Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions

Wright, Kath; Golder, Su; López, Rocío Rodríguez

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-73

Cited by 75 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sixth, we did not perform additional forward searches as recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration (Higgins & Green, ). Whereas an empirical study of the impact of forward searches on search sensitivity indicates that it might not be the “best use of valuable time and resources” (Wright, Golder, & Rodriguez‐Lopez, ), suggesting that our elaborated search likely already sensitively covered the review topic.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internet- and mobile-based interventions for anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review of intervention components

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although the efficacy of Internet‐ and mobile‐based interventions (IMIs) for anxiety is established, little is known about the intervention components responsible for therapeutic change. We conducted the first comprehensive meta‐analytic review of intervention components of IMIs for adult anxiety disorders. Methods Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IMIs for anxiety disorders to active online control groups, or IMIs to dismantled variations of the same intervention (± specific components) were identified by a systematic literature search in six databases. Outcomes were validated observer‐rated or self‐report measures for anxiety symptom severity and treatment adherence (number of completed modules and completer rate). This meta‐analytic review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42017068268). Results We extracted the data of 34 RCTs (with 3,724 participants) and rated the risk of bias independently by two reviewers. Random‐effects meta‐analyses were performed on 19 comparisons of intervention components (i.a., different psychotherapeutic orientations, disorder‐specific vs. transdiagnostic approaches, guidance factors). IMIs had a large effect when compared to active online controls on symptom severity (standardized mean difference [SMD] of −1.67 [95% CI: −2.93, −0.42]; P = 0.009). Thereby, guided IMIs were superior to unguided interventions on symptom severity (SMD of −0.39 [95% CI: −0.59, −0.18]; P = 0.0002) and adherence (SMD of 0.38 [95% CI: 0.10, 0.66]; P = 0.007). Conclusions Overall, the results of this meta‐analysis lend further support to the efficacy of IMIs for anxiety, pointing to their potential to augment service supplies. Still, future research is needed to determine which ingredients are essential, as this meta‐analytic review found no evidence for incremental effects of several single intervention components apart from guidance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Internet- and mobile-based interventions for anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review of intervention components

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Its use in this review was therefore well-suited to the exhaustive identification of relevant papers. Citation searching has been shown to help locate relevant work that traditional database searching sometimes fails to identify [96, 97] but is not commonly used in reviews. The second strategy combined the results from the forward citation search and a database search to examine methods used to assess receipt in healthcare interventions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods used to address fidelity of receipt in health intervention research: a citation analysis and systematic review

Rixon

Baron

McGale

et al. 2016

BMC Health Serv Res

114

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe American Behaviour Change Consortium (BCC) framework acknowledges patients as active participants and supports the need to investigate the fidelity with which they receive interventions, i.e. receipt. According to this framework, addressing receipt consists in using strategies to assess or enhance participants’ understanding and/or performance of intervention skills. This systematic review aims to establish the frequency with which receipt is addressed as defined in the BCC framework in health research, and to describe the methods used in papers informed by the BCC framework and in the wider literature.MethodsA forward citation search on papers presenting the BCC framework was performed to determine the frequency with which receipt as defined in this framework was addressed. A second electronic database search, including search terms pertaining to fidelity, receipt, health and process evaluations was performed to identify papers reporting on receipt in the wider literature and irrespective of the framework used. These results were combined with forward citation search results to review methods to assess receipt. Eligibility criteria and data extraction forms were developed and applied to papers. Results are described in a narrative synthesis.Results19.6% of 33 studies identified from the forward citation search to report on fidelity were found to address receipt. In 60.6% of these, receipt was assessed in relation to understanding and in 42.4% in relation to performance of skill. Strategies to enhance these were present in 12.1% and 21.1% of studies, respectively. Fifty-five studies were included in the review of the wider literature. Several frameworks and operationalisations of receipt were reported, but the latter were not always consistent with the guiding framework. Receipt was most frequently operationalised in relation to intervention content (16.4%), satisfaction (14.5%), engagement (14.5%), and attendance (14.5%). The majority of studies (90.0%) included subjective assessments of receipt. These relied on quantitative (76.0%) rather than qualitative (42.0%) methods and studies collected data on intervention recipients (50.0%), intervention deliverers (28.0%), or both (22.0%). Few studies (26.0%) reported on the reliability or validity of methods used.ConclusionsReceipt is infrequently addressed in health research and improvements to methods of assessment and reporting are required.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-016-1904-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…The total number of citations per source (source = individual database), the number of relevant citations per source, and the number of relevant citations unique to each of the sources were all tabulated. The number of relevant articles retrieved from each database were compared using sensitivity, precision, and number needed to read (NNR) values (Bachmann, Coray, Estermann, & Ter Riet, ; Katchamart, Faulkner, Feldman, Tomlinson, & Bombardier, ; Wright, Golder, & Rodriguez‐Lopez, ). Sensitivity is defined as the number of “relevant” studies identified by a source (that is, a database) divided by the total number of relevant studies from all sources.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Information Retrieval in Food Science Research II: Accounting for Relevance When Evaluating Database Performance

Urhan

Rempel

Meunier-Goddik

et al. 2019

Journal of Food Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The impetus for this study is the limited amount of information on performance characteristics of food science–encompassing online bibliographic databases. Database usage is an important element in modern research because a comprehensive understanding of current knowledge is essential for effective, unbiased hypothesis formulation and testing. Six databases commonly recommended by academic libraries for information retrieval in the food sciences (Academic Search Premier [ASP], Agricultural Online Access [AGRICOLA], CAB Direct, Food Science and Technology Abstracts [FSTA], PubMed, and Web of Science [WoS]) were compared in a case study based on the research topic “in vitro bile acid binding properties of dietary lignin.” A complex string of search terms was used for citation retrieval, and predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria were used to determine the relevancy of retrieved articles. Searching WoS and CAB Direct returned the greatest number of relevant articles, followed closely by FSTA, PubMed, and AGRICOLA. FSTA and AGRICOLA returned the highest ratios of relevant‐to‐irrelevant articles, followed closely by CAB Direct. None of the databases, when used alone, recovered all of the relevant articles identified in the study; WoS indexed the highest percentage of relevant articles identified (WoS = 10; total = 19). WoS also had the highest number of relevant articles that were unique to any one database. The thoroughness of searching the complete group of databases was tested by comparison of retrieved citations with those found in relevant review articles, revealing the need for testing overall inclusivity. Practical Application Comprehensive online information retrieval is the most efficient means of accessing current knowledge. Awareness of current knowledge is essential for effective, unbiased decision making in private sector and academic/government‐based research endeavors. Thus, online database usage is an essential element of modern food science research. This paper provides tangible examples of the performance characteristics of online bibliographic databases commonly recommended for information retrieval in the food sciences. The paper is written so as to aid the reader in making decisions with respect to database usage for the recovery of topic‐relevant peer‐reviewed articles germane to their area of research.

show abstract

Citation searching: a systematic review case study of multiple risk behaviour interventions

Cited by 75 publications

References 43 publications

Internet- and mobile-based interventions for anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review of intervention components

Internet- and mobile-based interventions for anxiety disorders: A meta-analytic review of intervention components

Methods used to address fidelity of receipt in health intervention research: a citation analysis and systematic review

Information Retrieval in Food Science Research II: Accounting for Relevance When Evaluating Database Performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About