首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
相似文献
 共查询到20条相似文献，搜索用时 31 毫秒
1.
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.  相似文献   

2.
This article describes a novel approach for using EndNote to manage and code references in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and scoping reviews. The process is simple and easy for reviewers new to both EndNote and systematic reviews. This process allows reviewers to easily conduct and report systematic reviews in line with the internationally recognized PRISMA reporting guidelines and also facilitates the overall task of systematic or scoping review conduct and reporting from the initial search through to structuring the results, discussion, and conclusions in a rigorous, reproducible, and user-friendly manner.  相似文献   

3.
Objective:Locating systematic reviews is essential for clinicians and researchers when creating or updating reviews and for decision-making in health care. This study aimed to develop a search filter for retrieving systematic reviews that improves upon the performance of the PubMed systematic review search filter.Methods:Search terms were identified from abstracts of reviews published in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the titles of articles indexed as systematic reviews in PubMed. Both the precision of the candidate terms and the number of systematic reviews retrieved from PubMed were evaluated after excluding the subset of articles retrieved by the PubMed systematic review filter. Terms that achieved a precision greater than 70% and relevant publication types indexed with MeSH terms were included in the filter search strategy.Results:The search strategy used in our filter added specific terms not included in PubMed''s systematic review filter and achieved a 61.3% increase in the number of retrieved articles that are potential systematic reviews. Moreover, it achieved an average precision that is likely greater than 80%.Conclusions:The developed search filter will enable users to identify more systematic reviews from PubMed than the PubMed systematic review filter with high precision.  相似文献   

4.
目的：评价《中华儿科杂志》发表系统评价／Meta分析（SR／MA）的报告质量和方法学质量。方法：检索发表在《中华儿科杂志》上的系统评价／Meta分析文献,共纳入13篇。提取纳入文献的基本信息,采用系统综述和Meta分析优先报告的条目（PRISMA）规范和方法学质量评价工具AMSTAR量表进行质量评价,使用RevMan5．0软件进行统计分析。结果：PRISMA评分范围14-23．5分,平均为20．0±3．11分;AMSTAR评分范围和平均分分别为3—7．5和6．04±1．38分。结论：《中华儿科杂志》发表系统评价／Meta分析报告和方法学质量中等,报告质量规范和方法学质量还有待提高。  相似文献   

5.
The Campbell Collaboration is one organization providing standards for education-related systematic reviews. Librarians are often involved in search strategy development or as research team members for Campbell reviews which allows us to investigate librarian impact. This study examines protocols and reviews published by Campbell's Education Coordinating Group for adherence to the search standards from the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS) checklist for evaluating searches. Eligible studies include reviews with protocols published October 2014 to January 2019. Nineteen matched protocols and reviews were evaluated by two authors independently using a form based on MECCIR and PRESS. We compared adherence differences between protocols and reviews and adherence differences due to librarian involvement. Overall, the protocols and reviews generally adhered to search standards, with greater adherence for reviews reporting librarian involvement. Implications for education librarians include: encouragement to become familiar with the systematic review process; selecting and following appropriate guidelines and standards for conducting and reporting reviews; developing proficiency with search strategy development and reporting to reduce bias and increase transparency and reproducibility; and advocating for acknowledgement or authorship in publications to give credit for expertise and contributions to SR projects.  相似文献   

6.
吴洋 《编辑学报》2020,32(1):37-40
根据国外Cochrane手册、PRISMA声明、PRISMA-P声明等指南,结合实际工作经验,提出医学编辑在审查中应当注意的事项。探讨在系统综述/meta分析类论文来稿量大增的背景下,如何加强编辑审查。对于系统综述/meta分析类论文来稿,编辑应当加强对文献检索、文献筛选、文献的纳入和排除、文献质量、潜在的利益冲突和报告中干预措施的伤害性等方面的审查。不要认为专家外审通过的来稿,便一定是可以发表的合格稿件。目前,系统综述/meta分析类论文泛滥,加强对该类论文的编辑审查刻不容缓。  相似文献   

7.
Background:Systematic reviews are comprehensive, robust, inclusive, transparent, and reproducible when bringing together the evidence to answer a research question. Various guidelines provide recommendations on the expertise required to conduct a systematic review, where and how to search for literature, and what should be reported in the published review. However, the finer details of the search results are not typically reported to allow the search methods or search efficiency to be evaluated.Case Presentation:This case study presents a search summary table, containing the details of which databases were searched, which supplementary search methods were used, and where the included articles were found. It was developed and published alongside a recent systematic review. This simple format can be used in future systematic reviews to improve search results reporting.Conclusions:Publishing a search summary table in all systematic reviews would add to the growing evidence base about information retrieval, which would help in determining which databases to search for which type of review (in terms of either topic or scope), what supplementary search methods are most effective, what type of literature is being included, and where it is found. It would also provide evidence for future searching and search methods research.  相似文献   

8.
目的：评价PRISMA声明对发表于《循证医学》杂志的干预类系统评价/Meta分析报告质量的影响。方法：根据纳入排除标准,纳入2001-2011年发表于《循证医学》的干预性试验系统评价/Meta分析,采用PRISMA量表对纳入系统评价/Meta分析进行评价,用Meta Analyst软件进行统计分析。结果：共纳入70个系统评价/Meta分析,涉及14个疾病谱。 PRISMA的发布和高校作者发表的系统评价/Meta分析,可以提高其报告质量（P＜0．05）,基金资助和作者数量对文献报告质量影响不大。结论：发表于《循证医学》杂志的系统评价/Meta分析在文献检索、筛选、偏倚评估和其他分析方法等方面亟待改善,报告质量有待提高。 PRISMA的发布可在整体上改善系统评价/Meta分析的报告质量。  相似文献   

9.
Background:The proliferation of systematic reviews has impacted library operations and activities as librarians support, collaborate, and perform more tasks in the systematic review process. This case report describes a toolkit that librarians with extensive experience in supporting multiple review teams use to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process.Case Presentation:The toolkit is a compilation of documents that we use to effectively communicate with and help review teams understand and navigate each stage of the systematic review process. Elements included in the toolkit and discussed in this case report are intake forms, communication templates and memoranda, a process flow diagram, library guides on tools for retrieval and data appraisal, and established standards for guidance during the write-up stage. We describe the use of the toolkit for both education and project management, with a focus on its use in helping manage team time, resources, and expectations.Discussion:The systematic review toolkit helps librarians connect systematic review steps and tasks to actionable items. The content facilitates and supports discussion and learning by both librarians and team members. This toolkit helps librarians share important information and resources for each stage of the process.  相似文献   

10.
  相似文献   

11.
Background: Systematic review articles support the advance of science and translation of research evidence into healthcare practice. Inaccurate retrieval from medline could limit access to reviews. Objective: To determine the quality of indexing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in medline . Methods: The Clinical Hedges Database, containing the results of a hand search of 161 journals, was used to test medline indexing terms for their ability to retrieve systematic reviews that met predefined methodologic criteria (labelled as ‘pass’ review articles) and reviews that reported a meta‐analysis. Results: The Clinical Hedges Database contained 49 028 articles; 753 were ‘pass’ review articles (552 with a meta‐analysis). In total 758 review articles (independent of whether they passed) reported a meta‐analysis. The search strategy that retrieved the highest number of ‘pass’ systematic reviews achieved a sensitivity of 97.1%. The publication type ‘meta analysis’ had a false positive rate of 5.6% (95% CI 3.9 to 7.6), and false negative rate of 0.31% (95% CI 0.26 to 0.36) for retrieving systematic reviews that reported a meta‐analysis. Conclusions: Inaccuracies in indexing systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in medline can be partly overcome by a 5‐term search strategy. Introducing a publication type for systematic reviews of the literature could improve retrieval performance.  相似文献   

12.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the performance of published search filters in finding diagnostic test accuracy studies. METHODS: Diagnostic test accuracy search filters were identified by searching medline, our own files and by requesting unpublished filters from colleagues. We applied the filters to a case study review of diagnostic test accuracy studies for urinary tract infections (UTI) in young children. The included studies with records in medline formed the gold standard. The performance of the filters in finding those gold standard records was assessed. RESULTS: We identified twenty-three diagnostic test accuracy search filters for use with medline. The case study systematic review of UTI included 179 studies of diagnostic test accuracy, of which 160 were available in medline. The filters showed a wide range of sensitivities (range: 20.6% to 86.9%) and precision (range: 1% to 9.4%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results broadly support those reported in two other studies. The search filters tested do not offer an adequate trade-off between sensitivity and precision to be used to identify studies for systematic reviews. However, there are methods available to explore whether search filters are viable based on an objective statistical analysis of the text and indexing used in records.  相似文献   

13.

Background

The most current objectively derived search filters for adverse drug effects are 15 years old and other strategies have not been developed and tested empirically.

Objective

To develop and validate search filters to retrieve evidence on adverse drug effects from Ovid medline and Ovid Embase.

Methods

We identified systematic reviews of adverse drug effects in Epistemonikos. From these reviews, we collated their included studies which we then randomly divided into three tests and one validation set of records. We constructed a search strategy to maximise relative recall using word frequency analysis with test set one. This search strategy was then refined using test sets two and three and validated on the final set of records.

Results

Of 107 systematic reviews which met our inclusion criteria, 1948 unique included studies were available from medline and 1980 from Embase. Generic adverse drug effects searches in medline and Embase achieved 90% and 89% relative recall, respectively. When specific adverse effects terms were added recall was improved.

Conclusion

We have derived and validated search filters that retrieve around 90% of records with adverse drug effects data in medline and Embase. The addition of specific adverse effects terms is required to achieve higher recall.  相似文献   

14.
Objective:Reproducibility of systemic reviews (SRs) can be hindered by the presence of citation bias. Citation bias may occur when authors of SRs conduct hand-searches of included study reference lists to identify additional studies. Such a practice may lead to exaggerated SR summary effects. The purpose of this paper is to examine the prevalence of hand-searching reference lists in otolaryngology SRs.Methods:The authors searched for systematic reviews published in eight clinical otolaryngology journals using the Cochrane Library and PubMed, with the date parameter of January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2017. Two independent authors worked separately to extract data from each SR for the following elements: whether reference lists were hand-searched, other kinds of supplemental searching, PRISMA adherence, and funding source. Following extraction, the investigators met to review discrepancies and achieve consensus.Results:A total of 539 systemic reviews, 502 from clinical journals and 37 from the Cochrane library, were identified. Of those SRs, 72.4% (390/539) hand-searched reference lists, including 97.3% (36/37) of Cochrane reviews. For 228 (58.5%) of the SRs that hand-searched reference lists, no other supplemental search (e.g., search of trial registries) was conducted.Conclusions:These findings indicate that hand-searching reference lists is a common practice in otolaryngology SRs. Moreover, a majority of studies at risk of citation bias did not attempt to mitigate the bias by conducting additional supplemental searches. The implication is that summary effects in otolaryngology systematic reviews may be biased toward statistically significant findings.  相似文献   

15.
Objective:This study retroactively investigated the search used in a 2019 review by Hayden et al., one of the first systematic reviews of prognostic factors that was published in the Cochrane Library. The review was designed to address recognized weaknesses in reviews of prognosis by using multiple supplementary search methods in addition to traditional electronic database searching.Methods:The authors used four approaches to comprehensively assess aspects of systematic review literature searching for prognostic factor studies: (1) comparison of search recall of broad versus focused electronic search strategies, (2) linking of search methods of origin for eligible studies, (3) analysis of impact of supplementary search methods on meta-analysis conclusions, and (4) analysis of prognosis filter performance.Results:The review''s focused electronic search strategy resulted in a 91% reduction in recall, compared to a broader version. Had the team relied on the focused search strategy without using supplementary search methods, they would have missed 23 of 58 eligible studies that were indexed in MEDLINE; additionally, the number of included studies in 2 of the review''s primary outcome meta-analyses would have changed. Using a broader strategy without supplementary searches would still have missed 5 studies. The prognosis filter used in the review demonstrated the highest sensitivity of any of the filters tested.Conclusions:Our study results support recommendations for supplementary search methods made by prominent systematic review methodologists. Leaving out any supplemental search methods would have resulted in missed studies, and these omissions would not have been prevented by using a broader search strategy or any of the other prognosis filters tested.

Open in a separate windowLeah Boulos  相似文献   

16.
BACKGROUND: Cochrane-style systematic reviews increasingly require the participation of librarians. Guidelines on the appropriate search strategy to use for systematic reviews have been proposed. However, research evidence supporting these recommendations is limited. OBJECTIVE: This study investigates the effectiveness of various systematic search methods used to uncover randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for systematic reviews. Effectiveness is defined as the proportion of relevant material uncovered for the systematic review using extended systematic review search methods. The following extended systematic search methods are evaluated: searching subject-specific or specialized databases (including trial registries), hand searching, scanning reference lists, and communicating personally. METHODS: Two systematic review projects were prospectively monitored regarding the method used to identify items as well as the type of items retrieved. The proportion of RCTs identified by each systematic search method was calculated. RESULTS: The extended systematic search methods uncovered 29.2% of all items retrieved for the systematic reviews. The search of specialized databases was the most effective method, followed by scanning of reference lists, communicating personally, and hand searching. Although the number of items identified through hand searching was small, these unique items would otherwise have been missed. CONCLUSIONS: Extended systematic search methods are effective tools for uncovering material for the systematic review. The quality of the items uncovered has yet to be assessed and will be key in evaluating the value of the systematic search methods.  相似文献   

17.
Objective:In regard to locating clinical trials for a systematic review, limited information is available about how librarians locate clinical trials in biomedical databases, including (1) how much information researchers provide librarians to assist with the development of a comprehensive search strategy, (2) which tools librarians turn to for information about study design methodology, and (3) librarians'' confidence levels in their knowledge of study design methodology. A survey was developed to explore these aspects of how a medical librarian locates clinical trials when facilitating systematic reviews for researchers.Methods:In this cross-sectional study, a 21-question survey was sent to medical librarians via several email listservs during April 2020. Respondents were limited to librarians who make the decisions on search terms for systematic reviews.Results:Responses (n=120) indicated that librarians were often asked to search for various types of clinical trials. However, there was not a consistent method for creating search strategies that locate diverse types of clinical trials. Multiple methods were used for search strategy development, with hedges being the most popular method. In general, these librarians considered themselves to be confident in locating trials. Different resources were used to inform study types, including textbooks, articles, library guides and websites.Discussion:Medical librarians indicated that while they felt confident in their searching skills, they did not have a definitive source of information about the various types of clinical trials, and their responses demonstrated a clear need and desire for more information on study design methodology.  相似文献   

18.
Colorado State University Libraries (CSUL) purchased the digitized United States Congressional Serial Set, 1817–1994 and American State Papers (1789–1838) from the Readex Division of NewsBank, Inc. and, once funds and records were available, the accompanying MARC records. The breadth of information found in the Serial Set is described, along with the difficulties in using the print version (incorporated in the literature review, which includes citations of announcements of the digital collections and reviews of the software). The digital version of the Serial Set has its advantages, but there are additional rewards (much greater discovery opportunities) when items in the digital collection are directly accessible from the library catalog. The purchased MARC records, while overall excellent, had problems that needed to be corrected before they were loaded into CSUL's Innovative Interfaces library catalog. Patron access impact was used as a criterion when determining which of the records would be fixed before loading. High impact problems were identified and solutions derived for: multiple 245 (title) fields; 245 s indicator zero with titles beginning with a, an, or the; dollar sign used in text; fixed field date; languages; subject headings; creating proxy URLs; classification numbers; and author authority control (e.g. corporate entries and presidential entry errors).  相似文献   

19.
The performance of adverse effects search filters in MEDLINE and EMBASE   总被引：1，自引：1，他引：0  
Background: Search filters can potentially improve the efficiency of searches involving electronic databases such as medline and embase . Although search filters have been developed for identifying records that contain adverse effects data, little is known about the sensitivity of such filters. Objectives: This study measured the sensitivity of using available adverse effects filters to retrieve papers with adverse effects data. Methods: A total of 233 included studies from 26 systematic reviews of adverse effects were used for analysis. Search filters from medline and embase were tested for their sensitivity in retrieving the records included in these reviews. In addition, the sensitivity of each individual search term used in at least one search filter was measured. Results: Subheadings proved the most useful search terms in both medline and embase . No indexing terms in medline achieved over 12% sensitivity. The sensitivity of published search filters varied in medline from 3% to 93% and in embase from 57% to 97%. Whether this level of sensitivity is acceptable will be dependent on the purpose of the search. Conclusions: Although no adverse effects search filter captured all the relevant records, high sensitivity could be achieved. Search filters may therefore be useful in retrieving adverse effects data.  相似文献   

20.
Existing research argues that studies of the value of public libraries support libraries by demonstrating their worth to society. Knowledge of research methods, value and research gaps can potentially strengthen the field of value research and support policymaking and development of libraries. Among 16,683 records retrieved from a systematic literature search, 39 studies were selected for systematic review within this topic. Findings indicate that studies focus on examining libraries as valued community assets in several aspects. It is recommended that further research explore how library services enhance democracy, reading and culture. Moreover, further research is needed that systematically reviews how libraries articulate their value to stakeholders. Concluding remarks state that value can be a robust measure for emphasising and developing libraries' worth towards society. By systematically reviewing how value is emphasized in activities, libraries are provided with the means to advocate political empathy and to develop towards community needs.  相似文献   

设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号