Protocol-driven searches for medical and health-sciences systematic reviews

Systematic reviews are instances of a critically important search task in medicine and health services research. Along with large and well conducted randomised control trials, they provide the highest levels of clinical evidence. We provide a brief overview of the methodologies used to conduct systematic reviews, and report on our recent experience of conducting a meta-review – i.e. a systematic review of reviews – of preoperative assessment. We discuss issues associated with the large manual effort currently necessary to conduct systematic reviews when using available search engines. We then suggest ways in which more dedicated and sophisticated information retrieval tools may enhance the efficiency of systematic searches and increase the recall of results. Finally, we discuss the development of tests collections for systematic reviews, to permit the development of enhanced search engines for this

Protocol for an HTA report: Does therapeutic writing help people with long-term conditions? Systematic review, realist synthesis and economic modelling

This article is made available through the Brunel Open Access Publishing Fund. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 3.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/Introduction: Long-term medical conditions (LTCs) cause reduced health-related quality of life and considerable health service expenditure. Writing therapy has potential to improve physical and mental health in people with LTCs, but its effectiveness is not established. This project aims to establish the clinical and cost-effectiveness of therapeutic writing in LTCs by systematic review and economic evaluation, and to evaluate context and mechanisms by which it might work, through realist synthesis. Methods: Included are any comparative study of therapeutic writing compared with no writing, waiting list, attention control or placebo writing in patients with any diagnosed LTCs that report at least one of the following: relevant clinical outcomes; quality of life; health service use; psychological, behavioural or social functioning; adherence or adverse events. Searches will be conducted in the main medical databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, The Cochrane Library and Science Citation Index. For the realist review, further purposive and iterative searches through snowballing techniques will be undertaken. Inclusions, data extraction and quality assessment will be in duplicate with disagreements resolved through discussion. Quality assessment will include using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Data synthesis will be narrative and tabular with meta-analysis where appropriate. De novo economic modelling will be attempted in one clinical area if sufficient evidence is available and performed according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reference case.National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) Programm

Effective health care for older people resident in care homes: the optimal study protocol for realist review

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background: Care homes in the UK rely on general practice for access to specialist medical and nursing care as well as referral to therapists and secondary care. Service delivery to care homes is highly variable in both quantity and quality. This variability is also evident in the commissioning and organisation of care home-specific services that range from the payment of incentives to general practitioners (GPs) to visit care homes, to the creation of care home specialist teams and outreach services run by geriatricians. No primary studies or systematic reviews have robustly evaluated the impact of these different approaches on organisation and resident-level outcomes. Our aim is to identify factors which may explain the perceived or demonstrated effectiveness of programmes to improve health-related outcomes in older people living in care homes. Methods/Design: A realist review approach will be used to develop a theoretical understanding of what works when, why and in what circumstances. Elements of service models of interest include those that focus on assessment and management of residents’ health, those that use strategies to encourage closer working between visiting health care providers and care home staff, and those that address system-wide issues about access to assessment and treatment. These will include studies on continence, dignity, and speech and language assessment as well as interventions to promote person centred dementia care, improve strength and mobility, and nutrition. The impact of these interventions and their different mechanisms will be considered in relation to five key outcomes: residents’ medication use, use of out of hours’ services, hospital admissions (including use of Accident and Emergency) and length of hospital stay, costs and user satisfaction. An iterative three-stage approach will be undertaken that is stakeholder-driven and optimises the knowledge and networks of the research team. Discussion: This realist review will explore why and for whom different approaches to providing health care to residents in care homes improves access to health care in the five areas of interest. It will inform commissioning decisions and be the basis for further research. This systematic review protocol is registered on the PROSPERO database reference number: CRD42014009112NIHR Health Services & Delivery Research Programme. Project number 11/1021/0

Methodological criteria for the assessment of moderators in systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials : a consensus study

Background: Current methodological guidelines provide advice about the assessment of sub-group analysis within RCTs, but do not specify explicit criteria for assessment. Our objective was to provide researchers with a set of criteria that will facilitate the grading of evidence for moderators, in systematic reviews. Method: We developed a set of criteria from methodological manuscripts (n = 18) using snowballing technique, and electronic database searches. Criteria were reviewed by an international Delphi panel (n = 21), comprising authors who have published methodological papers in this area, and researchers who have been active in the study of sub-group analysis in RCTs. We used the Research ANd Development/University of California Los Angeles appropriateness method to assess consensus on the quantitative data. Free responses were coded for consensus and disagreement. In a subsequent round additional criteria were extracted from the Cochrane Reviewers’ Handbook, and the process was repeated. Results: The recommendations are that meta-analysts report both confirmatory and exploratory findings for subgroups analysis. Confirmatory findings must only come from studies in which a specific theory/evidence based apriori statement is made. Exploratory findings may be used to inform future/subsequent trials. However, for inclusion in the meta-analysis of moderators, the following additional criteria should be applied to each study: Baseline factors should be measured prior to randomisation, measurement of baseline factors should be of adequate reliability and validity, and a specific test of the interaction between baseline factors and interventions must be presented. Conclusions: There is consensus from a group of 21 international experts that methodological criteria to assess moderators within systematic reviews of RCTs is both timely and necessary. The consensus from the experts resulted in five criteria divided into two groups when synthesising evidence: confirmatory findings to support hypotheses about moderators and exploratory findings to inform future research. These recommendations are discussed in reference to previous recommendations for evaluating and reporting moderator studies

How reliable are systematic reviews in empirical software engineering?

BACKGROUND – the systematic review is becoming a more commonly employed research instrument in empirical software engineering. Before undue reliance is placed on the outcomes of such reviews it would seem useful to consider the robustness of the approach in this particular research context. OBJECTIVE – the aim of this study is to assess the reliability of systematic reviews as a research instrument. In particular we wish to investigate the consistency of process and the stability of outcomes. METHOD – we compare the results of two independent reviews under taken with a common research question. RESULTS – the two reviews find similar answers to the research question, although the means of arriving at those answers vary. CONCLUSIONS – in addressing a well-bounded research question, groups of researchers with similar domain experience can arrive at the same review outcomes, even though they may do so in different ways. This provides evidence that, in this context at least, the systematic review is a robust research method

Effect of exercise referral schemes in primary care on physical activity and improving health outcomes: Systematic review and meta-analysis

This is an open access article - Copyright @ 2011 BMJObjective: To assess the impact of exercise referral schemes on physical activity and health outcomes. Design: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Data sources Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cochrane Library, ISI Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, and ongoing trial registries up to October 2009. We also checked study references. Study selection Design: randomised controlled trials or non-randomised controlled (cluster or individual) studies published in peer review journals. Population: sedentary individuals with or without medical diagnosis. Exercise referral schemes defined as: clear referrals by primary care professionals to third party service providers to increase physical activity or exercise, physical activity or exercise programmes tailored to individuals, and initial assessment and monitoring throughout programmes. Comparators: usual care, no intervention, or alternative exercise referral schemes. Results Eight randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria, comparing exercise referral schemes with usual care (six trials), alternative physical activity intervention (two), and an exercise referral scheme plus a self determination theory intervention (one). Compared with usual care, follow-up data for exercise referral schemes showed an increased number of participants who achieved 90-150 minutes of physical activity of at least moderate intensity per week (pooled relative risk 1.16, 95% confidence intervals 1.03 to 1.30) and a reduced level of depression (pooled standardised mean difference −0.82, −1.28 to −0.35). Evidence of a between group difference in physical activity of moderate or vigorous intensity or in other health outcomes was inconsistent at follow-up. We did not find any difference in outcomes between exercise referral schemes and the other two comparator groups. None of the included trials separately reported outcomes in individuals with specific medical diagnoses. Substantial heterogeneity in the quality and nature of the exercise referral schemes across studies might have contributed to the inconsistency in outcome findings. Conclusions Considerable uncertainty remains as to the effectiveness of exercise referral schemes for increasing physical activity, fitness, or health indicators, or whether they are an efficient use of resources for sedentary people with or without a medical diagnosis.This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment (NIHR HTA) programme (project number 08/72/01) (www.hta.ac.uk/)

Couple and family therapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: The objectives of this review will be to: assess the efficacy of couple and family therapies for adult PTSD, relative to 'no treatment' conditions, 'standard care', and structured or non‐specific individual psychological therapies; examine the clinical characteristics of studies that influence the relative efficacy of these therapies; and critically evaluate methodological features of studies that bias research findings

Linking families with pre-school children from healthcare services to community resources: a systematic review protocol

Background: Poor health and health inequalities persist despite increasing investment in health improvement programmes across high-income countries. Evidence suggests that to reduce health inequalities, a range of activities targeted at different levels within society and throughout the life course should be employed. There is a particular focus on addressing inequalities in early years as this may influence the experience of health in adulthood. To address the wider determinants of health at a community level, a key intervention which can be considered is supporting patients to access wider community resources. This can include processes such as signposting, referral and facilitation. There is a lack of evidence synthesis in relation to the most effective methods for linking individuals from health services to other services within communities, especially when considering interventions aimed at families with young children. Method/design: The aim of this study is to understand the way health services can best help parents, carers and families with pre-school children to engage with local services, groups and agencies to address their wider health and social needs. The review may inform future guidance to support families to address wider determinants of health. The study is a systematic review, and papers will be identified from the following electronic databases: Web of Science, Embase, MEDLINE and CINAHL. A grey literature search will be conducted using an internet search engine and specific grey literature databases (TRiP, EThOS and Open Grey). Reference lists/bibliographies of selected papers will be searched. Quality will be assessed using the Effective Public Health Practice Project Quality Assessment Tool for quantitative studies and the CASP tool for qualitative studies. Data will be synthesised in a narrative form and weighted by study quality. Discussion: It is important to understand how health services can facilitate access to wider services for their patients to address the wider determinants of health. This may impact on the experience of health inequalities. This review focuses on how this can be achieved for families with pre-school children, and the evidence obtained will be useful for informing future guidance on this topic

A focus on cross-purpose tools, automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines, and evaluation of automation tools: a summary of significant discussions at the fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR)

The fourth meeting of the International Collaboration for Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR) was held 5–6 November 2019 in The Hague, the Netherlands. ICASR is an interdisciplinary group whose goal is to maximize the use of technology for conducting rapid, accurate, and efficient systematic reviews of scientific evidence. The group seeks to facilitate the development and acceptance of automated techniques for systematic reviews. In 2018, the major themes discussed were the transferability of automation tools (i.e., tools developed for other purposes that might be used by systematic reviewers), the automated recognition of study design in multiple disciplines and applications, and approaches for the evaluation of automation tools