users. We performed qualitative content analysis to identify the factors that affect the use of CWAs using the Gagnon framework and their effects on health care using the Donabedian framework. RESULTS:Of the 111 studies included, 4 were experimental, 5 quasi-experimental, 5 observational, 52 case studies, 23 surveys about wiki use, and 22 descriptive studies about the quality of information in wikis. We classified them by theme: patterns of use of CWAs (n=26), quality of information in existing CWAs (n=25), and CWAs as KT tools (n=73). A high prevalence of CWA use (ie, more than 50%) is reported in 58% (7/12) of surveys conducted with health care professionals and students. However, we found only one longitudinal study showing that CWA use is increasing in health care. Moreover, contribution rates remain low and the quality of information contained in different CWAs needs improvement. We identified 48 barriers and 91 facilitators in 4 major themes (factors related to the CWA, users' knowledge and attitude towards CWAs, human environment, and organizational environment). We also found 57 positive and 23 negative effects that we classified into processes and outcomes. CONCLUSIONS:Although we found some experimental and quasi-experimental studies of the effectiveness and safety of CWAs as educational and KT interventions, the vast majority of included studies were observational case studies about CWAs being used by health professionals and patients. More primary research is needed to find ways to address the different barriers to their use and to make these applications more useful for different stakeholders.

Dataset Information

Writing a Systematic Review for Publication in a Health-Related Degree Program.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Writing a Systematic Review for Publication in a Health-Related Degree Program.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets