Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 9 de 9
Filter
2.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 138: 80-94, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1454254

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: We investigated systematic review automation tool use by systematic reviewers, health technology assessors and clinical guideline developerst. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An online, 16-question survey was distributed across several evidence synthesis, health technology assessment and guideline development organizations. We asked the respondents what tools they use and abandon, how often and when do they use the tools, their perceived time savings and accuracy, and desired new tools. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results. RESULTS: A total of 253 respondents completed the survey; 89% have used systematic review automation tools - most frequently whilst screening (79%). Respondents' "top 3" tools included: Covidence (45%), RevMan (35%), Rayyan and GRADEPro (both 22%); most commonly abandoned were Rayyan (19%), Covidence (15%), DistillerSR (14%) and RevMan (13%). Tools saved time (80%) and increased accuracy (54%). Respondents taught themselves to how to use the tools (72%); lack of knowledge was the most frequent barrier to tool adoption (51%). New tool development was suggested for the searching and data extraction stages. CONCLUSION: Automation tools will likely have an increasingly important role in high-quality and timely reviews. Further work is required in training and dissemination of automation tools and ensuring they meet the desirable features of those conducting systematic reviews.


Subject(s)
Attitude to Computers , Automation/methods , Research Personnel/psychology , Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/statistics & numerical data , Technology Assessment, Biomedical/standards , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , Middle Aged
3.
BMC Med Res Methodol ; 20(1): 7, 2020 01 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1455915

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews are vital to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine within healthcare. Screening titles and abstracts (T&Ab) for inclusion in a systematic review is an intensive, and often collaborative, step. The use of appropriate tools is therefore important. In this study, we identified and evaluated the usability of software tools that support T&Ab screening for systematic reviews within healthcare research. METHODS: We identified software tools using three search methods: a web-based search; a search of the online "systematic review toolbox"; and screening of references in existing literature. We included tools that were accessible and available for testing at the time of the study (December 2018), do not require specific computing infrastructure and provide basic screening functionality for systematic reviews. Key properties of each software tool were identified using a feature analysis adapted for this purpose. This analysis included a weighting developed by a group of medical researchers, therefore prioritising the most relevant features. The highest scoring tools from the feature analysis were then included in a user survey, in which we further investigated the suitability of the tools for supporting T&Ab screening amongst systematic reviewers working in medical research. RESULTS: Fifteen tools met our inclusion criteria. They vary significantly in relation to cost, scope and intended user community. Six of the identified tools (Abstrackr, Colandr, Covidence, DRAGON, EPPI-Reviewer and Rayyan) scored higher than 75% in the feature analysis and were included in the user survey. Of these, Covidence and Rayyan were the most popular with the survey respondents. Their usability scored highly across a range of metrics, with all surveyed researchers (n = 6) stating that they would be likely (or very likely) to use these tools in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this study, we would recommend Covidence and Rayyan to systematic reviewers looking for suitable and easy to use tools to support T&Ab screening within healthcare research. These two tools consistently demonstrated good alignment with user requirements. We acknowledge, however, the role of some of the other tools we considered in providing more specialist features that may be of great importance to many researchers.


Subject(s)
Abstracting and Indexing/methods , Software , Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods , Biomedical Research , Delivery of Health Care , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Humans , Surveys and Questionnaires
4.
Ann Intern Med ; 174(8): 1126-1132, 2021 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1360869

ABSTRACT

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Scientific Medical Policy Committee (SMPC) of the American College of Physicians (ACP) began developing "practice points" to provide clinical advice based on the best available evidence for the public, patients, clinicians, and public health professionals. As one of the first organizations in the United States to develop evidence-based clinical guidelines, ACP continues to lead and advance the science of evidence-based medicine by implementing new methods to rapidly publish practice points and maintain them as living advice that regularly assesses and incorporates new evidence. The overarching aim of practice points is to answer targeted key questions for which there is a timely need to synthesize evidence for decision making. The SMPC believes these methods can potentially be adapted to address various clinical and public health topics beyond the COVID-19 pandemic. This article presents an overview of the SMPC's living, rapid practice points development process, which includes a rapid systematic review, use of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method, use of stringent policies on the disclosure of interests and management of conflicts of interest, incorporating a public (nonclinician) perspective, and maintenance of the documents as living through ongoing surveillance and synthesis of new evidence as it emerges.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/diagnosis , COVID-19/therapy , Evidence-Based Medicine/methods , Practice Guidelines as Topic , COVID-19 Testing , Clinical Decision-Making , Conflict of Interest , Humans , Pandemics , Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods , United States
5.
J Clin Epidemiol ; 138: 194-198, 2021 10.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1253152

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to describe "rapid living" systematic reviews, an innovative methodological design used to systematically synthesize emerging evidence in the field of rehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A methodological paper, with a formative approach to rapid living systematic reviews. RESULTS: Based on our experience, we propose the following definition of rapid living SR: ``A dynamic method of knowledge synthesis that allows for the constant updating of new emerging evidence and refinement of its methodological quality.'' This method has the benefit of accelerating the conduct of traditional systematic reviews and allows for a synergistic adaptation of methodology based on the quality of the evidence with a flexibility to update results, methods and collaborations. CONCLUSION: Our proposed methodology has been helpful to synthesize the rapidly evolving evidence in the field of rehabilitation during the pandemic. Similarly, it may be useful when a rapid answer is urgently needed to make informed decisions. The COVID-19 disease has shown that modern medical science has the ability to produce new knowledge at a rate never seen before. Therefore, our proposed rapid living systematic reviews provide the scientific community with a method to rapidly synthesize evidence when facing health emergencies.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods , Humans
6.
Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry ; 107: 110247, 2021 04 20.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1117496

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Healthcare workers, who are at the forefront of the fight against COVID-19, are particularly susceptible to physical and mental health consequences such as anxiety and depression. The aim of this umbrella review of meta-analyses is to determine the prevalence of anxiety and depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Using relevant keywords, data resources including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, ProQuest, Science Direct, Google Scholar and Embase were searched to obtain systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting the prevalence of anxiety and depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic from the beginning of January to the end of October 2020. The random effects model was used for meta-analysis, and the I2 index was employed to assess heterogeneity among studies. Data was analyzed using STATA 14 software. RESULTS: In the primary search, 103 studies were identified, and ultimately 7 studies were included in the umbrella review. The results showed that the overall prevalence of anxiety and depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic was 24.94% (95% CI: 21.83-28.05, I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.804) and 24.83% (95% CI: 21.41-28.25, I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.897), respectively. CONCLUSION: This umbrella review shows that the prevalence of anxiety and depression is relatively high among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Healthcare workers should be provided with resources to minimize this risk.


Subject(s)
Anxiety/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , Depression/epidemiology , Health Personnel , Pandemics , Anxiety/psychology , COVID-19/psychology , Depression/psychology , Health Personnel/psychology , Health Personnel/trends , Humans , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Prevalence , Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods
7.
BMJ Open ; 11(1): e044763, 2021 01 13.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1028704

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic represents a major societal challenge that requires large-scale behaviour change, widespread collective action and cooperation to reduce viral transmission. Existing literature indicates that several messaging approaches may be effective, including emphasising the benefits to the recipient, aligning with the recipient's moral values and focusing on protecting others. Current research suggests that prosocial public health messages that highlight behaviours linked to societal benefits (eg, protecting 'each other'), rather than focusing on behaviours that protect oneself (eg, protecting 'yourself'), may be a more effective method for communicating strategies related to infectious disease. To investigate this we will conduct a systematic review that will identify what messages and behaviour change techniques have the potential to optimise the effect on population behaviour in relation to reducing transmission of respiratory infections. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic literature search of published and unpublished studies (including grey literature) in electronic databases will be conducted to identify those that meet our inclusion criteria. The search will be run in four electronic databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Scopus. We will also conduct supplementary searches in databases of 'grey' literature such as PsycEXTRA, Social Science Research Network and OSF PREPRINTS, and use the Google Scholar search engine. A systematic approach to searching, screening, reviewing and data extraction will be applied based on Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. Titles, abstracts and full texts for eligibility will be examined independently by researchers. The quality of the included studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and the Risk of Bias in Non-randomized Studies-of Interventions tool. Disagreements will be resolved by a consensus procedure. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been registered with PROSPERO. No ethical approval is required, as there will be no collection of primary data. The synthesised findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020198874.


Subject(s)
Health Behavior , Public Health/methods , Research Design , Respiratory Tract Infections/prevention & control , Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods , Humans
8.
BMJ Open ; 11(1): e046575, 2021 01 08.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1015692

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Acute myocardial injury in patients with COVID-19 infection has been recognised as one important complication associated with in-hospital mortality. The potential dose-response effect of cardiac troponin (cTn) concentrations on adverse clinical outcomes has not been systematically studied. Hence, we will conduct a comprehensive dose-response meta-analysis to quantitatively evaluate the relationship between elevated cTn concentrations and in-hospital adverse clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We will search PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library and ISI Knowledge via Web of Science databases, as well as preprint databases (medRxiv and bioRxiv), from inception to October 2021, to identify all retrospective and prospective cohorts and randomised controlled studies using related keywords. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality during hospitalisation. The secondary outcome will be major adverse event (MAE). To conduct a dose-response meta-analysis of the potential linear or restricted cubic spline regression relationship between elevated cTn concentrations and all-cause mortality or MAE, studies with three or more categories of cTn concentrations will be included. Univariable or multivariable meta-regression and subgroup analyses will be conducted to compare elevated and non-elevated categories of cTn concentration. Sensitivity analyses will be used to assess the robustness of our results by removing each included study at one time to obtain and evaluate the remaining overall estimates of all-cause mortality or MAE. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: In accordance with the Institutional Review Board/Independent Ethics Committee of Fuwai Hospital, ethical approval was waived for this systematic review protocol. This meta-analysis will be disseminated through a peer-reviewing process for journal publication and conference communication. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020216059.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/blood , Cardiomyopathies/blood , Cardiomyopathies/etiology , Research Design , Systematic Reviews as Topic/methods , Troponin C/blood , COVID-19/mortality , Cardiomyopathies/mortality , Hospital Mortality , Humans , Predictive Value of Tests , Prognosis
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...