1
|
Pichardo-Rodriguez R, Altuna-Moscoso V, Aviles-Antezana K, Cahuana-Mendoza AL, Challco Alvarado AA, Gonzales-Rospigliosi C, Oscco-Coila S, Rafael-Tarazona E, Saavedra-Velasco M, Cordova-Cueva L, De La Cruz-Vargas JA, Munayco-Guillen F, García-Perdomo HA. Quality Assessment of Systematic Reviews Performed As An Undergraduate thesis in A Peruvian University: A Systematic Review. ADVANCES IN MEDICAL EDUCATION AND PRACTICE 2024; 15:717-725. [PMID: 39072297 PMCID: PMC11277977 DOI: 10.2147/amep.s443710] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2023] [Accepted: 04/22/2024] [Indexed: 07/30/2024]
Abstract
Objective To determine the quality of systematic reviews submitted as a thesis in the Medical School of Ricardo Palma University. Methods We conducted a systematic review. We included systematic reviews submitted as theses from Ricardo Palma University, and we excluded narrative reviews, editorials, clinical experiments, and those with incomplete data. We performed a structured search on EMBASE, PubMed, Scopus, and Institutional Repository from the Ricardo Palma University and RENATI. The risk of bias assessment was performed through the AMSTAR-2 and the modified AMSTAR-2 tools. The primary outcome was review quality. A qualitative synthesis of the information was performed. Results One thousand four hundred eighty-seven theses were identified, and exclusion criteria were applied, whereby 11 theses were selected for review and thorough consultation. Of the 11 selected theses, and through the AMSTAR-2 and modified AMSTAR-2 tools, the findings reached were that 90.9% of the included theses presented critically low quality that was not modified even when the quality was reevaluated after its publication as a scientific article. Conclusion The systematic reviews presented as undergraduate thesis in the Medical School of Ricardo Palma University showed low and critically low quality. Improvement in systematic review training is required for both students and institutional advisors.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Valeria Altuna-Moscoso
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Biomédicas (INICIB), Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima, Perú
| | - Karen Aviles-Antezana
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Biomédicas (INICIB), Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima, Perú
| | | | | | | | - Shirley Oscco-Coila
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Biomédicas (INICIB), Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima, Perú
| | - Enzo Rafael-Tarazona
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Biomédicas (INICIB), Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima, Perú
| | - Marcos Saavedra-Velasco
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Biomédicas (INICIB), Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima, Perú
| | - Liz Cordova-Cueva
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Biomédicas (INICIB), Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima, Perú
| | | | - Fernando Munayco-Guillen
- Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias Biomédicas (INICIB), Universidad Ricardo Palma, Lima, Perú
- Instituto Nacional de Oftalmología (INO), Lima, Peru
| | - Herney Andrés García-Perdomo
- Division of Urology/Uro oncology, Department of Surgery, School of Medicine, Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Puljak L, Bala MM, Zając J, Meštrović T, Buttigieg S, Yanakoulia M, Briel M, Lunny C, Lesniak W, Poklepović Peričić T, Alonso-Coello P, Clarke M, Djulbegovic B, Gartlehner G, Giannakou K, Glenny AM, Glenton C, Guyatt G, Hemkens LG, Ioannidis JPA, Jaeschke R, Juhl Jørgensen K, Martins-Pfeifer CC, Marušić A, Mbuagbaw L, Meneses Echavez JF, Moher D, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Page MJ, Pérez-Gaxiola G, Robinson KA, Salanti G, Saldanha IJ, Savović J, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Tugwell P, van Hoof J, Pieper D. Methods proposed for monitoring the implementation of evidence-based research: a cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 2024; 168:111247. [PMID: 38185190 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111247] [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: 08/15/2023] [Revised: 12/22/2023] [Accepted: 01/03/2024] [Indexed: 01/09/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Evidence-based research (EBR) is the systematic and transparent use of prior research to inform a new study so that it answers questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. This study surveyed experts about existing (e.g., citation analysis) and new methods for monitoring EBR and collected ideas about implementing these methods. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We conducted a cross-sectional study via an online survey between November 2022 and March 2023. Participants were experts from the fields of evidence synthesis and research methodology in health research. Open-ended questions were coded by recurring themes; descriptive statistics were used for quantitative questions. RESULTS Twenty-eight expert participants suggested that citation analysis should be supplemented with content evaluation (not just what is cited but also in which context), content expert involvement, and assessment of the quality of cited systematic reviews. They also suggested that citation analysis could be facilitated with automation tools. They emphasized that EBR monitoring should be conducted by ethics committees and funding bodies before the research starts. Challenges identified for EBR implementation monitoring were resource constraints and clarity on responsibility for EBR monitoring. CONCLUSION Ideas proposed in this study for monitoring the implementation of EBR can be used to refine methods and define responsibility but should be further explored in terms of feasibility and acceptability. Different methods may be needed to determine if the use of EBR is improving over time.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Livia Puljak
- Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Healthcare, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia.
| | - Małgorzata M Bala
- Systematic Reviews Unit, Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland
| | - Joanna Zając
- Department of Hygiene and Dietetics, Chair of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland
| | | | - Sandra Buttigieg
- Department of Health Systems Management and Leadership, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Malta, Msida, Malta
| | - Mary Yanakoulia
- Department of Nutrition and Dietetics, Harokopio University, Athens, Greece
| | - Matthias Briel
- Division of Clinical Epidemiology, Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland; University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Carole Lunny
- Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Cochrane Hypertension Review Group, The Therapeutics Initiative, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| | | | - Tina Poklepović Peričić
- Department of Prosthodontics, Study of Dental Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Pablo Alonso-Coello
- Institut de Recerca Sant Pau (IR SANT PAU), Iberoamerican Cochrane Center, Barcelona, Spain; Centro de Investigación Biomédica en Red de Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP), Madrid, Spain
| | - Mike Clarke
- Northern Ireland Clinical Trials Unit (NICTU), Belfast, UK; Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Benjamin Djulbegovic
- Division of Hematology/Oncology, Department of Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, South Carolina, USA
| | - Gerald Gartlehner
- RTI International, The RTI International-University of North Carolina Evidence-Based Practice Center, Durham, NC, USA; Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria
| | - Konstantinos Giannakou
- Department of Health Sciences, School of Sciences, European University Cyprus, Nicosia, Cyprus
| | - Anne-Marie Glenny
- Division of Dentistry, Cochrane Oral Health, School of Medical Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Claire Glenton
- Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway
| | - Gordon Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Lars G Hemkens
- Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel (RC2NB), University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Department of Clinical Research, University Hospital Basel, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Meta-Research Innovation Center Berlin (METRIC-B), Berlin Institute of Health, Berlin, Germany
| | - John P A Ioannidis
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Medicine, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Biomedical Data Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA; Department of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
| | - Roman Jaeschke
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Karsten Juhl Jørgensen
- Department of Clinical Research, Cochrane Denmark and Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | | | - Ana Marušić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, Center for Evidence-based Medicine, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Lawrence Mbuagbaw
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada; Biostatistics Unit, Father Sean O'Sullivan Research Centre, St Joseph's Healthcare Hamilton, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jose Francisco Meneses Echavez
- Facultad de Cultura Física, Deporte y Recreación, Universidad Santo Tomás, Bogotá, Colombia; Division of Health Services at Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Bergen, Norway
| | - David Moher
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit
- Department for Evidence-Based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Austria
| | - Matthew J Page
- Methods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
| | | | - Karen A Robinson
- Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Bergen, Norway; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Georgia Salanti
- Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine University of Bern, Switzerland
| | - Ian J Saldanha
- Department of Epidemiology, Center for Clinical Trials and Evidence Synthesis, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Jelena Savović
- Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK; NIHR Applied Research Collaboration West (ARC West) at University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust, Bristol, UK
| | - James Thomas
- EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andrea C Tricco
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Epidemiology Division and the Institute of Health Management, Policy, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Peter Tugwell
- Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Joost van Hoof
- The Hague University of Applied Sciences, Faculty Social Work & Education, The Hague, The Netherlands; Institute of Spatial Management, Faculty of Spatial Management and Landscape Architecture, Wrocław University of Environmental and Life Sciences, Wrocław, Poland
| | - Dawid Pieper
- Faculty of Health Sciences Brandenburg, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Institute for Health Services and Health System Research, Rüdersdorf, Germany; Center for Health Services Research, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Rüdersdorf, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Grace SG, van Zundert AAJ. Diversity in medical PhD curricula: a call for harmonisation. Intern Med J 2023; 53:1806-1812. [PMID: 36300865 DOI: 10.1111/imj.15939] [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: 05/26/2022] [Accepted: 09/20/2022] [Indexed: 12/01/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Globalisation has increased human movements around the world, spurring greater connectiveness and opportunities to collaborate. In an increasingly connected world, quality assurance among professionals is paramount, particularly in medical research where PhD (Doctor of Philosophy) degree holders are expected to be at the peak of their field and play advanced-level research, education and leadership roles. While some regional efforts have been made to ensure comparability in the standards of advanced degree training, no previous study has compared these standards for a PhD in medicine across the globe. AIMS To explore the structural diversity of medical PhD degrees and identify which aspects benefit from greater harmonisation. METHODS In 2021, the 10 best-ranked universities from each of the top five Western countries, and the top Asian country, were identified based on Quacquarelli Symonds World University Ranking. Data were collected for each university based on individual website information regarding the level of degree required to gain entry into a PhD programme in medicine and requirements for completion of coursework, journal publication and oral defence. RESULTS Significant variations exist in the requirements for medical PhDs across the world in terms of prerequisite degree and inclusion of coursework. Oral defence is near universal, but a mandatory requirement for publication is largely absent. CONCLUSIONS Harmonisation of medical PhD degrees through international standards should be considered to encourage quality improvement and benchmarking between institutions, as well as to facilitate greater ease of movement within the medical research community, improving international collaboration and individual career opportunities accordingly.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel G Grace
- Department of Anaesthesia, Cairns Hospital, Cairns, Queensland, Australia
| | - André A J van Zundert
- Department of Anaesthesia and Perioperative Medicine, The University of Queensland and Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Chien PFW, Khan KS. Systematic Review Reporting - Writing concisely and precisely. Pak J Med Sci 2023; 39:317-322. [PMID: 36950392 PMCID: PMC10025746 DOI: 10.12669/pjms.39.2.7428] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/02/2022] [Accepted: 02/18/2023] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
Systematic reviews rank at the top of the evidence hierarchy. Concise writing implies drafting the systematic review article succinctly, i.e. using as few words to express as full an extent of the research effort as possible. Precise writing means drafting the text with accuracy especially with respect to the methodological and statistical aspects. The Abstract ought to be succinct and structured to allow for editors, peer reviewers and readers to get the gist of the key aspects of the systematic review with a quick read. The readership needs to be able to critically appraisal systematic reviews for their internal and external validity rapidly. The Abstract also needs to be standalone, representing an independent summary that can be fully understood without the need for reading the full paper. The standard structure of the main text of a scientific article called IMRaD (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) applies equally to systematic reviews in the same way as it does to any other kinds of research manuscripts whether related to laboratory experiments or clinical trials. Restricting the word count limits to those imposed by journals may at first seem difficult, even unfair, to systematic reviewers. However, with the availability of online appendices to transparently and fully report the details of the methods, results and other aspects of the work undertaken allows for a succinct print or PDF article. Writing a shorter manuscript is more effortful than writing a longer report. This commentary is aimed at novice systematic reviewers to help them learn the written and unwritten writing rules in order to assist them in producing impactful publications to support evidence-based medicine.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Patrick FW Chien
- Patrick FW Chien, FRCOGm, Department of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, RCSI & UCD Malaysia Campus, 10450 Penang, Malaysia
| | - Khalid S Khan
- Khalid S Khan, FRCOG, Department of Preventive Medicine and Public Health, University of Granada, Faculty of Medicine, Granada, Spain. CIBER Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Krnic Martinic M, Malisa S, Aranza D, Civljak M, Marušić A, Sapunar D, Poklepovic Pericic T, Buljan I, Tokalic R, Cavic D, Puljak L. Creating an online educational intervention to improve knowledge about systematic reviews among healthcare workers: mixed-methods pilot study. BMC MEDICAL EDUCATION 2022; 22:722. [PMID: 36242036 PMCID: PMC9562058 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-022-03763-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/24/2021] [Revised: 09/05/2022] [Accepted: 09/23/2022] [Indexed: 06/16/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lack of knowledge about systematic reviews (SRs) could prevent individual healthcare workers (HCWs) from using SRs as a source of information in their clinical practice or discourage them from participating in such research. In this study, we aimed to explore in-depth the opinion of a sample of HCWs about the newly created online educational intervention designed to improve knowledge about SRs. METHODS We created a brief online educational intervention on SRs, consisting of 11 textual modules. We evaluated it among practicing HCWs who graduated from a university-level health sciences program using a mixed-methods pilot study that consisted of pre- and post-intervention questionnaires and qualitative evaluation via semi-structured interviews. We assessed participants' knowledge about SR methodology before and after the intervention, and compared the responses. We sought their opinions about the characteristics of SRs. Also, the participants were presented with four scientific abstracts, where they were asked to distinguish whether those abstracts presented summaries of a systematic or a non-systematic review. RESULTS Twelve participants took part in the study. In the pilot study, the participants' knowledge about SRs was improved after the intervention compared to the baseline. Participants provided positive feedback regarding the educational intervention. Suggestions to improve the educational intervention were to provide more details about the forest plot, add more digital content or images, provide more details about the methodological steps of an SR, add descriptions about practical applications of SRs and provide links to additional educational materials. The participants suggested that HCWs could be motivated to take part in such an education if it is offered as continuing medical education (CME) course or credit for academic/career advancement. CONCLUSION HCWs provided positive feedback about the newly designed online educational intervention on SRs; they considered it an appropriate tool for learning about SRs and resulted in increased knowledge about SRs. In addition, participants gave suggestions for improving education, which can be used to tailor the education for end-users. In future studies, it would be useful to examine the effectiveness of the modified educational intervention on increasing knowledge in a larger sample and in the form of a randomized controlled trial.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Snjezana Malisa
- Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Diana Aranza
- University Department of Health Studies, University of Split, Split, Croatia
| | - Marta Civljak
- Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Ana Marušić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Damir Sapunar
- Department of Histology and Embryology, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Tina Poklepovic Pericic
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Ivan Buljan
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Ruzica Tokalic
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Dalibor Cavic
- Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Livia Puljak
- Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Ilica 242, 10000, Zagreb, Croatia.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Krnic Martinic M, Čivljak M, Marušić A, Sapunar D, Poklepović Peričić T, Buljan I, Tokalić R, Mališa S, Neuberg M, Ivanišević K, Aranza D, Skitarelić N, Zoranić S, Mikšić Š, Čavić D, Puljak L. Web-Based Educational Intervention to Improve Knowledge of Systematic Reviews Among Health Science Professionals: Randomized Controlled Trial. J Med Internet Res 2022; 24:e37000. [PMID: 36006686 PMCID: PMC9459937 DOI: 10.2196/37000] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/02/2022] [Revised: 05/10/2022] [Accepted: 05/13/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Lack of knowledge of systematic reviews (SRs) could prevent individual health care professionals from using SRs as a source of information in their clinical practice or discourage them from participating in such research. Objective In this randomized controlled trial, we evaluated the effect of a short web-based educational intervention on short-term knowledge of SRs. Methods Eligible participants were 871 Master’s students of university health sciences studies in Croatia; 589 (67.6%) students who agreed to participate in the trial were randomized using a computer program into 2 groups. Intervention group A (294/589, 49.9%) received a short web-based educational intervention about SR methodology, and intervention group B (295/589, 50.1%) was presented with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist. The participants’ knowledge of SRs was assessed before and after the intervention. The participants could not be blinded because of the nature of the intervention. The primary outcome was the difference in the percentage of correct answers about SR methodology per participant between the groups after the intervention, expressed as relative risk and 95% CI. Results Results from 162 and 165 participants in the educational intervention and PRISMA checklist groups, respectively, were available for analysis. Most of them (educational intervention group: 130/162, 80.2%; PRISMA checklist group: 131/165, 79.4%) were employed as health care professionals in addition to being health sciences students. After the intervention, the educational intervention group had 23% (relative risk percentage) more correct answers in the postintervention questionnaire than the PRISMA checklist group (relative risk=1.23, 95% CI 1.17-1.29). Conclusions A short web-based educational intervention about SRs is an effective tool for short-term improvement of knowledge of SRs among health care studies students, most of whom were also employed as health care professionals. Further studies are needed to explore the long-term effects of the tested education. Trial Registration OSF Registries 10.17605/OSF.IO/RYMVC; https://osf.io/rymvc
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Ana Marušić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Damir Sapunar
- University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Tina Poklepović Peričić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Ivan Buljan
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Ružica Tokalić
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | | | | | - Kata Ivanišević
- Faculty of Health Studies, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
| | - Diana Aranza
- University Department of Health Studies, University of Split, Split, Croatia
| | | | - Sanja Zoranić
- Department of Nursing, University of Dubrovnik, Dubrovnik, Croatia
| | - Štefica Mikšić
- Faculty of Dental Medicine and Health Osijek, The Josip Juraj Strossmayer University of Osijek, Osijek, Croatia
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Dondjio I, Themistocleous M. Blockchain Technology and Waste Management: A Systematic Literature Review. INFORM SYST 2022. [DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-95947-0_14] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 10/19/2022]
|
8
|
Puljak L. Evidence synthesis and methodological research on evidence in medicine-Why it really is research and it really is medicine. J Evid Based Med 2020; 13:253-254. [PMID: 33145959 DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12417] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2020] [Accepted: 10/22/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Livia Puljak
- Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Robinson KA, Brunnhuber K, Ciliska D, Juhl CB, Christensen R, Lund H. Evidence-Based Research Series-Paper 1: What Evidence-Based Research is and why is it important? J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 129:151-157. [PMID: 32979491 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.07.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/29/2020] [Accepted: 07/20/2020] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES There is considerable actual and potential waste in research. Evidence-based research ensures worthwhile and valuable research. The aim of this series, which this article introduces, is to describe the evidence-based research approach. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING In this first article of a three-article series, we introduce the evidence-based research approach. Evidence-based research is the use of prior research in a systematic and transparent way to inform a new study so that it is answering questions that matter in a valid, efficient, and accessible manner. RESULTS We describe evidence-based research and provide an overview of the approach of systematically and transparently using previous research before starting a new study to justify and design the new study (article #2 in series) and-on study completion-place its results in the context with what is already known (article #3 in series). CONCLUSION This series introduces evidence-based research as an approach to minimize unnecessary and irrelevant clinical health research that is unscientific, wasteful, and unethical.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Karen A Robinson
- Johns Hopkins Evidence-based Practice Center, Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA
| | - Klara Brunnhuber
- Digital Content Services, Operations, Elsevier Ltd., 125 London Wall, London, EC2Y 5AS, UK
| | - Donna Ciliska
- School of Nursing, McMaster University, Health Sciences Centre, Room 2J20, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, L8S 4K1; Section for Evidence-Based Practice, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Inndalsveien 28, Bergen, P.O.Box 7030 N-5020 Bergen, Norway
| | - Carsten Bogh Juhl
- Department of Sport Science and Clinical Biomechanics, University of Southern Denmark, Campusvej 55, 5230, Odense M, Denmark; Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, University Hospital of Copenhagen, Herlev & Gentofte, Kildegaardsvej 28, 2900, Hellerup, Denmark
| | - Robin Christensen
- Musculoskeletal Statistics Unit, the Parker Institute, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Copenhagen, Nordre Fasanvej 57, 2000, Copenhagen F, Denmark; Department of Clinical Research, Research Unit of Rheumatology, University of Southern Denmark, Odense University Hospital, Denmark
| | - Hans Lund
- Section for Evidence-Based Practice, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, Inndalsveien 28, Bergen, P.O.Box 7030 N-5020 Bergen, Norway.
| | | |
Collapse
|
10
|
Academia Europaea Position Paper on Translational Medicine: The Cycle Model for Translating Scientific Results into Community Benefits. J Clin Med 2020; 9:jcm9051532. [PMID: 32438747 PMCID: PMC7290380 DOI: 10.3390/jcm9051532] [Citation(s) in RCA: 50] [Impact Index Per Article: 12.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/01/2020] [Revised: 05/14/2020] [Accepted: 05/15/2020] [Indexed: 01/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Introduction: Translational science has gained prominence in medicine, but there is still much work to be done before scientific results are used optimally and incorporated into everyday health practice. As the main focus is still on generating new scientific data with financial resources primarily available for that purpose, other activities that are necessary in the transition from research to community benefit are considered less needy. The European Statistical Office of the European Commission has recently reported that 1.7 million people under 75 years of age died in Europe in 2016, with around 1.2 million of those deaths being avoidable through effective primary prevention and public health intervention. Therefore, Academia Europaea, one of the five Pan-European networks that form SAPEA (Science Advice for Policy by European Academies), a key element of the European Commission’s Scientific Advice Mechanism (SAM), has launched a project to develop a model to facilitate and accelerate the utilisation of scientific knowledge for public and community benefit. Methods: During the process, leaders in the field, including prominent basic and clinical researchers, editors-in-chief of high-impact journals publishing translational research articles, translational medicine (TM) centre leaders, media representatives, academics and university leaders, developed the TM cycle, a new model that we believe could significantly advance the development of TM. Results: This model focuses equally on the acquisition of new scientific results healthcare, understandable and digestible summation of results, and their communication to all participants. We have also renewed the definition in TM, identified challenges and recommended solutions. Conclusion: The authors, including senior officers of Academia Europaea, produced this document to serve as a basis for revising thinking on TM with the end result of enabling more efficient and cost-effective healthcare.
Collapse
|
11
|
Dotto L, T O Lemes L, O Spazzin A, Sousa YTCS, Pereira GKR, Bacchi A, Sarkis-Onofre R. Acceptance of systematic reviews as Master/PhD theses in Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry. J Evid Based Med 2020; 13:125-129. [PMID: 32369657 DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12382] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2020] [Accepted: 02/19/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE This study aimed to evaluate whether a master and PhD thesis in Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry can be based on a systematic review (SR). METHODS In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed the coordinators of Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry using a self-administered questionnaire including questions about whether an SR meets requirements for approval of a master or PhD thesis, instructions regarding how to use an SR as the method for a master or PhD thesis, and reasons and barriers that SRs were not recognized as acceptable for a master or PhD thesis. The responses were analyzed descriptively, and tables and graphs were created to summarize the data. RESULTS Among 101 graduate programs invited to participate in the study, 38 (37.6%) returned the questionnaire. Over three-quarters of surveyed programs (n = 30, 78.1%) answered that SRs, in whole or in part, meet the criteria for a master or PhD thesis. Likewise, most programs answered that a master or PhD thesis could be exclusively based on an SR (n = 28, 73.7%). The same number of programs pointed out that one possible reason for not recognizing SRs as a master or PhD thesis is either the lack of SR expertise among committee members (n = 28, 73.7%) or the lack of adequate training of candidates in SR methodology (n = 26, 68.4%). CONCLUSIONS SRs are well accepted as a master or PhD thesis by Brazilian graduate programs in dentistry. Educational initiatives should be encouraged to promote understanding of SR methodology and increase acceptance among graduate programs worldwide.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lara Dotto
- Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, Passo Fundo, Brazil
| | - Letícia T O Lemes
- Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, Passo Fundo, Brazil
| | - Aloísio O Spazzin
- Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, Passo Fundo, Brazil
| | | | | | - Ataís Bacchi
- Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty/IMED, Passo Fundo, Brazil
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Krnic Martinic M, Meerpohl JJ, von Elm E, Herrle F, Marusic A, Puljak L. Attitudes of editors of core clinical journals about whether systematic reviews are original research: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e029704. [PMID: 31471441 PMCID: PMC6720555 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029704] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2019] [Revised: 06/26/2019] [Accepted: 07/19/2019] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES In 2009, not all journal editors considered systematic reviews (SRs) to be original research studies, and not all PubMed Core Clinical Journals published SRs. The aim of this study was to conduct a new analysis about editors' opinion regarding SRs as original research. DESIGN We conducted a survey and qualitative interview study of journal editors. PARTICIPANTS All editors listed as editor-in chief of 118 PubMed Core Clinical Journals. METHODS We contacted editors via email and asked them whether they considered SRs original research, whether they published SRs in the journal and, if yes, in which section. We searched PubMed for any SRs (or meta-analyses) published in the included journals in 2017; if we did not find any, we hand-searched these journals. Editors were invited to participate in a follow-up qualitative interview study. RESULTS We received responses from 73 editors representing 72 (62%) journals. Fifty-two (80%) editors considered SRs original research, either for any type of SR (65%) or only for SRs with a meta-analysis (15%) and almost all (91%) of editors published SRs. Compared with the results of the 2009 study of Core Clinical Journals, a similar proportion of editors considered SRs to be original studies (71%), accepted SRs as original on certain condition such as presence of meta-analysis (14%) or published SRs (94%). Interviews with editors showed that they used various criteria to decide whether a SR is original research, including methodology, reproducibility, originality of idea and level of novelty. CONCLUSION The majority of editors of core clinical journals consider that SRs are original research. Among editors, there was no uniform approach to defining what makes a SR, or any study, original. This indicates that the concepts of originality of SRs and research are evolving and that this would be a relevant topic for further discussion.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joerg J Meerpohl
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Medical Faculty, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Cochrane Germany, Cochrane Germany Foundation, Freiburg, Germany
| | - Erik von Elm
- Cochrane Switzerland, Center for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Florian Herrle
- Surgical Department, University Medical Centre Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany
| | - Ana Marusic
- Department of Research in Biomedicine and Health, University of Split School of Medicine, Split, Croatia
| | - Livia Puljak
- Center for Evidence-Based Medicine and Health Care, Catholic University of Croatia, Zagreb, Croatia
| |
Collapse
|