Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews

Horsley, Tanya; Dingwall, Orvie; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Sampson, Margaret

doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000026

Cited by 65 publications

(110 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In situations in which identifying all relevant studies through hand searching and database searching is difficult, if any other searching, such as reference lists, is planned to supplement searching, authors should report this. 83 Documentation of the planned information sources should include the name of each source, the date range that was searched (that is, start and end dates, and, for electronic database searches, the search platform or provider such, as Ovid or PubMed). This information will be important to the person developing and conducting the search if an update to the review is carried out.…”

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Shamseer

Moher

Clarke

et al. 2015

BMJ

9,770

7,264

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols-PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

show abstract

Section: Explanationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Shamseer

Moher

Clarke

et al. 2015

BMJ

9,770

7,264

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our iterative reference tracking (“snowballing”) search [16, 17] was conducted by a research librarian (RF). The reference tracking search used a total of 30 target articles about overviews that were identified by the study authors prior to the start of the search and as the search progressed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOverviews of reviews (overviews) compile data from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there is limited methodological guidance available for researchers wishing to conduct overviews. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and collate all published and unpublished documents containing guidance for conducting overviews examining the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of healthcare interventions. Our aims were to provide a map of existing guidance documents; identify similarities, differences, and gaps in the guidance contained within these documents; and identify common challenges involved in conducting overviews.MethodsWe conducted an iterative and extensive search to ensure breadth and comprehensiveness of coverage. The search involved reference tracking, database and web searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, Scopus, Cochrane Methods Studies Database, Google Scholar), handsearching of websites and conference proceedings, and contacting overview producers. Relevant guidance statements and challenges encountered were extracted, edited, grouped, abstracted, and presented using a qualitative metasummary approach.ResultsWe identified 52 guidance documents produced by 19 research groups. Relatively consistent guidance was available for the first stages of the overview process (deciding when and why to conduct an overview, specifying the scope, and searching for and including systematic reviews). In contrast, there was limited or conflicting guidance for the latter stages of the overview process (quality assessment of systematic reviews and their primary studies, collecting and analyzing data, and assessing quality of evidence), and many of the challenges identified were also related to these stages. An additional, overarching challenge identified was that overviews are limited by the methods, reporting, and coverage of their included systematic reviews.ConclusionsThis compilation of methodological guidance for conducting overviews of healthcare interventions will facilitate the production of future overviews and can help authors address key challenges they are likely to encounter. The results of this project have been used to identify areas where future methodological research is required to generate empirical evidence for overview methods. Additionally, these results have been used to update the chapter on overviews in the next edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0367-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…16 Three additional studies were identified from the manual search. 16 Three additional studies were identified from the manual search.…”

Section: Manual Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of exercise in people with haemophilia: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Haemophilia is a genetic X-linked congenital haemorrhagic disorder characterized by a deficiency in the production of coagulation factors VIII and IX corresponding to haemophilia types A and B, respectively. 1,2 Although rare, with a frequency of 1 in 10 000 births, haemophilia can be found in about 400 000 people worldwide. 3 Approximately 85% of haemorrhagic episodes occur in the musculoskeletal system, hemarthroses and intramuscular haematomas, resulting in the main complications of haemophilia: pain, muscle atrophy and functional limitations that, in the long term, directly affect the performance of activities of daily living. 4,5 As a result, people with haemophilia (PWH) experience a more sedentary lifestyle, with lower muscle strength, aerobic and anaerobic endurance, and proprioception compared with healthy individuals. 6,7 A few decades ago, exercise was contraindicated for PWH due to low clotting factor concentrations and the high risk of bleeding.However, with the advent of concentrates for coagulation factor replacement as a form of treatment and prophylaxis to haemorrhages, Abstract Introduction: There is considerable evidence to indicate that exercise can have a positive impact on the treatment of people with haemophilia (PWH). However, there is a requirement for in-depth and comprehensive studies.Aim: This study aimed to analyse the evidence regarding the effects of exercise in PWH through an umbrella review of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses.The secondary objective was to analyse the quality of the evidence.Methods: This umbrella review followed the PRISMA guidelines and was documented in the PROSPERO registry (CRD42019140785). We searched the PubMed, Web of Science, SPORTDiscus, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane Library databases.The methodological quality of the systematic reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2.Results: Out of a total of 1030 systematic reviews, 10 fulfilled the criteria. Only one study was classified as high quality, and half of the selected studies were classified as low or critically low quality according to AMSTAR 2. Furthermore, most reviews investigated the effects of strength training and aquatic training, with positive results associated with low adverse events. Range of motion, strength and pain were the most investigated variables. All reviews showed overlapping studies. Conclusion:Exercise is an effective way to treat haemophilia and has a low incidence of related adverse events. However, caution is needed in the interpretation of the results due to half of the selected reviews showed low or critically low quality and only one have high quality. K E Y W O R D Sbleeding disorders, evidence-based practice, exercise, haemophilia, haemophilic arthropathy | 929 SIQUEIRA Et Al.

show abstract

Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews

Cited by 65 publications

References 10 publications

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary

Effects of exercise in people with haemophilia: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About