Reporting methodological search filter performance comparisons : a literature review

© 2014 The authors. Health Information and Libraries Journal © 2014 Health Libraries Journal.Peer reviewedPostprin

Searching a biomedical bibliographic database from the Ukraine: the Panteleimon database

The Panteleimon database is available via the Internet and is a public access, database, capable of being searched in English, Russian and Ukrainian, covering medical, pharmaceutical, and chemical publications, published in he Ukraine and Russia from 1998. Describes the formulation of a search strategy for the Panteleimon database, for the identification of citations to randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and the comparison of the search results with records included in the Cochrane Library's Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) database, to evaluate how comprehensive the coverage of the CENTRAL database is for the literature of the Ukraine. The results indicated that Panteleimon is an easily accessible bibliographic database offering easy access to the Ukrainian biomedical literature. The English language retrieval functions picked up most of the reports of RCTs/CCTs (91 per cent precision but the lower recall of 55 per cent indicates the need to search using Russian and Ukrainian terms for completeness. The overall precision of 26 per cent compares favourably with a search for RCTs in EMBASE, carried out by the UK Cochrane Centre, where 70,000 reports of RCTs were identified from 300,000 records down-loaded (precision 23 per cent). (Quotes from original text

How to Undertake a Clinically Relevant Systematic Review in a Rapidly Evolving Field: Magnetic Resonance Angiography

Objectives: The aim was to determine which generations of the evolving technology of magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) are currently of clinical relevance in two clinical applications. Our purpose was to plan a systematic review that would be valuable both to purchasers driven by cost-effectiveness and to practicing clinicians. Methods: Information was gathered from a search of major bibliographic databases, from a short questionnaire sent to 500 U.K. vascular radiologists and vascular surgeons, and from local clinical The authors thank A. Jackson and all those who completed a questionnaire. This work was carried out with the financial support of the Secretary of State for Health under the NHS Health Technology Assessment Programme, project 97/13/04. The views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the Secretary of State for Health. In part, this work was undertaken by the Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, which received funding from the NHS Executive. The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS Executive.experts. We asked which of the MRA techniques were currently used and, assuming availability, what would be their technique of choice. Results: There were 206 published articles that satisfied preliminary inclusion criteria: 69 discussed 2D time of flight (TOF); 47, 3D TOF; and 38, contrast-enhanced techniques. There were 162 questionnaires returned (60 radiologists, 102 surgeons). Of the total respondents, 77/162 (48%) used MRA in the assessment of carotid artery stenosis; 47/77 (61%) used 2D TOF; 32/77 (42%), 3D TOF; and 26/77 (34%), contrast-enhanced techniques. Thirty-five of 162 (22%) respondents used MRA in the assessment of peripheral vascular disease (PVD); 15/35 (43%) used 2D TOF, 4/35 (11%) used 3D TOF, and 22/35 (63%) used contrast-enhanced techniques. For those wishing to use MRA, contrast-enhanced techniques were the method of choice. Conclusions: The TOF methods that represent earlier generations of the technology remain clinically relevant, and will therefore be included in our systematic review. To ensure complete and relevant coverage in reviews of other evolving technologies, it would be advisable to obtain data for guidance in a similar way

Effectiveness of early intervention programs for parents of preterm infants: a meta-review of systematic reviews

Background: Various intervention programs exist for parents of preterm babies and some systematic reviews (SRs) have synthesised the evidence of their effectiveness. These reviews are, however, limited to specific interventions, components, or outcomes, and a comprehensive evidence base is lacking. The aim of this meta-review was to appraise and meta-synthesise the evidence from existing SRs to provide a comprehensive evidence base on the effectiveness of interventions for parents of preterm infants on parental and infant outcomes. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive search of the following databases to identify relevant SRs: Cochrane library, Web of science, EMBASE, CINAHL, British Nursing Index, PsycINFO, Medline, ScienceDirect, Scopus, IBSS, DOAJ, ERIC, EPPI-Centre, PROSPERO, WHO Library. Additional searches were conducted using authors’ institutional libraries, Google Scholar, and the reference lists of identified reviews. Identified articles were screened in two stages against an inclusion criteria with titles and abstracts screened first followed by full-text screening. Selected SRs were appraised using the AMSTAR tool. Extracted data using a predesigned tool were synthesised narratively examining the direction of impact on outcomes. Results: We found 11 SRs eligible for inclusion that synthesised a total of 343 quantitative primary studies. The average quality of the SRs was ‘medium’. Thirty four interventions were reported across the SRs with considerable heterogeneity in the structural framework and the targeted outcomes that included maternal-infant dyadic, maternal/parental, and infant outcomes. Among all interventions, Kangaroo Care (KC) showed the most frequent positive impact across outcomes (n = 19) followed by Mother Infant Transaction Program (MITP) (n = 14). Other interventions with most consistent positive impact on infant outcomes were Modified-Mother Infant Transaction Program (M-MITP) (n = 6), Infant Health and Development Program (IHDP) (n = 5) and Creating Opportunities for Parent Empowerment (COPE) (n = 5). Overall, interventions with both home and facility based components showed the most frequent positive impact across outcomes. Conclusions: Neonatal care policy and planning for preterm babies should consider the implementation of interventions with most positive impact on outcomes. The heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes calls for the development and implementation of an integrated program for parents of preterm infants with a clearly defined global set of parental and infant outcomes

Using Reference Manager

This is a handout to describe how to use Reference Manager v12. It is focused on the BioMedical area and covers linking to PubMed, Web of Knowledge, other biblographic providers (OVID and EBSCO) and searching for book information. The notes include how to use Word 2003 and Word 2007/2010 . You must be running v12.0.3 or later for Reference Manager to work with Word 2010

A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension

BACKGROUND: Bibliographic databases are the primary resource for identifying systematic reviews of health care interventions. Reliable retrieval of systematic reviews depends on the scope of indexing used by database providers. Therefore, searching one database may be insufficient, but it is unclear how many need to be searched. We sought to evaluate the performance of seven major bibliographic databases for the identification of systematic reviews for hypertension. METHODS: We searched seven databases (Cochrane library, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), Excerpta Medica Database (EMBASE), Epistemonikos, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), PubMed Health and Turning Research Into Practice (TRIP)) from 2003 to 2015 for systematic reviews of any intervention for hypertension. Citations retrieved were screened for relevance, coded and checked for screening consistency using a fuzzy text matching query. The performance of each database was assessed by calculating its sensitivity, precision, the number of missed reviews and the number of unique records retrieved. RESULTS: Four hundred systematic reviews were identified for inclusion from 11,381 citations retrieved from seven databases. No single database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews for hypertension. EMBASE identified the most reviews (sensitivity 69 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with 7.2 % precision (Pr). The sensitivity of the Cochrane library was 60 %, DARE 57 %, MEDLINE 57 %, PubMed Health 53 %, Epistemonikos 49 % and TRIP 33 %. EMBASE contained the highest number of unique records (n = 43). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records and had the highest precision (Pr = 30 %), followed by Epistemonikos (n = 2, Pr = 19 %). No unique records were found in PubMed Health (Pr = 24 %) DARE (Pr = 21 %), TRIP (Pr = 10 %) or MEDLINE (Pr = 10 %). Searching EMBASE and the Cochrane library identified 88 % of all systematic reviews in the reference set, and searching the freely available databases (Cochrane, Epistemonikos, MEDLINE) identified 83 % of all the reviews. The databases were re-analysed after systematic reviews of non-conventional interventions (e.g. yoga, acupuncture) were removed. Similarly, no database identified all the retrieved systematic reviews. EMBASE identified the most relevant systematic reviews (sensitivity 73 %) but also retrieved the most irrelevant citations with Pr = 5 %. The sensitivity of the Cochrane database was 62 %, followed by MEDLINE (60 %), DARE (55 %), PubMed Health (54 %), Epistemonikos (50 %) and TRIP (31 %). The precision of the Cochrane library was the highest (20 %), followed by PubMed Health (Pr = 16 %), DARE (Pr = 13 %), Epistemonikos (Pr = 12 %), MEDLINE (Pr = 6 %), TRIP (Pr = 6 %) and EMBASE (Pr = 5 %). EMBASE contained the most unique records (n = 34). The Cochrane library identified seven unique records. The other databases held no unique records. CONCLUSIONS: The coverage of bibliographic databases varies considerably due to differences in their scope and content. Researchers wishing to identify systematic reviews should not rely on one database but search multiple databases

Remdesivir for the Treatment of COVID-19: A Systematic Review of the Literature

In March 2020, the World Health Organization declared the spread of SARS-CoV-2 a global pandemic. To date, coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) has spread to over 200 countries, leading to over 1.6 million cases and over 99,000 deaths. Given that there is neither a vaccine nor proven treatment for COVID-19, there is currently an urgent need for effective pharmacotherapy. To address the need for an effective treatment of SARS-CoV-2 during the worldwide pandemic, this systematic review of intravenous (IV) remdesivir was performed. Remdesivir, an anti-viral prodrug originally developed to treat Ebola virus disease, has shown broad spectrum activity against the Coronavirus family. A recent case report reported improvement of clinical symptoms with remdesivir in a patient with COVID-19. After conducting a systematic search of 18 clinical trial registries and three large scientific databases, we identified 86 potentially eligible items. Following removal of duplicates (n = 21), eligible studies were reviewed independently by two authors. After the first round of screening, inter-rater agreement was 98.5% (κ = 0.925). After the second round of full-text screening, inter-rater agreement was 100%. A total of seven ongoing and recruiting clinical trials of remdesivir (100-200 milligrams, intravenous [IV]) were included. We identified the following primary outcomes: patients discharged (n = 2); time to clinical status improvement (n = 2); improved O2 saturation (n = 2); body temperature normalization (n = 2); and clinical status (n = 1). Secondary outcomes in all identified studies included documentation of adverse events. Phase 3 trials are expected to be completed between April 2020–2023. Therefore, despite supportive data from in vitro and in vivo studies, the clinical effectiveness of IV remdesivir for treatment of COVID-19 and potential side effects remain incompletely defined in the human population

Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review. METHODS: A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data. RESULTS: Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%). CONCLUSIONS: Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed

Measures to eradicate multidrug-resistant organism outbreaks: How much does it cost?

This study aimed to assess the economic burden of infection control measures that succeeded in eradicating multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) in emerging epidemic contexts in hospital settings. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and Ovid databases were systematically interrogated for original English-language articles detailing costs associated with strict measures to eradicate MDROs published between 1 January 1974 and 2 November 2014. This study was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines. Overall, 13 original articles were retrieved reporting data on several MDROs, including glycopeptide-resistant enterococci (n = 5), carbapenemase-producing Enterobacteriacae (n = 1), methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (n = 5), and carbapenem-resistant Acinetobacter baumannii (n = 2). Overall, the cost of strict measures to eradicate MDROs ranged from €285 to €57 532 per positive patient. The major component of these overall costs was related to interruption of new admissions, representing €2466 to €47 093 per positive patient (69% of the overall mean cost; range, 13-100%), followed by mean laboratory costs of €628 to €5849 (24%; range, 3.3-56.7%), staff reinforcement costs of €6204 to €148 381 (22%; range, 3.3-52%), and contact precautions costs of €166 to €10 438 per positive patient (18%; range, 0.7-43.3%). Published data on the economic burden of strict measures to eradicate MDROs are limited, heterogeneous, and weakened by several methodological flaws. Novel economic studies should be performed to assess the financial impact of current policies, and to identify the most cost-effective strategies to eradicate emerging MDROs in healthcare facilities

Impact of approaches in improving male partner involvement in the prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV on the uptake of PMTCT services in sub-Saharan Africa: a protocol of a systematic review and meta-analysis

Introduction: Several studies have reported approaches used in improving the delivery of prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV services through the involvement of male partners, but evidence from a systematic review is limited. We aim at determining the impact of male partner involvement on PMTCT in sub-Saharan Africa. Methods and analysis: This will be a systematic review of published literature. Interventional and observational studies on male involvement in PMTCT carried out in sub-Saharan Africa will be included irrespective of the year and language of publication. OVID Medline, Embase, PschINFO, and Cochrane database of controlled trials will be searched. After manual searching of articles, authors shall be contacted for further information. 2 authors (NFT and CJ) will independently screen potential articles for eligibility using defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) tools, Jadad scale and the STROBE checklist will be used for critical appraisal, and the 2 authors will independently assess the quality of articles. Authors will independently extract data from studies using a pre-established data collection form, and any discrepancies will be sorted by a third author (TRK). Outcomes will be analysed using STATA V.12.0. The random effect model will be used to produce forest plots. The heterogeneity χ2 statistics and I2 will be used to assess for heterogeneity. Publication bias will be assessed using funnel plots. This protocol is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines. Ethics and dissemination: No ethical approval since included studies will be published studies that had already obtained ethical approvals. The findings will guide HIV programmes on the best approaches towards involving male partners in PMTCT with a view to improving PMTCT services in sub-Saharan Africa