Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain

Biočić, Mihovil; Fidahic, Mahir; Cikes, Karla; Puljak, Livia

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1375

Cited by 9 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Comparing CSRs and nCSRs, the former present a higher proportion of omitted RCTs (59,2% vs. 35,4%, respectively). This may be a consequence of the fact that CSRs had more comprehensive searches (i.e., published sources and unpublished sources) [ 44 ], included sources with more often incomplete or hardly accessible data (i.e., congress abstracts, theses) and provided a list of excluded studies, being more methodologically rigorous and showing better reporting and higher quality [ 45 , 46 ] compared to nCSRs. Conversely, the majority of nCSRs (94/109) did not provide a list of excluded studies, thus reducing the number of RCTs assessed from nCSRs and underestimating the proportion of omitted RCTs from these sources.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study

Lazzarini,

Stella Yousif,

Bargeri

et al. 2023

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials are the best evidence for informing on intervention effectiveness. Their results, however, can be biased due to omitted evidence in the quantitative analyses. We aimed to assess the proportion of randomized controlled trials omitted from meta-analyses in the rehabilitation field and explore related reasons. Methods This is a cross-sectional meta-research study. For each systematic review included in a published selected sample in the rehabilitation field, we identified an index meta-analysis on the primary outcome and the main comparison. We then looked at all the studies considered eligible for the chosen comparison in the systematic review and identified those trials that have been omitted (i.e., not included) from each index meta-analysis. Reasons for omission were collected based on an eight-reason classification. We used descriptive statistics to describe the proportion of omitted trials overall and according to each reason. Results Starting from a cohort of 827 systematic reviews, 131 index meta-analyses comprising a total of 1761 eligible trials were selected. Only 16 index meta-analyses included all eligible studies while 15 omitted studies without providing references. From the remaining 100 index meta-analyses, 717 trials (40,7%) were omitted overall. Specific reasons for omission were: "unable to distinguish between selective reporting and inadequate planning" (39,3%, N = 282), "inadequate planning" (17%, N = 122), "justified to be not included" (15,1%, N = 108), "incomplete reporting" (8,4%, N = 60), "selective reporting" (3,3%, N = 24) and other situations (e.g., outcome present but no motivation for omission) (5,2%, N = 37). The 11,7% (N = 84) of omitted trials were not assessed due to non-English language or full text not available. Conclusions Almost half of the eligible trials were omitted from their index meta-analyses. Better reporting, protocol registration, definition and adoption of core outcome sets are needed to prevent omission of evidence in systematic reviews.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study

Lazzarini,

Stella Yousif,

Bargeri

et al. 2023

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Consequently, we used reviews' definitions of conceptual framework elements. Furthermore, we used reviews from Cochrane and JBI because they follow a set of strictly established guidelines and undergo rigorous scrutiny [35][36][37], whereas other reviews do not necessarily have the same characteristics. Third, we did not address subfield differences.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance of conceptual framework elements for the retrieval of qualitative health literature: a case study

Frandsen

Lindhardt

Eriksen

2021

jmla

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: A growing volume of studies address methods for performing systematic reviews of qualitative studies. One such methodological aspect is the conceptual framework used to structure the review question and plan the search strategy for locating relevant studies. The purpose of this case study was to evaluate the retrieval potential of each element of conceptual frameworks in qualitative systematic reviews in the health sciences.Methods: The presence of elements from conceptual frameworks in publication titles, abstracts, and controlled vocabulary in CINAHL and PubMed was analyzed using a set of qualitative reviews and their included studies as a gold standard. Using a sample of 101 publications, we determined whether particular publications could be retrieved if a specific element from the conceptual framework was used in the search strategy.Results: We found that the relative recall of conceptual framework elements varied considerably, with higher recall for patient/population (99%) and research type (97%) and lower recall for intervention/phenomenon of interest (74%), outcome (79%), and context (61%).Conclusion: The use of patient/population and research type elements had high relative recall for qualitative studies. However, other elements should be used with great care due to lower relative recall.

show abstract

“…As revisões sistemáticas elaboradas e publicadas pela Colaboração Cochrane são mundialmente reconhecidas pelo seu rigor metodológico e sua qualidade, uma vez que, geralmente, apresentam uma metodologia de busca de artigos científicos mais abrangente, apresentam mais fontes de informação e menor tempo médio entre a pesquisa e a publicação. (GOLDKUHLE et al, 2018;BIOCIC et al, 2019). Ademais, as revisões sistemáticas que não são produzidas pela Colaboração Cochrane tendem a diferir do seu protocolo (KOENSGEN et al, 2019) Diante do exposto, torna-se prudente não considerar as evidências de certeza baixa ou muito baixa para a TIC.…”

Section: A Revisão Da Cochraneunclassified

I Seven International Medical and Nursing Congress

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A Síndrome de Burnout (SB) foi definida pela primeira vez em 1974 pelo psicanalista Herbert Freudenberg (1), descrita como falta de motivação no trabalho, sensação de esgotamento e falta de estimulação originada pela falta de energia emocional segundo Moreira et al (2); além de fadiga, depressão, irritação e inflexibilidade presentes nos quadros clássicos de depressão. Mais tarde, em 1981, Christina Maslach e Susan Jackson (3) nomearam a SB como um estresse intenso e contínuo do trabalho. Já em 1999, Maslach e Leiter (4) deram uma nova definição ao Burnout, a síndrome constituída pelo tripé: exaustão emocional, despersonalização e falta de realização profissional. Em 2014, Romani e Ashkar (5) definiram a SB com três aspectos principais, baixa realização pessoal, exaustão emocional e despersonalização.Nesse sentido, segundo Dias (6) na classe médica, ainda é possível destacar outros fatores emocionais desencadeadores do estresse que levam à falta de realização profissional e à despersonalização do trabalho: dor, medo, angústia, desvalorização do trabalho, a falta de capacidade para lidar com a morte dos pacientes.Segundo Rosa (7), somam-se como fator de aumento de risco a sobrecarga de trabalho ocasionada pelo reduzido número de trabalhadores durante a jornada de trabalho e o contato do médico com riscos biológicos, químicos e físicos no ambiente de trabalho.Com isso, a SB resulta significativamente no atendimento médico; sendo que a falta de realização pessoal é vista como a tendência de o profissional avaliar negativamente, gerando sentimentos de incompetência e baixa autoestima. Assim, a exaustão emocional leva o profissional a não dar mais de si, criando uma espécie de bloqueio emocional e a despersonalização leva a sentimentos negativos levando o trabalhador a agir de forma desumanizada devido a um endurecimento afetivo (Arora, Asha, Chinnappa,

show abstract

Comparison of information sources used in Cochrane and non‐Cochrane systematic reviews: A case study in the field of anesthesiology and pain

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study

Reasons for missing evidence in rehabilitation meta-analyses: a cross-sectional meta-research study

Performance of conceptual framework elements for the retrieval of qualitative health literature: a case study

I Seven International Medical and Nursing Congress

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About