|
1
|
Nussbaumer-Streit B, Ellen M, Klerings I, Sfetcu R, Riva N, Mahmić-Kaknjo M, Poulentzas G, Martinez P, Baladia E, Ziganshina LE, Marqués ME, Aguilar L, Kassianos AP, Frampton G, Silva AG, Affengruber L, Spjker R, Thomas J, Berg RC, Kontogiani M, Sousa M, Kontogiorgis C, Gartlehner G. Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 139:287-296. [PMID: 34091021 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.05.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/17/2021] [Revised: 05/21/2021] [Accepted: 05/26/2021] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE We aimed to map the resource use during systematic review (SR) production and reasons why steps of the SR production are resource intensive to discover where the largest gain in improving efficiency might be possible. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted a scoping review. An information specialist searched multiple databases (e.g., Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus) and implemented citation-based and grey literature searching. We employed dual and independent screenings of records at the title/abstract and full-text levels and data extraction. RESULTS We included 34 studies. Thirty-two reported on the resource use-mostly time; four described reasons why steps of the review process are resource intensive. Study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal seem to be very resource intensive, while protocol development, literature search, or study retrieval take less time. Project management and administration required a large proportion of SR production time. Lack of experience, domain knowledge, use of collaborative and SR-tailored software, and good communication and management can be reasons why SR steps are resource intensive. CONCLUSION Resource use during SR production varies widely. Areas with the largest resource use are administration and project management, study selection, data extraction, and critical appraisal of studies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - M Ellen
- Department of Health Systems Management, Guilford Glazer Faculty of Business and Management and Faculty of Health Sciences, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel; Institute of Health Policy Management and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School Of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada
| | - I Klerings
- Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria
| | - R Sfetcu
- National School of Public Health, Management and Professional Development Bucharest, Romania; Spiru Haret University, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences
| | - N Riva
- Department of Pathology, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
| | - M Mahmić-Kaknjo
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Cantonal Hospital Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina; Faculty of Medicine, University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
| | - G Poulentzas
- Laboratory of Hygiene and Environmental Protection, Department of Medicine, Democritus University of Thrace
| | - P Martinez
- Centro de Análisis de la Evidencia Científica, Academia Española de Nutrición y Dietética, España; Techné research group. Department of knowledge engineering of the Faculty of Science. University of Granada. Spain
| | - E Baladia
- Centro de Análisis de la Evidencia Científica, Academia Española de Nutrición y Dietética, España
| | - L E Ziganshina
- Cochrane Russia at the Russian Medical Academy for Continuing Professional Education (RMANPO) of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation and the Kazan State Medical University of the Ministry of Health of Russian Federation
| | - M E Marqués
- Centro de Análisis de la Evidencia Científica, Academia Española de Nutrición y Dietética, España
| | - L Aguilar
- Centro de Análisis de la Evidencia Científica, Academia Española de Nutrición y Dietética, España
| | - A P Kassianos
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK; Department of Psychology, University of Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - G Frampton
- Southampton Health Technology Assessments Centre (SHTAC), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, UK
| | - A G Silva
- School of Health Sciences & CINTESIS.UA, University of Aveiro, Campus UNiversitário de Santiago, Portugal
| | - L Affengruber
- Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria; Department of Family Medicine, Care and Public Health Research Institute (CAPHRI), Maastricht University, The Netherlands
| | - R Spjker
- Cochrane Netherlands, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, UMC Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Univ of Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health, Medical Library, Meibergdreef 9, Amsterdam, Netherlands
| | | | - R C Berg
- Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
| | - M Kontogiani
- Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, School of Health Sciences and Education, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece
| | - M Sousa
- Nutrition & Metabolism, NOVA Medical School, Faculdade de Ciências Médicas, Universidade NOVA de Lisboa, Campo dos Mártires da Pátria, 1169-056 Lisboa, Portugal; CINTESIS, NOVA Medical School, NMS, Universidade Nova de Lisboa, Campo dos Mártires da Pátria, 1169-056 Lisboa, Portugal
| | - C Kontogiorgis
- Faculty of Medicine, University of Zenica, Zenica, Bosnia and Herzegovina
| | - G Gartlehner
- Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems, Krems a.d. Donau, Austria; RTI International, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA
| |
Collapse
|
|
2
|
Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One 2015; 10:e0125931. [PMID: 25938454 PMCID: PMC4418838 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0125931] [Citation(s) in RCA: 63] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2015] [Accepted: 03/25/2015] [Indexed: 01/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Previous research looking at published systematic reviews has shown that their search strategies are often suboptimal and that librarian involvement, though recommended, is low. Confidence in the results, however, is limited due to poor reporting of search strategies the published articles. Objectives To more accurately measure the use of recommended search methods in systematic reviews, the levels of librarian involvement, and whether librarian involvement predicts the use of recommended methods. Methods A survey was sent to all authors of English-language systematic reviews indexed in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from January 2012 through January 2014. The survey asked about their use of search methods recommended by the Institute of Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and if and how a librarian was involved in the systematic review. Rates of use of recommended methods and librarian involvement were summarized. The impact of librarian involvement on use of recommended methods was examined using a multivariate logistic regression. Results 1560 authors completed the survey. Use of recommended search methods ranged widely from 98% for use of keywords to 9% for registration in PROSPERO and were generally higher than in previous studies. 51% of studies involved a librarian, but only 64% acknowledge their assistance. Librarian involvement was significantly associated with the use of 65% of recommended search methods after controlling for other potential predictors. Odds ratios ranged from 1.36 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.75) for including multiple languages to 3.07 (95% CI 2.06 to 4.58) for using controlled vocabulary. Conclusions Use of recommended search strategies is higher than previously reported, but many methods are still under-utilized. Librarian involvement predicts the use of most methods, but their involvement is under-reported within the published article.
Collapse
|
|
4
|
Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, Fedorowicz Z, Pandis N. A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 2012; 83:158-63. [PMID: 22720835 DOI: 10.2319/032612-251.1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 79] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To assess the reporting quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (SR) in orthodontics and to compare the reporting quality (PRISMA score) with methodological quality (AMSTAR criteria). MATERIALS AND METHODS Systematic reviews (n = 109) published between January 2000 and July 2011 in five leading orthodontic journals were identified and included. The quality of reporting of the included reviews was assessed by two authors in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines. Each article was assigned a cumulative grade based on fulfillment of the applicable criteria, and an overall percentage score was assigned. Descriptive statistics and simple and multiple linear regression analyses were undertaken. RESULTS The mean overall PRISMA score was 64.1% (95% confidence interval [CI], 62%-65%). The quality of reporting was considerably better in reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (P < .001) than in non-Cochrane reviews. Both multivariable and univariable analysis indicated that journal of publication and number of authors was significantly associated with the PRISMA score. The association between AMSTAR score and modified PRISMA score was also found to be highly statistically significant. CONCLUSION Compliance of orthodontic SRs published in orthodontic journals with PRISMA guidelines was deficient in several areas. The quality of reporting assessed using PRISMA guidelines was significantly better in orthodontic SRs published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Collapse
|