-
Systematic Reviews Dec 2023The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents...
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance.
METHODS
A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word.
RESULTS
Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR.
CONCLUSION
Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.
Topics: Humans; Publishing; Bias; Checklist; Research Report; MEDLINE
PubMed: 38098023
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02396-x -
Frontiers in Immunology 2023Autophagy in osteoarthritis (OA) has become an active area of research with substantial value and potential. Nevertheless, few bibliometric studies have systematically...
BACKGROUND
Autophagy in osteoarthritis (OA) has become an active area of research with substantial value and potential. Nevertheless, few bibliometric studies have systematically analyzed the available research in the field. The main goal of this study was to map the available literature on the role of autophagy in OA and identify global research hotspots and trends.
METHODS
The Web of Science Core Collection and Scopus databases were interrogated for studies of autophagy in OA published between 2004 and 2022. Microsoft Excel, VOSviewer and CiteSpace software were used to analyze and visualize the number of publications and associated citations, and reveal global research hotspots and trends in the autophagy in OA field.
RESULTS
732 outputs published by 329 institutions from 55 countries/regions were included in this study. From 2004 to 2022, the number of publications increased. China produced the most publications (n=456), prior to the USA (n=115), South Korea (n=33), and Japan (n=27). Scripps Research Institute (n=26) was the most productive institution. Martin Lotz (n=30) was the highest output author, while Caramés B (n=302) was the highest output author. was the most prolific and most co-cited journal. Currently, the autophagy in OA research hotspots include chondrocyte, transforming growth factor beta 1 (TGF-β1), inflammatory response, stress, and mitophagy. The emerging research trends in this field are AMPK, macrophage, senescence, apoptosis, tougu xiaotong capsule (TXC), green tea extract, rapamycin, and dexamethasone. Novel drugs targeting specific molecule such as TGF-β and AMPK have shown therapeutic potential but are still in the preclinical stage of development.
CONCLUSIONS
Research on the role of autophagy in OA is flourishing. Martin Lotz, Beatriz Caramés, and have made outstanding contributions to the field. Prior studies of OA autophagy mainly focused on mechanisms underlying OA and autophagy, including AMPK, macrophages, TGF-β1, inflammatory response, stress, and mitophagy. Emerging research trends, however, are centered around the relationship between autophagy, apoptosis, and senescence, as well as drug candidates such as TXC and green tea extract. The development of new targeted drugs that enhance or restore autophagic activity is a promising strategy for the treatment of OA.
Topics: Transforming Growth Factor beta1; AMP-Activated Protein Kinases; Autophagy; Antioxidants; Bibliometrics; Biological Products; Tea
PubMed: 36969240
DOI: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1063018 -
Systematic Reviews Aug 2017Producing high-quality, relevant systematic reviews and keeping them up to date is challenging. Cochrane is a leading provider of systematic reviews in health. For... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Producing high-quality, relevant systematic reviews and keeping them up to date is challenging. Cochrane is a leading provider of systematic reviews in health. For Cochrane to continue to contribute to improvements in heath, Cochrane Reviews must be rigorous, reliable and up to date. We aimed to explore existing models of Cochrane Review production and emerging opportunities to improve the efficiency and sustainability of these processes.
METHODS
To inform discussions about how to best achieve this, we conducted 26 interviews and an online survey with 106 respondents.
RESULTS
Respondents highlighted the importance and challenge of creating reliable, timely systematic reviews. They described the challenges and opportunities presented by current production models, and they shared what they are doing to improve review production. They particularly highlighted significant challenges with increasing complexity of review methods; difficulty keeping authors on board and on track; and the length of time required to complete the process. Strong themes emerged about the roles of authors and Review Groups, the central actors in the review production process. The results suggest that improvements to Cochrane's systematic review production models could come from improving clarity of roles and expectations, ensuring continuity and consistency of input, enabling active management of the review process, centralising some review production steps; breaking reviews into smaller "chunks", and improving approaches to building capacity of and sharing information between authors and Review Groups. Respondents noted the important role new technologies have to play in enabling these improvements.
CONCLUSIONS
The findings of this study will inform the development of new Cochrane Review production models and may provide valuable data for other systematic review producers as they consider how best to produce rigorous, reliable, up-to-date reviews.
Topics: Databases, Bibliographic; Editorial Policies; Humans; Information Storage and Retrieval; Quality Control; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 28760162
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0542-3 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Aug 2020The present systematic review aimed to perform an in-depth analysis of the different features of retracted publications in the dental field. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The present systematic review aimed to perform an in-depth analysis of the different features of retracted publications in the dental field.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
This review has been recorded in the PROSPERO database (CRD42017075634). Two independent reviewers performed an electronic search (Pubmed, Retraction Watch) for retracted articles in dental literature up to December 31, 2018.
RESULTS
180 retracted papers were identified, the first published in 2001. Retractions increased by 47% in the last four-year period (2014-2018), when compared with 2009-2013 (94 and 64 retracted publications, respectively). Author misconduct was the most common reason for retraction (65.0%), followed by honest scientific errors (12.2%) and publisher-related issues (10.6%). The majority of retracted research was conducted in Asia (55.6%), with 49 papers written in India (27.2%). 552 researchers (89%) are listed as authors in only one retracted article, while 10 researchers (1.6%) are present in five or more retracted publications. Retracted articles were cited 530 times after retraction: the great majority of these citations (89.6%) did not consider the existence of the retraction notice and treated data from retracted articles as reliable.
CONCLUSIONS
Retractions in dental literature have constantly increased in recent years, with the majority of them due to misconduct and fraud. The publication of unreliable research has many negative consequences. Studies derived from such material are designed on potentially incorrect bases, waste funds and resources, and most importantly, increase risk of incorrect treatment for patients. Citation of retracted papers represents a major issue for the scientific community.
Topics: Biomedical Research; Databases, Factual; Dentistry; Fraud; Humans; Periodicals as Topic; Retraction of Publication as Topic; Scientific Experimental Error; Scientific Misconduct
PubMed: 32233020
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.292 -
PloS One 2014Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias,... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews of preclinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical research and thus even clinical care. Dissemination bias, selective dissemination of positive or significant results, is one of the major threats to validity in systematic reviews also in the realm of animal studies. We conducted a systematic review to determine the number of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present, to investigate their methodological features especially with respect to assessment of dissemination bias, and to investigate the citation of preclinical systematic reviews on clinical research.
METHODS
Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews that summarize in vivo animal experiments whose results could be interpreted as applicable to clinical care. We systematically searched Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 1st January 2009 to 9th January 2013 for eligible systematic reviews without language restrictions. Furthermore we included articles from two previous systematic reviews by Peters et al. and Korevaar et al.
RESULTS
The literature search and screening process resulted in 512 included full text articles. We found an increasing number of published preclinical systematic reviews over time. The methodological quality of preclinical systematic reviews was low. The majority of preclinical systematic reviews did not assess methodological quality of the included studies (71%), nor did they assess heterogeneity (81%) or dissemination bias (87%). Statistics quantifying the importance of clinical research citing systematic reviews of animal studies showed that clinical studies referred to the preclinical research mainly to justify their study or a future study (76%).
DISCUSSION
Preclinical systematic reviews may have an influence on clinical research but their methodological quality frequently remains low. Therefore, systematic reviews of animal research should be critically appraised before translating them to a clinical context.
Topics: Animals; Drug Evaluation, Preclinical; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 25541734
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0116016 -
Nursing Open May 2022This review aimed to elucidate research trends in global nursing in international literature. (Review)
Review
AIM
This review aimed to elucidate research trends in global nursing in international literature.
DESIGN
A scoping literature review of the PRISMA was used to guide the review.
METHODS
PubMed was used to search for English articles published in academic journals between 2016-2018. The search keywords were "global/international/world nursing." We used thematic synthesis to analyse and interpret the data and generated topics for global nursing literature.
RESULTS
In total, 133 articles were analysed. Six topics emerged: (a) conceptualization of global nursing, (b) environmental health, (c) infectious diseases, (d) security efforts, (e) global shortage of nursing personnel and (f) diversification of study abroad programmes. The results of this review reflect today's serious international health, labour and global environmental issues. Based on these latest global nursing topics, it is necessary to develop new strategies, nursing models and environment-related theories to create and maintain a healthy environment.
Topics: Environmental Health; Global Health; Publications
PubMed: 34021729
DOI: 10.1002/nop2.938 -
Journal of Medical Internet Research Nov 2022Much research is being carried out using publicly available Twitter data in the field of public health, but the types of research questions that these data are being... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Much research is being carried out using publicly available Twitter data in the field of public health, but the types of research questions that these data are being used to answer and the extent to which these projects require ethical oversight are not clear.
OBJECTIVE
This review describes the current state of public health research using Twitter data in terms of methods and research questions, geographic focus, and ethical considerations including obtaining informed consent from Twitter handlers.
METHODS
We implemented a systematic review, following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines, of articles published between January 2006 and October 31, 2019, using Twitter data in secondary analyses for public health research, which were found using standardized search criteria on SocINDEX, PsycINFO, and PubMed. Studies were excluded when using Twitter for primary data collection, such as for study recruitment or as part of a dissemination intervention.
RESULTS
We identified 367 articles that met eligibility criteria. Infectious disease (n=80, 22%) and substance use (n=66, 18%) were the most common topics for these studies, and sentiment mining (n=227, 62%), surveillance (n=224, 61%), and thematic exploration (n=217, 59%) were the most common methodologies employed. Approximately one-third of articles had a global or worldwide geographic focus; another one-third focused on the United States. The majority (n=222, 60%) of articles used a native Twitter application programming interface, and a significant amount of the remainder (n=102, 28%) used a third-party application programming interface. Only one-third (n=119, 32%) of studies sought ethical approval from an institutional review board, while 17% of them (n=62) included identifying information on Twitter users or tweets and 36% of them (n=131) attempted to anonymize identifiers. Most studies (n=272, 79%) included a discussion on the validity of the measures and reliability of coding (70% for interreliability of human coding and 70% for computer algorithm checks), but less attention was paid to the sampling frame, and what underlying population the sample represented.
CONCLUSIONS
Twitter data may be useful in public health research, given its access to publicly available information. However, studies should exercise greater caution in considering the data sources, accession method, and external validity of the sampling frame. Further, an ethical framework is necessary to help guide future research in this area, especially when individual, identifiable Twitter users and tweets are shared and discussed.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
PROSPERO CRD42020148170; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=148170.
Topics: Humans; Public Health; Reproducibility of Results; Social Media; PubMed; Access to Information
PubMed: 36445739
DOI: 10.2196/40380 -
Gut and Liver Nov 2015A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for... (Review)
Review
A systematic review (SR) provides the best and most objective analysis of the existing evidence in a particular field. SRs and derived conclusions are essential for evidence-based strategies in medicine and evidence-based guidelines in clinical practice. The popularity of SRs has also increased markedly in the field of hepatology. However, although SRs are considered to provide a higher level of evidence with greater confidence than original articles, there have been no reports on the quality of SRs and meta-analyses (MAs) in the field of hepatology. Therefore, we performed a quality assessment of 225 SRs and MAs that were recently published in the field of hepatology (January 2011 to September 2014) using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Using AMSTAR, we revealed both a shortage of assessments of the scientific quality of individual studies and a publication bias in many SRs and MAs. This review addresses the concern that SRs and MAs need to be conducted in a stricter and more objective manner to minimize bias and random errors. Thus, SRs and MAs should be supported by a multidisciplinary approach that includes clinical experts, methodologists, and statisticians.
Topics: Gastroenterology; Humans; Meta-Analysis as Topic; Publication Bias; Review Literature as Topic
PubMed: 26503570
DOI: 10.5009/gnl14451 -
Research in Social & Administrative... Jul 2018With an increase in prescription drug spending and rising drug costs there is a need to encourage the use of generic prescription drugs. However, maximizing generic drug... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
With an increase in prescription drug spending and rising drug costs there is a need to encourage the use of generic prescription drugs. However, maximizing generic drug use is not possible without the public's positive perception and meeting their informational needs about generic drugs. Thus, improving the public's confidence in, and knowledge of generic drugs on the market is critical. The objective of this systematic review is to examine and evaluate the studies focusing on the nature and extent of key factors influencing generic drug use in the United States in order to help guide policy, education and practice interventions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Using multiple search engines and key word screening criteria, empirical studies published in English between January 1, 2005 and December 31, 2015 were identified. A qualitative synthesis of the evidence identified domains of key factors that influenced generic drug use across studies.
RESULTS
Over 3000 citations met the key word screening criteria; 67 of these met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Seven domains of factors that influence generic drug utilization were identified: 1) patient-related factors, 2) formulary management or cost containment, 3) healthcare policies, 4) promotional activities, 5) educational initiatives, 6) technology, and 7) physician-related factors.
CONCLUSION
Patients, physicians, pharmacists, formulary managers, and policymakers play an important role in generic drug use. Understanding the factors influencing generic drug use can help guide future policy, education, and practice interventions to increase generic drug use.
Topics: Cost Control; Drug Substitution; Drug Utilization; Drugs, Generic; Formularies as Topic; Health Education; Humans; Marketing; Practice Patterns, Physicians'; Technology
PubMed: 28814375
DOI: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2017.08.001 -
BMC Medical Research Methodology Nov 2014Syntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Syntheses of qualitative studies can inform health policy, services and our understanding of patient experience. Meta-ethnography is a systematic seven-phase interpretive qualitative synthesis approach well-suited to producing new theories and conceptual models. However, there are concerns about the quality of meta-ethnography reporting, particularly the analysis and synthesis processes. Our aim was to investigate the application and reporting of methods in recent meta-ethnography journal papers, focusing on the analysis and synthesis process and output.
METHODS
Methodological systematic review of health-related meta-ethnography journal papers published from 2012-2013. We searched six electronic databases, Google Scholar and Zetoc for papers using key terms including 'meta-ethnography.' Two authors independently screened papers by title and abstract with 100% agreement. We identified 32 relevant papers. Three authors independently extracted data and all authors analysed the application and reporting of methods using content analysis.
RESULTS
Meta-ethnography was applied in diverse ways, sometimes inappropriately. In 13% of papers the approach did not suit the research aim. In 66% of papers reviewers did not follow the principles of meta-ethnography. The analytical and synthesis processes were poorly reported overall. In only 31% of papers reviewers clearly described how they analysed conceptual data from primary studies (phase 5, 'translation' of studies) and in only one paper (3%) reviewers explicitly described how they conducted the analytic synthesis process (phase 6). In 38% of papers we could not ascertain if reviewers had achieved any new interpretation of primary studies. In over 30% of papers seminal methodological texts which could have informed methods were not cited.
CONCLUSIONS
We believe this is the first in-depth methodological systematic review of meta-ethnography conduct and reporting. Meta-ethnography is an evolving approach. Current reporting of methods, analysis and synthesis lacks clarity and comprehensiveness. This is a major barrier to use of meta-ethnography findings that could contribute significantly to the evidence base because it makes judging their rigour and credibility difficult. To realise the high potential value of meta-ethnography for enhancing health care and understanding patient experience requires reporting that clearly conveys the methodology, analysis and findings. Tailored meta-ethnography reporting guidelines, developed through expert consensus, could improve reporting.
Topics: Anthropology, Cultural; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Humans; Publishing; Qualitative Research; Research Design
PubMed: 25407140
DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-119