Discover the world's scientific knowledge

Hi all,

If we do not have anybody to do quality assurance (QA) of a large number of papers that we get from database searches, say, for example, about a 1000 papers, for a review paper, then what should one do?

The PRISMA guideline mentions that a second person should review the papers that are included into a review paper (scoping or systematic, etc), but if we do not have anybody to review this large number of papers (for example, 1000 papers) for eligibility, then what should be done? Please help.

Thanks

Kind Regards,

Zakia Salod

My research objective is to compare different regulations regarding Dietary supplement products Regulations, there are many regulations regulating and manage the production, sale and marketing of these type of products, my question is what is the best review design to compare these different regulations in different countries?

is the scoping review applicable for this aim or systematic review or another type of review, the point is that these are well known regulations and there are gaps in their application

Thank you.

I am currently working on a literature review and would like to ensure I follow best practices for a rigorous and comprehensive search. I am particularly interested in strategies related to:

What methodologies, tools, or frameworks have you found most effective in conducting systematic or scoping reviews? Are there any common pitfalls researchers should avoid?

Any insights, recommended reading, or shared experiences would be greatly appreciated!

Dear researchers,

we're currently conducting a scoping review, including both original research and systematic reviews with and without meta-analysis. At this point a question occurs for us. Some of the included reviews contain original studies, which we have also identified. Do we include the originals anyway, even if this leads to a certain duplication, or are they excluded because another review already includes them? Unfortunately, we cannot find anything on this in the method papers on scoping reviews. Perhaps one of you has an answer for us. Kind regards, Fritz

What is the consequences of Prolonged post COVID-19 symptoms among the recovered patients?

1. What is the impact on oral health due to several treatment modalities on COVID-19 patients?

2. How to manage post COVID-19 patients with prolonged symptoms in dental setup?

3. What are the clinical considerations during urgent dental treatment of post COVID-19 patients?

The proposed data extracted:

1. Publishing Information: Author and the date of publication time.

2. Study Information:

Study design: Quantitative study including any review (scoping, systematic and rapid) and any epidemiological study design.

The extracted data will also include: Duration of follow-up and prolonged symptoms.

Study participants: COVID-19 recovered patients.

The other content of data extraction will be: Sample size, sampling technique, diagnostic tool.

The outcome assessment: Moderate to severe consequences of prolonged symptoms of COVID-19

The statistical analysis employed.

3. Processed data: The mean age, non-response rate and characteristics, prevalence of Long COVID.

There are a different types of reviews- Narrative, Focussed, Scoping, Systematic, Umbrella reviews, etc

Are aims of each of these type of reviews are different? Or are they chosen merely based on researchers feasibility in terms of time, energy and available resources? Which of these is apt for a postgraduate medical thesis or for that matter even for a PhD thesis?

Hello colleagues,

I want to conduct a scoping review on the effects of trust in science on behavioral change, in relation to the recommendations of health experts. What terms do you think are essential to introduce in my search equation? Best regards.

One of my masters student will write her thesis about the emergence of happiness as a public policy goal. We are planning to conduct a systematic literature review between 2000 and 2010 to answer our research questions (why and how did happiness emerge as a policy goal?). We will code the selected studies (ie. proposed/argued theoretical and circumstantial reasons by the writers), then we will try to illustrate the theoretical background and circumstances which created suitable climate for happiness to rise as a policy topic during the mentioned time frame. I would appreciate if you could share your opinions about which type of systematic literature review (ie. textual narrative, scoping review, thematic synthesis etc) would fit this research, and I would be more than happy to hear your recommendations about the research topic.

I'm conducting a systematic review reporting dropout rates and demographic characteristics in social prescribing.

I've searched for other reviews that have reported on average dropout rates and many appear to conduct a meta-analysis comparing interventions to controls and then report the pooled estimate for attrition.

My early scoping review has found most studies to be before-after/pre-post studies so this is unlikely to be possible.

What is the best statistical way for me to report average dropout rates and the heterogeneity across the studies?

Thanks.

I would be very grateful if someone could advise me on an aspect of the systematic review that I am currently conducting as part of my Masters studies. The preliminary aim of the systematic review is to examine the impact of information and communication technology usage on social isolation including loneliness in aged adults. I have completed my scoping searches and have identified several relevant systematic reviews in the area (please find attached).

Could someone have a quick read through and let me know if you are aware of any pertinent systematic reviews that I may have missed during my searches and/or if you know of any ongoing reviews that are due to be published in the next 3 months? Moreover, I would be very grateful for any kind of helpful advice that you can offer regarding my research topic in general. This will help me to ensure that I am addressing a novel question which has not previously been addressed.

As you can see reference [6] is as closest to the particular review question I am asking and therefore my primary reference point. The others focus on a broader context respectively on a broader target group.