1
|
Li T, Su W, Wang Z, Wang X, Ma X, Cao Y, Zhao R. Characterization of research trends and prospects on hepatic echinococcosis over the past forty years: a bibliometric analysis. Int J Surg 2024; 110:3654-3665. [PMID: 38477126 PMCID: PMC11175755 DOI: 10.1097/js9.0000000000001319] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2023] [Accepted: 02/26/2024] [Indexed: 03/14/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND The distribution of hepatic echinococcosis (HE) is extensive, significantly impacting public health and economic development. Therefore, analyzing global collaboration networks and tracking developmental trends over the past four decades are crucial. This study aimed to demonstrate collaboration in the field of HE and explore key topics and future directions. MATERIALS AND METHODS Bibliometric analyses were conducted using CiteSpace, Bibliometrix package of R, and VOSviewer software on HE-related studies from the Web of Science Core Collection published before 1 August 2023. RESULTS This study identified 2605 records published in 196 journals by 9860 authors from 2607 institutes in 90 countries. Publications significantly notably increased in 2021. Developing countries like Turkey and China made notable contributions, while developed countries like the USA had higher average citation rates. The largest nodes in every cluster of the collaboration network were Hacettepe University, Tehran University, Xinjiang Medical University, Salford University, and the University of Pavia, and the top-producing authors were Wen H, Vuitton DA, Gottstein B, and Craig PS. Keyword co-occurrence analysis suggested that surgical techniques and novel drugs targeting combined immune checkpoints are the main therapeutic approaches in the future. CONCLUSION Although developing countries had significantly contributed to publications on HE, the citation rate for individual articles from developed countries was significantly higher. Additionally, advancements in surgical techniques and novel drugs targeting combined immune checkpoints may emerge as the next research focus and developmental direction.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tianen Li
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan
| | - Wei Su
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Qinghai Red Cross Hospital
| | - Zhiqiang Wang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Qinghai Red Cross Hospital
| | - Xiao Wang
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Qinghai Red Cross Hospital
| | - Xiaoguang Ma
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Qinghai Red Cross Hospital
| | - Yigeng Cao
- Department of Hematology, The Fifth People’s Hospital of Qinghai Province, Xining, Qinghai, People’s Republic of China
| | - Rui Zhao
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Qilu Hospital of Shandong University, Jinan
- Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery, Qinghai Red Cross Hospital
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Wiles L, Hibbert PD, Zurynski Y, Smith CL, Arnolda G, Ellis LA, Lake R, Easpaig BNG, Molloy C, Middleton S, Braithwaite J, Hill K, Turner T. Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines. BMC Health Serv Res 2024; 24:419. [PMID: 38570788 PMCID: PMC10988967 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-024-10795-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/06/2023] [Accepted: 02/28/2024] [Indexed: 04/05/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach. METHODS A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage. RESULTS Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020. CONCLUSIONS This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise Wiles
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Innovation, Implementation & Clinical Translation (IIMPACT) in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
- South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Peter D Hibbert
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
- Innovation, Implementation & Clinical Translation (IIMPACT) in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia.
- South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia.
| | - Yvonne Zurynski
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- NHMRC Partnership Centre for Health System Sustainability, Sydney, Australia
| | - Carolynn L Smith
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- NHMRC Partnership Centre for Health System Sustainability, Sydney, Australia
| | - Gaston Arnolda
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Louise A Ellis
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- NHMRC Partnership Centre for Health System Sustainability, Sydney, Australia
| | - Rebecca Lake
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Charlotte Molloy
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- Innovation, Implementation & Clinical Translation (IIMPACT) in Health, University of South Australia, Adelaide, Australia
- South Australian Health and Medical Research Institute, Adelaide, Australia
| | - Sandy Middleton
- Nursing Research Institute, St Vincent's Health Network Sydney and Australian Catholic University, Sydney, Australia
| | - Jeffrey Braithwaite
- Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, NSW, Australia
- NHMRC Partnership Centre for Health System Sustainability, Sydney, Australia
| | | | - Tari Turner
- School of Population Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Butler AR, Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Turner T, Lindson N. Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 166:111231. [PMID: 38043829 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.111231] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/17/2023] [Revised: 11/27/2023] [Accepted: 11/28/2023] [Indexed: 12/05/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes. RESULTS The key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback. CONCLUSIONS We recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ailsa R Butler
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - Jamie Hartmann-Boyce
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; Department of Health Promotion and Policy, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA, USA
| | | | - Tari Turner
- Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Nicola Lindson
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Schmidt L, Sinyor M, Webb RT, Marshall C, Knipe D, Eyles EC, John A, Gunnell D, Higgins JPT. A narrative review of recent tools and innovations toward automating living systematic reviews and evidence syntheses. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR EVIDENZ, FORTBILDUNG UND QUALITAT IM GESUNDHEITSWESEN 2023; 181:65-75. [PMID: 37596160 DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2023.06.007] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/14/2022] [Revised: 06/19/2023] [Accepted: 06/25/2023] [Indexed: 08/20/2023]
Abstract
Living reviews are an increasingly popular research paradigm. The purpose of a 'living' approach is to allow rapid collation, appraisal and synthesis of evolving evidence on an important research topic, enabling timely influence on patient care and public health policy. However, living reviews are time- and resource-intensive. The accumulation of new evidence and the possibility of developments within the review's research topic can introduce unique challenges into the living review workflow. To investigate the potential of software tools to support living systematic or rapid reviews, we present a narrative review informed by an examination of tools contained on the Systematic Review Toolbox website. We identified 11 tools with relevant functionalities and discuss the important features of these tools with respect to different steps of the living review workflow. Four tools (NestedKnowledge, SWIFT-ActiveScreener, DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer) covered multiple, successive steps of the review process, and the remaining tools addressed specific components of the workflow, including scoping and protocol formulation, reference retrieval, automated data extraction, write-up and dissemination of data. We identify several ways in which living reviews can be made more efficient and practical. Most of these focus on general workflow management, or automation through artificial intelligence and machine-learning, in the screening process. More sophisticated uses of automation mostly target living rapid reviews to increase the speed of production or evidence maps to broaden the scope of the map. We use a case study to highlight some of the barriers and challenges to incorporating tools into the living review workflow and processes. These include increased workload, the need for organisation, ensuring timely dissemination and challenges related to the development of bespoke automation tools to facilitate the review process. We describe how current end-user tools address these challenges, and which knowledge gaps remain that could be addressed by future tool development. Dedicated web presences for automatic dissemination of in-progress evidence updates, rather than solely relying on peer-reviewed journal publications, help to make the effort of a living evidence synthesis worthwhile. Despite offering basic living review functionalities, existing end-user tools could be further developed to be interoperable with other tools to support multiple workflow steps seamlessly, to address broader automatic evidence retrieval from a larger variety of sources, and to improve dissemination of evidence between review updates.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lena Schmidt
- National Institute for Health and Care Research Innovation Observatory, Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University, Newcastle, UK; Sciome LLC, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
| | - Mark Sinyor
- Department of Psychiatry, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
| | - Roger T Webb
- Division of Psychology and Mental Health, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK; National Institute for Health and Care Research Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre (NIHR GM PSTRC), Manchester, UK
| | | | - Duleeka Knipe
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Emily C Eyles
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; The National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - Ann John
- Population Data Science, Swansea University, Swansea, UK; Public Health Wales NHS Trust, Wales, UK
| | - David Gunnell
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; The National Institute of Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| | - Julian P T Higgins
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; The National Institute of Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration West (NIHR ARC West), University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK; The National Institute of Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre, University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Luo J, Chen Z, Liu D, Li H, He S, Zeng L, Yang M, Liu Z, Xiao X, Zhang L. Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol 2023; 23:175. [PMID: 37525117 PMCID: PMC10388517 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-023-01980-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/16/2022] [Accepted: 06/18/2023] [Indexed: 08/02/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs. METHODS Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. RESULTS A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality. CONCLUSIONS Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jiefeng Luo
- Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research On Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, China
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zhe Chen
- Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research On Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, China
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Dan Liu
- Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research On Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, China
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Hailong Li
- Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research On Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, China
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Siyi He
- Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research On Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, China
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- West China School of Pharmacy, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Linan Zeng
- Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research On Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, China
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Mengting Yang
- Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research On Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, China
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Zheng Liu
- Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research On Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, China
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
- West China School of Medicine, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China
| | - Xue Xiao
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
- Department of Gynecology and Obstetrics, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
| | - Lingli Zhang
- Department of Pharmacy, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
- Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
- NMPA Key Laboratory for Technical Research On Drug Products In Vitro and In Vivo Correlation, Chengdu, China.
- Key Laboratory of Birth Defects and Related Diseases of Women and Children, Ministry of Education, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kim SY. Recent Advance in Clinical Practice Guideline Development Methodology. Korean J Fam Med 2022; 43:347-352. [PMID: 36444118 PMCID: PMC9708852 DOI: 10.4082/kjfm.22.0178] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/01/2022] [Revised: 11/08/2022] [Accepted: 11/15/2022] [Indexed: 01/14/2024] Open
Abstract
Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) can be defined as systematically developed recommendations and related content obtained by reviewing scientific evidence, which help healthcare providers make decisions. CPG is one of the most powerful tools that helps clinicians make evidence-based decisions in practice. Methodologies in areas essential for CPG development, such as for systematic review, risk of bias (ROB) assessment, adaptation, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations, are rapidly developing. Therefore, they must be well-understood and applied to evidence-based CPG development. In this regard, it is necessary to learn about the updates and changed in the methodologies for CPG development. This manuscript covers the following CPG development methodologies: (1) main principles of CPG, (2) managing conflict of interest, (3) considering patient value and preference, (4) determination of key questions, (5) ROB assessment, (6) adaptation, (7) rapid guideline development, (8) living guideline development, and (9) GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Soo Young Kim
- Department of Family Medicine, Kangdong Sacred Heart Hospital, Hallym University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea
| |
Collapse
|