A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care

MacEntee, Michael I.

doi:10.1111/ger.12439

Cited by 16 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 102 publications

(304 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…To ensure the quality of the studies, the review only included studies published in peer-reviewed journals that had the full text available. Additional quality analysis was not conducted on the included studies, as quality assessment is not a requirement for a scoping review [ 18 ], and there are no established criteria to evaluate the quality of clinical dashboard studies. Quality assessment was not conducted to ensure that lessons were gained from a diverse range of work.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

State-of-the-art Dashboards on Clinical Indicator Data to Support Reflection on Practice: Scoping Review

Bucalon¹,

Brown²,

Shaw³

et al. 2022

JMIR Med Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is an increasing interest in using routinely collected eHealth data to support reflective practice and long-term professional learning. Studies have evaluated the impact of dashboards on clinician decision-making, task completion time, user satisfaction, and adherence to clinical guidelines. Objective This scoping review aims to summarize the literature on dashboards based on patient administrative, medical, and surgical data for clinicians to support reflective practice. Methods A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O’Malley framework. A search was conducted in 5 electronic databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, ACM Digital Library, and Web of Science) to identify studies that met the inclusion criteria. Study selection and characterization were performed by 2 independent reviewers (BB and CP). One reviewer extracted the data that were analyzed descriptively to map the available evidence. Results A total of 18 dashboards from 8 countries were assessed. Purposes for the dashboards were designed for performance improvement (10/18, 56%), to support quality and safety initiatives (6/18, 33%), and management and operations (4/18, 22%). Data visualizations were primarily designed for team use (12/18, 67%) rather than individual clinicians (4/18, 22%). Evaluation methods varied among asking the clinicians directly (11/18, 61%), observing user behavior through clinical indicators and use log data (14/18, 78%), and usability testing (4/18, 22%). The studies reported high scores on standard usability questionnaires, favorable surveys, and interview feedback. Improvements to underlying clinical indicators were observed in 78% (7/9) of the studies, whereas 22% (2/9) of the studies reported no significant changes in performance. Conclusions This scoping review maps the current literature landscape on dashboards based on routinely collected clinical indicator data. Although there were common data visualization techniques and clinical indicators used across studies, there was diversity in the design of the dashboards and their evaluation. There was a lack of detail regarding the design processes documented for reproducibility. We identified a lack of interface features to support clinicians in making sense of and reflecting on their personal performance data.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

State-of-the-art Dashboards on Clinical Indicator Data to Support Reflection on Practice: Scoping Review

Bucalon¹,

Brown²,

Shaw³

et al. 2022

JMIR Med Inform

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In order to meet the objective of this study, it was decided to establish a narrative literature review, summarising primary studies and case reports. The narrative literature review identified several gaps in the current knowledge and generated some hypotheses from existing knowledge, which are considered useful results of a narrative literature review 66. For several subparagraphs, a conclusion or suggestion could be provided.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Medications and addictive substances potentially inducing or attenuating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism

Baat

Verhoeff

Ahlberg

et al. 2020

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Bruxism is a repetitive jaw‐muscle activity characterised by clenching or grinding of the teeth and/or by bracing or thrusting of the mandible. It can occur during sleep, indicated as sleep bruxism, or during wakefulness, indicated as awake bruxism. Exogenous risk indicators of sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism are, among others, medications and addictive substances, whereas also several medications seem to have the potential to attenuate sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism. The objective of this study was to present a narrative literature on medications and addictive substances potentially inducing or aggravating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism and on medications potentially attenuating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism. Literature reviews reporting evidence or indications for sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism as an adverse effect of several (classes of) medications as well as some addictive substances and literature reviews on medications potentially attenuating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism were used as starting point and guidelines to describe the topics mentioned. Additionally, two literature searches were established on PubMed. Three types of bruxism were distinguished: sleep bruxism, awake bruxism and non‐specified bruxism. Generally, there are insufficient evidence‐based data to draw definite conclusions concerning medications and addictive substances inducing or aggravating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism as well as concerning medications attenuating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism. There are insufficient evidence‐based data to draw definite conclusions concerning medications and addictive substances inducing or aggravating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism as well as concerning medications attenuating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism.

show abstract

“…Umbrella review, also known as a review of systematic reviews, is a method of quantitatively integrating all reviews of a certain research topic, so as to draw more reliable conclusions. [ 24 ] Different from narrative systematic review, umbrella reviews will recalculate the ES and assess the credibility of the evidence. Credibility is divided into 4 levels, which are divided by evaluating significant bias and small study effects.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for treating post-stroke depression

Zhang

et al. 2021

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Many systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated the effectiveness of non-pharmacological therapies to improve symptoms of post-stroke depression (PSD) and reduce disability and mortality in patients with PSD. However, no research has appraised the credibility of the evidence. This study aims to summarize and evaluate the current evidence for non-pharmacological treatment of PSD and to seek effective treatment with reference to reliable evidence. Methods: We searched the electronic databases EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central, PubMed, PROSPERO, Web of Science, and CINAHL. We will search articles from the above database for all published meta-analyses to December 2021 to evaluate the effect of non-pharmacological treatment of PSD. Two reviewers will extract the general characteristics of the included articles, as well as participants, interventions, outcome measures, and conclusions. The quality evaluation of each systematic review will be conducted with reference to the AMSTAR 2 tool. The effect size of each review will be recalculated using either a fixed-effects or a random-effects model. Cochrane's Q test and I 2 statistics will be used to evaluate the heterogeneity between studies. To determine whether a systematic review had small study effects, we will use the Egger test. We expect to extract valid evidence and classify it from strong to weak. Results: The findings of this umbrella review will provide effective evidence for the non-pharmacological treatment of PSD. Conclusion: Our research conclusion will provide clinical staff and PSD patients with appropriate treatment recommendations. Ethics and dissemination: As the data were obtained from published materials, there is no need for ethical approval for this umbrella review. The findings of this umbrella review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. INPLASY registration number: INPLASY2021100083.

show abstract

A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care

Cited by 16 publications

References 102 publications

State-of-the-art Dashboards on Clinical Indicator Data to Support Reflection on Practice: Scoping Review

State-of-the-art Dashboards on Clinical Indicator Data to Support Reflection on Practice: Scoping Review

Medications and addictive substances potentially inducing or attenuating sleep bruxism and/or awake bruxism

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for treating post-stroke depression

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About