Sources of evidence to support systematic reviews in librarianship.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Sampson M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2212322 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Sources of evidence to support systematic reviews in librarianship.
Sampson Margaret M Daniel Raymond R Cogo Elise E Dingwall Orvie O
Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA 20080101 1
Similar Datasets
Project description: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?
| S-EPMC3271834 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Study Basis: This evidence map presents a summary of studies that addressed the effects of meditation on various clinical and health conditions. Meditation is a contemplative practice that has been used for the promotion of health, and the treatment of different conditions. Method: The study is based on the search of four electronic databases for the period 1994-November 2019 and includes systematic reviews, meta-analyses, meta-syntheses, and integrative reviews. 3iE evidence gap map was the methodology of choice, and AMSTAR 2 was used for the analyses. Tableau was used to graphically display the confidence level, number of reviews, health outcomes, and intervention effects. Results: This map encompasses 191 studies, with Mindfulness being the key word that retrieved the highest number of results. Several meditation techniques were evaluated in different contexts, and the confidence levels of 22 studies were high, 84 were moderate, and 82 were low. Two 2 meta-syntheses and 1 integrative review were also included. Most of the studies reported positive effects and a beneficial potential of the practice of meditation. Health outcomes were divided into five groups out of which mental health and vitality, and well-being and quality of life stood out with the largest number of studies. Conclusions: Meditation has been applied in different areas. This Evidence Map intends to be an easy visual tool to access valuable evidence-based information on this complementary therapy for patients, health professionals, and managers.
| S-EPMC8674467 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAlthough the number of teledermatology studies is increasing, not all variables have been researched in equal depth, so there remains a lack of robust evidence for some teledermatology initiatives. This review describes the landscape of teledermatology research and identifies knowledge gaps and research needs. This evidence map can be used to inform clinicians about the current knowledge about teledermatology and guide researchers for future studies.MethodsOur evidence map was conducted according to the Campbell Collaboration checklist for evidence and gap maps. Eight databases were searched (CINAHL, Embase, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, and OpenGray), and only included systematic reviews of teledermatology involving humans published in English; while excluding non-systematic reviews (i.e., abstracts, conference proceedings, editorials, commentaries, or letters). From 909 records, 14 systematic reviews published between 2004 and 2022 were included. Our analysis focused on the systematic reviews' characteristics, dermatological conditions studied, rate of overlap and quality assessment of primary studies reviewed, and main findings reported.ResultsTeledermatology was reportedly comparable with clinic dermatology and generally accepted by patients as a mode of care delivery for dermatological conditions. However, there are concerns about privacy, communication, completeness of information transmitted, familiarity with the technology, and technical problems. Healthcare professionals were generally satisfied with teledermatology but found telemedicine consultations longer than face-to-face consultations, and less confident in asynchronous teledermatology than conventional consultations. Teledermatology was reportedly more cost-effective than clinic dermatology; especially considering the distance traveled by patients, referral volume to teledermatology, and clinic dermatology costs. Although patients and providers are satisfied with teledermatology, face-to-face dermatology has higher diagnostic and management accuracy. Teledermatology was also used for training medical professionals. Regarding the validity and reliability of teledermatology outcome measures, no significant discussions were found.ConclusionsCOVID-19 spotlighted telemedicine in clinical care, and we must ensure telemedicine continually improves with robust research. Further research is necessary for establishing a standardized outcome set, enhancing accuracy, concordance, cost-effectiveness, and safety, comparing teledermatology with non-dermatologist care, examining its effectiveness in non-Western low and middle-income countries, and incorporating patient involvement for improved study design.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.researchregistry.com/ (Unique Identifying Number: reviewregistry878).
| S-EPMC11476646 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveIn this methodologic study (Part 2 of 2), we examined the overlap in sources of evidence and the corresponding results for harms in systematic reviews for gabapentin.Study design & settingWe extracted all citations referenced as sources of evidence for harms of gabapentin from 70 systematic reviews, as well as the harms assessed and numerical results. We assessed consistency of harms between pairs of reviews with a high degree of overlap in sources of evidence (>50%) as determined by corrected covered area (CCA).ResultsWe found 514 reports cited across 70 included reviews. Most reports (244/514, 48%) were not cited in more than one review. Among 18 pairs of reviews, we found reviews had differences in which harms were assessed and their choice to meta-analyze estimates or present descriptive summaries. When a specific harm was meta-analyzed in a pair of reviews, we found similar effect estimates.ConclusionDifferences in harms results across reviews can occur because the choice of harms is driven by reviewer preferences, rather than standardized approaches to selecting harms for assessment. A paradigm shift is needed in the current approach to synthesizing harms.
| S-EPMC9875741 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo systematically explore how the sources of evidence, types of primary studies, and tools used to assess the quality of the primary studies vary across systematic reviews (SRs) in public health.MethodsWe conducted a methodological survey of SRs in public health by searching the of literature in selected journals from electronic bibliographic databases. We selected a 10% random sample of the SRs that met the explicit inclusion criteria. Two researchers independently extracted data for analysis.ResultsWe selected 301 SRs for analysis: 94 (31.2%) of these were pre-registered, and 211 (70.1%) declared to have followed published reporting standard. All SRs searched for evidence in electronic bibliographic databases, and more than half (n = 180, 60.0%) searched also the references of the included studies. The common types of primary studies included in the SRs were primarily cross-sectional studies (n = 132, 43.8%), cohort studies (n = 126, 41.9%), randomized controlled trials (RCTs, n = 89, 29.6%), quasi-experimental studies (n = 83, 27.6%), case-control studies (n = 58, 19.3%) qualitative studies (n = 38, 12.6%) and mixed-methods studies (n = 32, 10.6%). The most frequently used quality assessment tools were the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (used for 50.0% of cohort studies and 55.6% of case-control studies), Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (50.7% of RCTs) and Critical Appraisal Skills Program (38.5% of qualitative studies). Only 20 (6.6%) of the SRs assessed the certainty of the body of evidence, of which 19 (95.0%) used the GRADE approach. More than 65% of the evidence in the SRs using GRADE was of low or very low certainty.ConclusionsSRs should always assess the quality both at the individual study level and the body of evidence for outcomes, which will benefit patients, health care practitioners, and policymakers.
| S-EPMC10097925 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic identification of evidence in health policy can be time-consuming and challenging. This study examines three questions pertaining to systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy, in order to identify the most efficient search methods: (1) What percentage of the primary studies selected for inclusion in the reviews originated in scholarly as opposed to gray literature? (2) How much of the primary scholarly literature in this topic area is indexed in PubMed/MEDLINE? (3) Which databases index the greatest number of primary studies not indexed in PubMed, and are these databases searched consistently across systematic reviews?MethodsWe identified systematic reviews on obesity prevention policy and explored their search methods and citations. We determined the percentage of scholarly vs. gray literature cited, the most frequently cited journals, and whether each primary study was indexed in PubMed. We searched 21 databases for all primary study articles not indexed in PubMed to determine which database(s) indexed the highest number of these relevant articles.ResultsIn total, 21 systematic reviews were identified. Ten of the 21 systematic reviews reported searching gray literature, and 12 reviews ultimately included gray literature in their analyses. Scholarly articles accounted for 577 of the 649 total primary study papers. Of these, 495 (76%) were indexed in PubMed. Google Scholar retrieved the highest number of the remaining 82 non-PubMed scholarly articles, followed by Scopus and EconLit. The Journal of the American Dietetic Association was the most-cited journal.ConclusionsResearchers can maximize search efficiency by searching a small yet targeted selection of both scholarly and gray literature resources. A highly sensitive search of PubMed and those databases that index the greatest number of relevant articles not indexed in PubMed, namely multidisciplinary and economics databases, could save considerable time and effort. When combined with a gray literature search and additional search methods, including cited reference searching and consulting with experts, this approach could help maintain broad retrieval of relevant studies while improving search efficiency. Findings also have implications for designing specialized databases for public health research.
| S-EPMC5549286 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: Digital data sources have become ubiquitous in modern culture in the era of digital technology but often tend to be under-researched because of restricted access to data sources due to fragmentation, privacy issues, or industry ownership, and the methodological complexity of demonstrating their measurable impact on human health. Even though new big data sources have shown unprecedented potential for disease diagnosis and outbreak detection, we need to investigate results in the existing literature to gain a comprehensive understanding of their impact on and benefits to human health. Objective: A systematic review of systematic reviews on identifying digital data sources and their impact area on people's health, including challenges, opportunities, and good practices. Methods: A multidatabase search was performed. Peer-reviewed papers published between January 2010 and November 2020 relevant to digital data sources on health were extracted, assessed, and reviewed. Results: The 64 reviews are covered by three domains, that is, universal health coverage (UHC), public health emergencies, and healthier populations, defined in WHO's General Programme of Work, 2019-2023, and the European Programme of Work, 2020-2025. In all three categories, social media platforms are the most popular digital data source, accounting for 47% (N = 8), 84% (N = 11), and 76% (N = 26) of studies, respectively. The second most utilized data source are electronic health records (EHRs) (N = 13), followed by websites (N = 7) and mass media (N = 5). In all three categories, the most studied impact of digital data sources is on prevention, management, and intervention of diseases (N = 40), and as a tool, there are also many studies (N = 10) on early warning systems for infectious diseases. However, they could also pose health hazards (N = 13), for instance, by exacerbating mental health issues and promoting smoking and drinking behavior among young people. Conclusions: The digital data sources presented are essential for collecting and mining information about human health. The key impact of social media, electronic health records, and websites is in the area of infectious diseases and early warning systems, and in the area of personal health, that is, on mental health and smoking and drinking prevention. However, further research is required to address privacy, trust, transparency, and interoperability to leverage the potential of data held in multiple datastores and systems. This study also identified the apparent gap in systematic reviews investigating the novel big data streams, Internet of Things (IoT) data streams, and sensor, mobile, and GPS data researched using artificial intelligence, complex network, and other computer science methods, as in this domain systematic reviews are not common.
| S-EPMC8131671 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCommunity Guide systematic economic reviews provide information on the cost, economic benefit, cost-benefit, and cost-effectiveness of public health interventions recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force on the basis of evidence of effectiveness. The number and variety of economic evaluation studies in public health have grown substantially over time, contributing to methodologic challenges that required updates to the methods for Community Guide systematic economic reviews. This paper describes these updated methods.MethodsThe 9-step Community Guide economic review process includes prioritization of topic, creation of a coordination team, conceptualization of review, literature search, screening studies for inclusion, abstraction of studies, analysis of results, translation of evidence to Community Preventive Services Task Force economic findings, and dissemination of findings and evidence gaps. The methods applied in each of these steps are reported in this paper.ResultsTwo published Community Guide reviews, tailored pharmacy-based interventions to improve adherence to medications for cardiovascular disease and permanent supportive housing with housing first to prevent homelessness, are used to illustrate the application of the updated methods. The Community Preventive Services Task Force reached a finding of cost-effectiveness for the first intervention and a finding of favorable cost-benefit for the second on the basis of results from the economic reviews.ConclusionsThe updated Community Guide economic systematic review methods provide transparency and improve the reliability of estimates that are used to derive a Community Preventive Services Task Force economic finding. This may in turn augment the utility of Community Guide economic reviews for communities making decisions about allocating limited resources to effective programs.
| S-EPMC11360950 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8428003 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) such as abuse, neglect or household adversity may have a range of serious negative impacts. There is a need to understand what interventions are effective to improve outcomes for people who have experienced ACEs. METHODS:Systematic review of systematic reviews. We searched 18 database sources from 2007 to 2018 for systematic reviews of effectiveness data on people who experienced ACEs aged 3-18, on any intervention and any outcome except incidence of ACEs. We included reviews with a summary quality score (AMSTAR) of 5.5 or above. RESULTS:Twenty-five reviews were included. Most reviews focus on psychological interventions and mental health outcomes. The strongest evidence is for cognitive-behavioural therapy for people exposed to abuse. For other interventions - including psychological therapies, parent training, and broader support interventions - the findings overall are inconclusive, although there are some positive results. CONCLUSIONS:There are significant gaps in the evidence on interventions for ACEs. Most approaches focus on mitigating individual psychological harms, and do not address the social pathways which may mediate the negative impacts of ACEs. Many negative impacts of ACEs (e.g. on health behaviours, social relationships and life circumstances) have also not been widely addressed by intervention studies.
| S-EPMC7216383 | biostudies-literature