Dataset Information

Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review.

ABSTRACT: Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholders. QES can explore the impact of acceptance, feasibility, meaningfulness and implementation-related factors within a real world setting and thus contribute to the design and further refinement of future interventions. To produce valid, reliable and meaningful QES requires systematic identification of relevant qualitative evidence. Although the methodologies of QES, including methods for information retrieval, are well-documented, little empirical evidence exists to inform their conduct and reporting.This structured methodological overview examines papers on searching for qualitative research identified from the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods Group Methodology Register and from citation searches of 15 key papers.A single reviewer reviewed 1299 references. Papers reporting methodological guidance, use of innovative methodologies or empirical studies of retrieval methods were categorised under eight topical headings: overviews and methodological guidance, sampling, sources, structured questions, search procedures, search strategies and filters, supplementary strategies and standards.This structured overview presents a contemporaneous view of information retrieval for qualitative research and identifies a future research agenda. This review concludes that poor empirical evidence underpins current information practice in information retrieval of qualitative research. A trend towards improved transparency of search methods and further evaluation of key search procedures offers the prospect of rapid development of search methods.

SUBMITTER: Booth A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4855695 | biostudies-other | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review.

Booth Andrew A

Systematic reviews 20160504

<h4>Background</h4>Qualitative systematic reviews or qualitative evidence syntheses (QES) are increasingly recognised as a way to enhance the value of systematic reviews (SRs) of clinical trials. They can explain the mechanisms by which interventions, evaluated within trials, might achieve their effect. They can investigate differences in effects between different population groups. They can identify which outcomes are most important to patients, carers, health professionals and other stakeholde ...[more]

PMID: 27145932

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectiveEngaging stakeholders in reviews is considered to generate more relevant evidence and to facilitate dissemination and use. As little is known about stakeholder involvement, we assessed the characteristics of their engagement in systematic and rapid reviews and the methodological quality of included studies. Stakeholders were people with a particular interest in the research topic.DesignMethodological review.Search strategyFour databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane database of systematic reviews, databases of the University of York, Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD)) were searched based on an a priori protocol. Four types of reviews (Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews, rapid and CRD rapid reviews) were retrieved between January 2011 and October 2015, pooled by potential review type and duplicates excluded. Articles were randomly ordered and screened for inclusion and exclusion criteria until 30 reviews per group were reached. Their methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR and stakeholder characteristics were collected.ResultsIn total, 57 822 deduplicated citations were detected with potential non-Cochrane systematic reviews being the biggest group (56 986 records). We found stakeholder involvement in 13% (4/30) of Cochrane, 20% (6/30) of non-Cochrane, 43% (13/30) of rapid and 93% (28/30) of CRD reviews. Overall, 33% (17/51) of the responding contact authors mentioned positive effects of stakeholder involvement. A conflict of interest statement remained unmentioned in 40% (12/30) of non-Cochrane and in 27% (8/30) of rapid reviews, but not in Cochrane or CRD reviews. At most, half of non-Cochrane and rapid reviews mentioned an a priori study protocol in contrast to all Cochrane reviews.ConclusionStakeholder engagement was not general practice, except for CRD reviews, although it was more common in rapid reviews. Reporting factors, such as including an a priori study protocol and a conflict of interest statement should be considered in conjunction with involving stakeholders.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether network meta-analyses, increasingly used to assess comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions, follow the key methodological recommendations for reporting and conduct of systematic reviews.DesignMethodological systematic review of reports of network meta-analyses.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012.Review methodsAll network meta-analyses comparing clinical efficacy of three or more interventions based on randomised controlled trials, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions. We assessed the reporting of general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process using two composite outcomes. For some components, if reporting was adequate, we assessed their conduct quality.ResultsOf 121 network meta-analyses covering a wide range of medical areas, 100 (83%) assessed pharmacological interventions and 11 (9%) non-pharmacological interventions; 56 (46%) were published in journals with a high impact factor. The electronic search strategy for each database was not reported in 88 (73%) network meta-analyses; for 36 (30%), the primary outcome was not clearly identified. Overall, 61 (50%) network meta-analyses did not report any information regarding the assessment of risk of bias of individual studies, and 103 (85%) did not report any methods to assess the likelihood of publication bias. Overall, 87 (72%) network meta-analyses did not report the literature search, searched only one database, did not search other sources, or did not report an assessment of risk of bias of individual studies. These methodological components did not differ by publication in a general or specialty journal or by public or private funding.ConclusionsEssential methodological components of the systematic review process-conducting a literature search and assessing risk of bias of individual studies-are frequently lacking in reports of network meta-analyses, even when published in journals with high impact factors.

Project description:Hypothesis generation is a critical step in research and a cornerstone in the rare disease field. Research is most efficient when those hypotheses are based on the entirety of knowledge known to date. Systematic review articles are commonly used in biomedicine to summarize existing knowledge and contextualize experimental data. But the information contained within review articles is typically only expressed as free-text, which is difficult to use computationally. Researchers struggle to navigate, collect and remix prior knowledge as it is scattered in several silos without seamless integration and access. This lack of a structured information framework hinders research by both experimental and computational scientists. To better organize knowledge and data, we built a structured review article that is specifically focused on NGLY1 Deficiency, an ultra-rare genetic disease first reported in 2012. We represented this structured review as a knowledge graph and then stored this knowledge graph in a Neo4j database to simplify dissemination, querying and visualization of the network. Relative to free-text, this structured review better promotes the principles of findability, accessibility, interoperability and reusability (FAIR). In collaboration with domain experts in NGLY1 Deficiency, we demonstrate how this resource can improve the efficiency and comprehensiveness of hypothesis generation. We also developed a read-write interface that allows domain experts to contribute FAIR structured knowledge to this community resource. In contrast to traditional free-text review articles, this structured review exists as a living knowledge graph that is curated by humans and accessible to computational analyses. Finally, we have generalized this workflow into modular and repurposable components that can be applied to other domain areas. This NGLY1 Deficiency-focused network is publicly available at http://ngly1graph.org/. AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION:Database URL: http://ngly1graph.org/. Network data files are at: https://github.com/SuLab/ngly1-graph and source code at: https://github.com/SuLab/bioknowledge-reviewer. CONTACT:asu@scripps.edu.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment burden can be defined as the self-care practices that patients with chronic illness must perform to respond to the requirements of their healthcare providers, as well as the impact that these practices have on patient functioning and well being. Increasing levels of treatment burden may lead to suboptimal adherence and negative outcomes. Systematic review of the qualitative literature is a useful method for exploring the patient experience of care, in this case the experience of treatment burden. There is no consensus on methods for qualitative systematic review. This paper describes the methodology used for qualitative systematic reviews of the treatment burdens identified in three different common chronic conditions, using stroke as our exemplar.MethodsQualitative studies in peer reviewed journals seeking to understand the patient experience of stroke management were sought. Limitations of English language and year of publication 2000 onwards were set. An exhaustive search strategy was employed, consisting of a scoping search, database searches (Scopus, CINAHL, Embase, Medline & PsycINFO) and reference, footnote and citation searching. Papers were screened, data extracted, quality appraised and analysed by two individuals, with a third party for disagreements. Data analysis was carried out using a coding framework underpinned by Normalization Process Theory (NPT).ResultsA total of 4364 papers were identified, 54 were included in the review. Of these, 51 (94%) were retrieved from our database search. Methodological issues included: creating an appropriate search strategy; investigating a topic not previously conceptualised; sorting through irrelevant data within papers; the quality appraisal of qualitative research; and the use of NPT as a novel method of data analysis, shown to be a useful method for the purposes of this review.ConclusionThe creation of our search strategy may be of particular interest to other researchers carrying out synthesis of qualitative studies. Importantly, the successful use of NPT to inform a coding frame for data analysis involving qualitative data that describes processes relating to self management highlights the potential of a new method for analyses of qualitative data within systematic reviews.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is generally recommended; this is conducted by 2 reviewers independently of each other (conventional double-screening). However, the approach is resource intensive, which can be a problem, as systematic reviews generally need to be completed within a defined period with a limited budget. The aim of the following methodological systematic review was to analyse the evidence available on whether single screening is equivalent to double screening in the screening process conducted in systematic reviews. METHODS:We searched Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Methodology Register (last search 10/2018). We also used supplementary search techniques and sources ("similar articles" function in PubMed, conference abstracts and reference lists). We included all evaluations comparing single with double screening. Data were summarized in a structured, narrative way. RESULTS:The 4 evaluations included investigated a total of 23 single screenings (12 sets for screening involving 9 reviewers). The median proportion of missed studies was 5% (range 0 to 58%). The median proportion of missed studies was 3% for the 6 experienced reviewers (range: 0 to 21%) and 13% for the 3 reviewers with less experience (range: 0 to 58%). The impact of missing studies on the findings of meta-analyses had been reported in 2 evaluations for 7 single screenings including a total of 18,148 references. In 3 of these 7 single screenings - all conducted by the same reviewer (with less experience) - the findings would have changed substantially. The remaining 4 of these 7 screenings were conducted by experienced reviewers and the missing studies had no impact or a negligible on the findings of the meta-analyses. CONCLUSIONS:Single screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in rapid reviews, as long as it is conducted by an experienced reviewer. Further research on single screening is required, for instance, regarding factors influencing the number of studies missed.

Dataset Information

Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review.

Publications

Searching for qualitative research for inclusion in systematic reviews: a structured methodological review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets