Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery

Immunogenicity and safety of inactivated quadrivalent influenza vaccine compared with the trivalent vaccine for influenza infection: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Influenza infection is a highly preventable transmissible viral disease associated with mild upper respiratory symptoms and more severe conditions such as lethal pneumonia. Studies have shown that a broader spectrum influenza vaccine could reduce influenza's burden of disease in low- and middle-income countries. A considerable number of systematic reviews reported that quadrivalent influenza vaccines are considered more effective compared to trivalent vaccines, hence, there is a need for an overview in order to synthesize the current evidence pertaining to the comparison between quadrivalent and trivalent inactivated influenza vaccines.

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to summarize the evidence from systematic reviews that investigated the immunogenicity and safety of the Influenza's inactivated quadrivalent vaccine (QIV) compared to the trivalent vaccine (TIV), in the general population.

METHODS

We searched articles up to December 2022 at: Web of Science, EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and SCOPUS. The search strategy was conducted following the PICO model. We included systematic reviews comparing the primary outcomes of immunogenicity (seroprotection rate and seroconversion rate) and adverse events using risk ratios. The AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS were used for quality assessments, and GRADE was used for evidence certainty assessments.

FINDINGS

We included five systematic reviews, totalling 47,740 participants. The Quadrivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (QIV) exhibited enhanced immunogenicity in the context of B-lineage mismatch when compared to the Trivalent Inactivated Influenza Vaccine (TIV). While the safety profile of QIV was found to be comparable to that of TIV, the QIV showed a higher incidence of solicited local pain among children and adolescents, as well as an increased frequency of local adverse events within the adult population.

CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that the QIV provides a superior immunogenicity response compared to the TIV in all age groups evaluated, especially when a lineage mismatch occurred. The safety of QIV was considered similar to the TIV, with no serious or systemic solicited or unsolicited adverse events; tough pain at the injection site was greater for QIV. We recommend caution owing to the high risk of bias in the selection process and no protocol registration.

An analysis of data sources and study registries used in systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Reporting standards for data sources in systematic reviews (SRs) have been developed, yet research shows varying compliance in the methods section. When this happens, replication of search results is difficult and creates ambiguous and biased data sources.

AIMS

This study captured author practices in choosing English and non-English-language databases, listing all the databases searched, and incorporating study registries as part of the search strategy.

METHODS

Using an analytic, cross-sectional, study design, volunteer data collectors (n = 107) searched one of two assigned English language platforms for SRs on specified health conditions. All the data sources found in the methods section of each SR were documented and analyzed for patterns using bibliographic techniques.

RESULTS

The final sample size of the SRs reviewed was N = 199. The mean number of data sources seen in the SRs was 3.9 (SD 2), with a range of 1-10. Eighteen records (9%) used a single data source to conduct the SRs. Four leading language platforms were seen in the SRs: English (100% of occurrences), up to 8% used Chinese data sources, and 4% included Spanish or Portuguese. The four most frequently used data sources were: (1) Medline (98%), (2) Embase (65%), (3) Cochrane Library (56%), and (4) Web of Science (33%). The percentage of SRs listing study registries was 30%.

LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION

Strategies to reduce bias and increase the rigor and reliability of SRs include comprehensive search practices by exploring non-English-language databases, using multiple data sources, and searching study registries. By following PRISMA-S guidelines to report data sources correctly, reproducibility can be accomplished.

Quality of reporting of literature search strategies in systematic reviews published on the role of telehealth during COVID-19

A comprehensive and reproducible search strategy for systematic reviews especially about COVID-19 plays a pivotal role in conducting a reliable and unbiased review. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the search strategy reporting in systematic reviews conducted on the role of telehealth during COVID-19. The secondary aim of study was to explore some affecting factor in the quality of search strategy. The study evaluated the quality of the search strategy reporting with PRISMA-S checklist. The search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and other related databases. Systematic reviews were included. There was no language restriction. The correlation of the PRISMA-S scores with journal impact factor, CiteScore, and librarians’ role were evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. A total of 85 articles were included in the review. The overall mean score of PRISMA-S checklist was 6.12 ± 1.46. PubMed was the most popular database for search. More than half of the studies did not provide a full search strategy. There was a significant positive correlation between PRISMA-S score and the journal impact factor (Spearman’s rho = 0.217; P = 0.46) and CiteScore (Spearman’s rho = 0.235; P = 0.03). The quality of literature search was poor in the included studies. Using the PRISMA-S as a search reporting guideline can be a helpful tool for authors. A professional librarian can be beneficial in improving the quality of the search. It is recommended to use a new pattern in COVID-19-related searches, such as preprint sources.

Optimising the process for conducting scoping reviews

Knowledge synthesis constitutes a key part of evidence-based medicine and a scoping review is a type of knowledge synthesis that maps the breadth of literature on a topic. Conducting a scoping review is resource intensive and, as a result, it can be challenging to maintain best practices throughout the process. Much of the current guidance describes a scoping review framework or broad ways to conduct a scoping review. However, little detailed guidance exists on how to complete each stage to optimise the process. We present five recommendations based on our experience when conducting a particularly challenging scoping review: (1) engage the expertise of a librarian throughout the process, (2) conduct a truly systematic search, (3) facilitate communication and collaboration, (4) explore new tools or repurpose old ones, and (5) test every stage of the process. These recommendations add to the literature by providing specific and detailed advice on each stage of a scoping review. Our intent is for these recommendations to aid other teams that are undertaking knowledge synthesis projects.

Reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the reporting of the methodological quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic quantitative systematic reviews (SRs) and hence their reproducibility.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A search of a single electronic database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify interventional orthodontic SRs with meta-analysis published within a 10-year period. The Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews was also sourced. Full articles were reviewed by two assessors against the eligibility criteria. The reporting quality of each search strategy was assessed using a previously validated checklist with a score of 1 or 2 given for each of the eight items. Cumulative totals were calculated. Guided by previous research, the authors agreed the following cut-offs to categorize the overall level of quality: 8-10 (poor), 10-12 (fair), and greater than 13 (good).

RESULTS

A total of 127 SRs were analysed. The overall median quality score for the reporting of the search strategy was 14 [interquartile range (IQR): 13-15]. Cochrane SRs and those originating in Europe received higher aggregate scores, whereas no difference was evident based on Prospero registration. The continent of the corresponding author predicated the overall score. Non-Cochrane reviews achieved lower overall scores compared to Cochrane reviews (-1.0, 95% confidence interval: -1.65, -0.34, P = 0.003). The most frequently searched database was EMBASE (N = 93) and the median number of authors was 5 (IQR 4-6). Authors of 26.8% of SRs searched the grey literature. Language restrictions were applied to the search strategies of 88 (69.3%) SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

The reporting quality of search strategies undertaken in orthodontic SRs is at a good level but differences between Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews currently exist. The reporting of searching of the grey literature and application of no language restrictions can be improved.

Quality of Literature Searches Published in Leading Neurosurgical Journals: A Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

There is mounting evidence that the search strategies upon which systematic reviews (SRs) are based frequently contain errors are incompletely reported or insensitive.

OBJECTIVE

To appraise the quality of search strategies in the 10 leading specialty neurosurgical journals and identify factors associated with superior searches.

METHODS

This research-on-research study systematically surveyed SRs published in the 10 leading neurosurgical journals between 01/10/2017 and 31/10/2019. All SRs were eligible for assessment using a predefined coding manual that was adapted from the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA), a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR), and Cochrane Collaboration guidelines. The PubMed interface was used to search the MEDLINE database, which was supplemented by individual journal searches. Descriptive statistics were utilized to identify factors associated with improved search strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 633 articles were included and contained a median of 19.00 (2.00-1654.00) studies. Less than half (45.97%) of included search strategies were considered to be reproducible. Aggregated reporting score was positively associated with in-text reference to reporting guideline adherence (τb = 0.156, P < .01). The number of articles retrieved by a search (τb = 0.11, P < .01) was also associated with the reporting of a reproducible search strategy.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that the search strategies used in neurosurgical SRs require improvement. In addition to increasing awareness of reporting standards, we propose that this be achieved by the incorporation of PRISMA and other guidelines into article submission and peer-review processes. This may lead to the conduct of more informative SRs, which may result in improved clinician decision-making and patient outcomes.

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc 2021;109:174-200. [PMID: 34285662 PMCID: PMC8270366 DOI: 10.5195/jmla.2021.962]

BACKGROUND

Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.

METHODS

The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.

RESULTS

The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.

CONCLUSIONS

The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

BACKGROUND

Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.

METHODS

The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.

RESULTS

The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.

CONCLUSIONS

The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and therefore reproducible.

UK ambulance service resuscitation management of pulseless electrical activity: a systematic review protocol of text and opinion

Background:

Out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with pulseless electrical activity are treated by paramedics using basic and advanced life support resuscitation. When resuscitation fails to achieve return of spontaneous circulation, there are limited evidence and national guidelines on when to continue or stop resuscitation. This has led to ambulance services in the United Kingdom developing local guidelines to support paramedics in the resuscitative management of pulseless electrical activity. The content of each guideline is unknown, as is any association between guideline implementation and patient survival. We aim to identify and synthesise local ambulance service guidelines to help improve the consistency of paramedic-led decision-making for the resuscitation of pulseless electrical activity in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest.

Methods:

A systematic review of text and opinion will be conducted on ambulance service guidelines for resuscitating adult cardiac arrest patients with pulseless electrical activity. Data will be gathered direct from the ambulance service website. The review will be guided by the methods of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). The search strategy will be conducted in three stages: 1) a website search of the 14 ambulance services; 2) a search of the evidence listed in support of the guideline; and 3) an examination of the reference list of documents found in the first and second stages and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Each document will be assessed against the inclusion criteria, and quality of evidence will be assessed using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Text and Opinion. Data will be extracted using the JBI methods of textual data extraction and a three-stage data synthesis process: 1) extraction of opinion statements; 2) categorisation of statements according to similarity of meaning; and 3) meta-synthesis of statements to create a new collection of findings. Confidence of findings will be assessed using the graded ConQual approach.

Obesity and dental caries in early childhood: a systematic review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objectives of this review are to examine whether overweight/obese children experience more dental caries compared with non-overweight/non-obese children, and to identify common risk factors associated with both conditions.

INTRODUCTION

Systematic reviews have shown that any evidence on a link between overweight and/or obesity and dental caries remains inconclusive. This relationship has not been assessed for children under six years of age with primary dentition. Therefore, an updated systematic review of this topic is necessary as its findings will be important for young children, clinicians, researchers and policy makers.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies examining children under six years of age and with complete primary dentition at the time of dental caries assessment will be included. The exposure of interest is the overweight and/or obesity status of children under six years of age. The outcome is dental caries in children with complete primary dentition. There will be no restriction on setting, date or language.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, PsycINFO, ProQuest Central, Scopus, CINAHL, and Google Scholar will be searched for eligible studies. The electronic database search will be supplemented by OpenGrey and Grey Literature Report databases, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and the International Association for Dental Research conference websites. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies, assess methodological quality and extract data. Meta-analysis will be performed, if possible, and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Summary of Findings presented.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

PROSPERO CRD42018085292.

Electronic search strategies fail to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in neurosurgery

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard studies to evaluate the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. Although they are frequently identified through open searches in electronic databases, no studies have evaluated how easy it is to identify RCTs in neurosurgery using electronic search strategies. The present study evaluated the sensitivity and specificity of different search strategies applied to commonly used databases to identify RCTs in neurosurgery. The total number of RCTs in neurosurgery published between 1960 and 2013 was determined through a detailed search involving open keyword searches in PubMed, Cochrane Library and Center for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) databases, a PubMed search based on clinical entity-related keywords and hand-searches on the reference list of identified articles. The sensitivity and specificity were calculated for the open keyword searches on PubMed, the Cochrane Library and the CRD database and for the Cochrane's HSSS, based on the total number of the identified RCTs. Compared to the total of 1102 RCTs identified, PubMed open search yielded 4660 articles, among which 365 were RCTs (sensitivity: 33.1%; specificity: 7.8%). Cochrane open search yielded 621 among which 36 were RCTs (sensitivity: 3.2%; specificity: 5.8%) and CRD open search returned 78 articles, among which 4 were RCTs (sensitivity: 0.4% sensitivity; specificity: 5.1%). The Cochrane HSSS retrieved 10702 results, among which 340 were RCTs (sensitivity: 30.9%; specificity: 3.2%). Most RCTs in neurosurgery cannot be identified by commonly used search strategies, which emphasizes the need to improve their indexing.

Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies

BACKGROUND

Systematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies.

METHOD

A literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching.

RESULTS

Eight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process.

CONCLUSIONS

Eight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Improving the quality of systematic reviews of neurological conditions: an assessment of current practice and the development and validation of six new search strategies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

Our aim was to study the quality of the literature search strategies used in recent systematic reviews and to develop and assess the diagnostic accuracy of six new search strategies (i.e. hedges).

METHODS

Six neurological conditions were studied: migraine, stroke, dementia, epileptic seizures, Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis. Two reviewers independently assessed the quality of the search strategies used in systematic reviews published in 2015-2016. Complex hedges pertaining to the six conditions for use in Ovid MEDLINE were developed. Their diagnostic accuracy was compared to simple, single-term keyword searches.

RESULTS

Almost 60% of quality criteria for the overall literature search strategy used in 182 systematic reviews were not respected. Over 30% of search strategies relied on a single keyword to identify the neurological condition. The sensitivities of our complex hedges amongst 10 311 articles were between 83% and 95%, significantly higher than the simple keyword searches (as low as 48%). The specificities were greater than 97%.

CONCLUSIONS

There is great room for improvement in the search strategies used in systematic reviews of neurological conditions. Complex hedges were developed and validated to improve the accuracy of such searches. It is expected that this will lead to higher quality systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

A review of the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews

The literature searches that are used to identify studies for inclusion in a systematic review should be comprehensively reported. This ensures that the literature searches are transparent and reproducible, which is important for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of a systematic review and re-running the literature searches when conducting an update review. Web searching using search engines and the websites of topically relevant organisations is sometimes used as a supplementary literature search method. Previous research has shown that the reporting of web searching in systematic reviews often lacks important details and is thus not transparent or reproducible. Useful details to report about web searching include the name of the search engine or website, the URL, the date searched, the search strategy, and the number of results. This study reviews the reporting of web searching to identify studies for Cochrane systematic reviews published in the 6-month period August 2016 to January 2017 (n = 423). Of these reviews, 61 reviews reported using web searching using a search engine or website as a literature search method. In the majority of reviews, the reporting of web searching was found to lack essential detail for ensuring transparency and reproducibility, such as the search terms. Recommendations are made on how to improve the reporting of web searching in Cochrane systematic reviews.

[How do authors of systematic reviews restrict their literature searches when only studies from Germany should be included?]

INTRODUCTION

The use of search filters (e. g. for study types) facilitates the process of literature searching. Regional limits might be helpful depending on the research question. Regional search filters are already available for some regions, but not for Germany. Our aim is to give an overview of applied search strategies in systematic reviews (SRs) focusing on Germany.

METHODS

We searched Medline (via Pubmed) applying a focused search strategy to identify SRs focusing on Germany in January 2016. Study selection and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. The search strategies with a focus on Germany were analyzed in terms of reasonableness and completeness relying on the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) criteria. A narrative evidence synthesis was performed.

RESULTS

In total, 36 SRs (13 written in English) were included. 78% were published in 2012 or later. The majority (89%) of SRs utilized at least two different sources for their search with databases and checking references being the most common. 17 SRs did not use any truncations, ten SRs did not restrict their search to Germany, six SRs reported to have searched for German OR Germany. Only ten articles searched for the term Germany (occasionally jointly with the term Deutschland) without any use of an adjective such as German.

DISCUSSION

There is a high interest in regionally focused SRs. The identified search strategies revealed a need for improvement. It would be helpful to develop a regional search filter for Germany that is able to identify studies performed in Germany.