Science topic

Systematic Reviews - Science topic

A systematic review is a literature review focused on a research question that tries to identify, appraise, select and synthesize all high quality research evidence relevant to that question. Systematic reviews of high-quality randomized controlled trials are crucial to evidence-based medicine.
Questions related to Systematic Reviews
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
How to write a conceptual systematic review?
Relevant answer
Answer
I don't know if I'm doing it right, but here’s how I approach writing a conceptual systematic review. First, I define a clear research question and identify the main concepts relevant to the topic. Then, I conduct a comprehensive search on databases like PubMed and Scopus to gather studies that address these concepts. Instead of focusing on individual studies, I categorize findings by themes, looking for patterns and theoretical insights across the literature. Finally, I synthesize the information to highlight gaps, key insights, and suggest directions for future research.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
6 answers
The risk of bias significantly influences the validity of systematic review conclusions, as studies with higher bias are more likely to overestimate treatment effects. Systematic reviews that incorporate assessments of bias, such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, tend to provide more reliable estimates of intervention effectiveness.
Higgins, J. P. T., & Green, S. (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. [Available at: http://handbook.cochrane.org]
Relevant answer
Answer
The risk of bias in systematic reviews can lead to inaccurate or misleading conclusions. If studies included in the review have flaws, such as poor design or selective reporting, it can overestimate or underestimate the effects of treatments, affecting the reliability of the review's findings.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
5 answers
After checking the eligibility criteria, are both high-quality and low-quality articles included in the review?
What is Cochrane's recommendation?
Relevant answer
Answer
To the clear-eyed, "risk of bias" as measured by ROB2 is a fundamentally broken metric, because it doesn't measure what is important. FCoI isn't even counted.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
The objective is to publish in a high-quality journal
Relevant answer
Answer
How are you planning to collaborate?
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
Such as a study, or a PhD, or a systematic review, or something else?
If so, I'd love to know what you are studying and why.
I'd also love to know what your top 3 go to mindset references are?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Necmettin Ozkan Wishing you all the best with your research and I look forward to hearing more :-)
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
I am currently working on a review manuscript titled Precision Livestock Farming in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities for Sustainable Agriculture. A reviewer from a Q2 journal asked if PRISMA guidelines were followed for the selection of articles, even though my manuscript is not a systematic review but a narrative review.
Is it common to apply PRISMA to narrative reviews, or is there a different set of guidelines that should be followed in such cases? I would appreciate any insights or experiences related to the use of PRISMA in non-systematic reviews.
Relevant answer
Answer
It is not expected to apply PRISMA to a narrative review. However the JBI manual has a systematic checklist for narrative reviews. 
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
Why would a well-designed systematic review exclude studies conducted by crossover, or cluster randomization methods? As the linked article proudly did. My understanding is that crossover and cluster randomization methods are indicative of a well-designed study, not the reverse.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for inquiring about this question.
It's important to note that certain health and treatment subjects cannot be individually randomized and must instead be randomized in a cluster or crossover. The general rule that a good systematic review should exclude this type of randomization may be associated with bias. Therefore, it's better to decide which designs to exclude based on the scope and topic of your study. Additionally, in Clinical Trial studies, the study quality check tool, such as the Rob one or two, mentions the randomization method and assigns a grade to the study based on that.
Taking all of this into consideration, I hope you can make the right decision in choosing the appropriate studies for your systematic review.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
Want to know how the grey literature can be used in the research ...
Relevant answer
Answer
The grey litterature is, by essence, difficult to find and archived from various ways. However, depending of the topic it can be interesting especially when there are some works from PhD and MS thesis that have not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. However, other types of reports can also be considered (eg some periodics or technical documents) which may be more difficult to evaluate.
There is not specific guidelines (at least from which I can remember) on how to use it and its added values vs focussing on peer-reviewed litterature archived in bibliographic archives. The "grey litterature" should be assessed using the same method than used for other studies focussing on quality of reporting and risk of bias.
There are particular databases to assess the theses such as OATD – Open Access Theses and Dissertations. You could also make specific research on several web research interfaces (Bing, google using various language).
In the end it still depends on the topic and ressources you have to deeply review this search.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
1. Scopus = Embase?
2. Scopus = Web of Science?
3. Scopus = Embase+Web of Science?
or
1. Scopus ≠ Embase?
2. Scopus ≠ Web of Science?
3. Scopus ≠ Embase+Web of Science?
If researchers use both Embase and Web of Science but do not include Scopus, how does this choice affect their search results?
Relevant answer
Answer
  1. Scopus = Embase?No, they are not equal. While both databases index biomedical literature, Embase has a stronger focus on European and international biomedical journals, especially those related to pharmacology and drug research. Scopus, on the other hand, covers a broader range of disciplines, including social sciences and humanities.
  2. Scopus = Web of Science?No, they are not equal. Scopus and Web of Science are similar in that they both cover a wide array of scientific disciplines and provide citation metrics. However, they differ in their indexing practices, scope, and the journals they include. Web of Science tends to focus more on high-impact journals, while Scopus offers broader coverage.
  3. Scopus = Embase + Web of Science?No, this is also not accurate. While Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science have overlapping content, each database has unique journals and articles. They each have their strengths in different areas, making them complementary rather than interchangeable.
Implications of Using Embase and Web of Science Without Scopus
If researchers choose to rely solely on Embase and Web of Science and exclude Scopus from their literature search:
  • Potential Gaps in Literature: They may miss relevant articles indexed in Scopus, particularly those from journals that are not included in the other two databases. Scopus has a broader selection of interdisciplinary journals that could contain valuable information.
  • Citation Metrics: Researchers using only Embase and Web of Science might not have access to certain citation metrics available in Scopus, which can provide insights into the impact and relevance of specific research.
  • Diversity of Sources: Excluding Scopus might limit the diversity of the literature reviewed, potentially skewing the results or conclusions drawn from the research.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
12 answers
A meta analysis has been done considering the articles published between the year 1997 and 2004. I am interested to do meta analysis in the same topic. Is it valid?. can I take all articles without time restrictions or is it better to take articles after 2004?
Relevant answer
Answer
You can revise if there is some clue that your new review will add something new to the field.
The previous review might have issue in conduct like lack of proper search in enough databases, non focused research question, not reporting negative outcomes, inadequate statistics , new good quality studies publication etc
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Dear respected Professor's and Scholar's,
I need your kind professional advice.
I want to conduct a systematic review on "Thermally Insulation through 3D printing: Materials, Properties and Applications", I try to investigate some scholary works regarding this topic. However, I am not satisfied or I did not get an answer which met my specific issues.
I kindly ask you;
1. What are the possible issues must be raised?
2. What contents are must be included to fulfilled the systematic review?
3. Can you share me your outlines or drafts you craft on this topic?
Thank you inadvance for your kind help.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dorice Vieira I kindly thank you for your valuable insights and recommendation. I will go through it.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
What are the key differences between descriptive,
integrative, narrative, and systematic reviews? How
does this choice impact your approach?
Relevant answer
Answer
While a fairly old article, this article points of the differences between many reviews (I hope this helps!):
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
MJ Grant, A Booth - Health information & libraries journal, 2009 - Wiley Online Library
… Notwithstanding such limitations, this typology provides a valuable reference point for those commissioning, conducting, supporting or interpreting reviews, both within health …
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
I am at the end of conducting a large systematic review and meta-analysis. I have experience of meta-analysis and have attempted to meta-analyse the studies myself, but I am not happy with my method. The problem is that almost all the studies are crossover studies and I am not sure how to analyse them correctly. I have consulted the Cochrane Handbook, and it seems to suggest a paired analysis is best, but I do not have the expertise to do this - https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-23#section-23-2-6
I am seeking a statistician familiar with meta-analysis to consult with, and if possible, undertake the meta-analysis. There are only two authors on this paper (me and a colleague), so you would either be second or last author. We aim to publish in a Q1 or Q2 journal, and from my own analysis I can see we have very interesting results.
Please let me know if you are interested.
Relevant answer
Answer
Depending on the structure of the data (how much pre-processing has been already done), I would be ready to conduct the meta-analysis as well. Please feel free to reach out by PM.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
Any recommendations ?
Relevant answer
Answer
Seif Hundam PubMed offers filters to specifically extract systematic reviews of animal trials. If you're unable to find relevant articles, let me know, and I'll search other biomedical databases if you have limited access.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
🌐 Introduction: Hello ResearchGate community! 👋 Are you passionate about systematic reviews? We're excited to kick off a discussion on a topic close to every researcher's heart. Let's delve into the world of systematic reviews and explore groundbreaking ways to enhance this crucial aspect of academic research.
🚀 SysReview AI: A New Frontier: Ever wondered how AI could revolutionize the systematic review process? We're here to discuss SysReview AI, an innovative tool designed to accelerate the creation of systematic reviews. Join us to explore how technology is reshaping the way researchers approach review articles.
💡 Key Discussion Points:
  1. The Future of Systematic Reviews: Share your thoughts on the evolving landscape of systematic reviews and the role of AI in shaping its future.
  2. Challenges and Solutions: Discuss the challenges you face in creating systematic reviews and explore potential solutions or innovations.
  3. SysReview AI in Focus: Curious about SysReview AI? Engage with us to learn about its features, benefits, and how it could transform your research process.
  4. Community Insights: Let's build a community where researchers exchange insights, experiences, and best practices in systematic reviews.
🔍 How to Participate:
  • Share your experiences with systematic reviews.
  • Discuss the impact of AI on literature reviews.
  • Ask questions or seek advice on systematic review methodologies.
  • Express interest in joining a live demo session of SysReview AI.
🌟 Why Join?
  • Connect with like-minded researchers.
  • Stay updated on the latest advancements in systematic reviews.
  • Explore opportunities to shape the future of academic publishing.
Ready to be part of the conversation? Drop your thoughts below! Let's embark on this exciting journey together.
#SysReviewAI #SystematicReviews #ResearchGateDiscussion #ResearchCommunity #AIinResearch
Twitter @reviewaitool
Relevant answer
Answer
Where can I find articles about your strategies to write a systematic review?
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
I am conducting a systematic review and meta analysis; as I am extracting data I realized there is a consort diagram that shows the number of patients from randomization till end of the study. So all the data is available if I want to extract based on intention to treat or based on per protocol ( patients who completed the intervention). I am wondering how should I proceed?
check these papers. one of them report PP and the other report ITT; however data is available for both to extract either one. what should I do?
Relevant answer
Answer
The two analyses answer two different questions: the effect of the intervention itself(PP) vs the effect of prescribing the intervention(ITT)- which should take into account that some interventions may be hard to use and cause a high dropout rate which is part of the effects of their actual real-life effect. Thus, it is generally preferred to use ITT in cases where there is a high drop-out rate to account for the probable effects of the intervention on nonadherence in real-life use of the intervention. Thus, when your question is whether the intervention is suitable to be used in practice, we always prefer ITT, especially when the dropout rate is high. If your question focuses on the effects of the intervention per se, PP analysis provides more accurate(lab-like) results.
Given the nature of your intervention and the assumed question of your SR, I would suggest that ITT would provide more useful results for decision-making.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
Context: I am writing a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) as part of my master's thesis project. After initially screening the titles and abstracts of 338 papers from four selected databases, I identified 138 papers that matched my inclusion criteria. During the full-text review phase, I encountered difficulty obtaining 3 papers out of the 138. I couldn't access these 3 papers because our university wasn't subscribed to these journals, and the Science Hub Mutual Aid community couldn't help either.
Questions:
(1) Is this acceptable to reviewers in reputable journals?
(2) How should I address this in my SLR?
(3) Is it appropriate to email the authors for copies of their papers?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello Evon,
When I am peer-reviewing I would expect efforts to contact authors by email for their papers, stressing to them the importance of adding to the body of evidence via a review. It is a recognised and standard step in systetmatic reviews to do this. When you complete the PRISMA flow chart (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) you will be able to chart reports selected for retrieval (n) versus reports retrieved and not retreived (n).
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
5 answers
Hello everyone,
I have written a narrative review on a topic obtaining the literature from other research articles and review papers. But I wish to convert it to systematic review (without meta analysis) now. I have noticed that most systematic reviews are based on clinical trials. Is it still possible to get it done based on my sources?
Relevant answer
Answer
It is not possible to convert a narrative review into a systematic review because a systematic review will require a detailed step-by-step review protocol which outlines the following:
[1]what is the review question?
[2]where to search and how to search?
[3]strict eligibility criteria to ensure that only eligible studies will be included in the review
[4]how to perform data synthesis (i.e. either by meta-analysis or by narrative synthesis).
Furthermore, a systematic review involves collating evidence by using all of the eligible and critically appraised literature available on a certain clearly-defined topic. A narrative review, on the other hand, merely aims at identifying and summarizing what has previously been published on a broader scope of the subject.
Therefore, the major difference between a narrative review and a systematic review is that the main purpose of a narrative review is to deepen the understanding in a certain research area. This is in contrast to the results of a systematic review, which can provide the most valid evidence to guide clinical decision-making and inform policy development. Therefore, some of the high-quality systematic reviews have now become the gold standard in evidence-based medicine.
Although a majority of systematic reviews are based on interventional clinical trials, it is still possible for a systematic review to be based on observational studies such as cross-sectional studies, etc..
In fact, some of the systematic reviews are actually including meta-analysis of observational studies.
Since you already have written up a narrative review, therefore you should use it as a basis to formulate the overall rationale for preparing a systematic review protocol and then register it in PROSPERO, if you have found that no such reviews have already been written up by other authors.
This is because some of the information in the narrative review can be very useful for providing a supporting framework of a systematic review protocol.
However, in order to write up a systematic review protocol, it is first necessary to gather a team of like-minded authors, who are committed towards the writing up of both the systematic review protocol as well as the full systematic review (incorporating all the review findings).
Once you have formed a team of like-minded authors, then all the authors can either decide to register this new systematic review protocol in PROSPERO, if no such protocols and/or reviews have ever been written up by other authors before.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
I am currently writing a systematic review
Relevant answer
Answer
Key risks associated with foodborne pathogens in imported leafy greens include contamination with bacteria such as E. coli, Salmonella, and Listeria. These pathogens can cause severe illness, especially in vulnerable populations such as the elderly, young children, pregnant women, and immunocompromised individuals. The impact on public health can be significant, leading to outbreaks of foodborne illnesses, increased healthcare costs, and in severe cases, death.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
To the best of my knowledge, a systematic review aims to collect and summarize all the published & unpublished literature revolving around a certain topic/sub-topic.
Sometimes, I encounter results in ClinicalTrials.gov which are yet to be published, or abstracts which do not have their full-texts available yet, or conference proceedings which do not include their methodologies in fine detail.
In this case, when the methods section is not addressed appropriately, what tools could be employed to assess the risk of bias/quality of such research types?
Thank you beforehand.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you for your insights.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
¿Should a pilot study be done before conducting a systematic review?
Relevant answer
Answer
Pilot studies are more relevant when developing and testing new research methodologies or interventions, not when reviewing existing literature. That said, it can be beneficial to conduct preliminary searches or scoping reviews to refine your research question and search strategy for the systematic review. These preliminary steps can help ensure that your systematic review is comprehensive and focused.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
5 answers
I am doing a systematic review, and I am measuring risk of bias with RoB2 for RCT, and ROBINS-I for non RCT. My questions is, for single arm studies, can I use ROBINS-I? I am not sure how to answer the questions for the domain regarding confounding in this case.
Thank you!
Relevant answer
Answer
you can try ROBINS-E for single arm studies or try to adapt ROBINS-I to fit your situation. You should mention any adaptation or modification in the methodology section.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
We have conducted a systematic review to investigate the effectiveness of a treatment for a psychological disorder. We aim to report effect sizes and p values of the reviewed studies but one study has only reported CI 95, p value and t score regarding the effect of the treatment on a variable between baseline and post-treatment. Given that the used t test was from a paired t test, is it possible to determine the Cohen's d based on the available information?
I'd very much appreciate it if you help me with this problem.
Relevant answer
Answer
I had to calculate this once a long time ago. If I am not wrong, you can determine Cohen's d if you first use the CI to estimate the mean difference and the standard error of the mean difference. The margin of error (ME) is half the width of the CI, so the SE can be derived from the ME using the t-value if you know the the sample size.
With the SE, you can then calculate the SD of the differences (SD_diff). You'll get a Cohen's d dividing the mean difference by SD_diff.
You probably can compare the result with an on-line cohen's d calculator and check whether it is consistent.
I AM NOT AN EXPERT, but you can try and see if this helps.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
5 answers
Hi everybody,
We are trying to write a systematic review meta-analysis paper. But I could find 19 references. I think 19 references are not enough to do a meta-analysis section and it is better to just write a systematic review. What do you think?
In addition, about 4 of them are non-English (Farsi) references. Can we use them? Or Can we use reference paper?
Maryam
Relevant answer
Answer
Check heterogeneity, quality, and publication bias. And if the results are acceptable, you can conduct meta-analysis for 19 studies. Meta-analyses often aim for at least 10-20 studies to ensure a sufficient sample size for meaningful statistical analysis and to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the evidence.
You can include non-English references, such as Farsi papers but consider your
Cabilability to understand and interpret the results of these studies. If language barriers prevent thorough evaluation or synthesis of these studies, you should ignore them.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
Dear all,
We have submitted a manuscript for publication that presents a systematic review and meta-analysis evaluating the influence of a gene polymorphism on cancer risk. The study involved the selection of published case-control studies from various countries across all continents, comparing the allele frequencies of a specific gene polymorphism in populations with cancer to those of healthy subjects.
The reviewer has requested "External validity is missing, please provide."
However, I am unfamiliar with what constitutes external validity in this context.
Relevant answer
Answer
You can refer to the following sources of information should you require any further clarifications and/or explanations on external validity of a meta-analysis.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
If we consider an RCT, a case control study, an opinion article or grey unpublished literature all together due to the unavailability of papers in a systematic review knowing the fact that it will not be 100% quality assurance but comes with its own limitations, would you go ahead?.
or
Is it better to do a scoping review?.,
Looking forward for expert opinions
Many thanks
Punitha
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi, I have faced this situation many times, and I also often see systematic reviews of studies that are cases series (prospective/ retrospective) only. In my own work I often take the decision to include non-RCTs that are prospective in design and, if possible, control for confounding by matching or by propensity scores and seek the best means of assessing risk of bias. It certainly wouldn't be an anomaly if you performed a review of studies that were mainly case series. Cochrane Library provides guidance on the decision whether to include non-randomised studies, and I would look here first I think.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
I read one or two articles about systematic reviews conducted in descriptive/ epidemiological studies, but those articles were published in 2000 and 2010 respectively. So I want to be sure about conducting systematic reviews using descriptive studies rather than RCT's. Thank you.
Relevant answer
Answer
The MOOSE checklist, CASP checklist for systematic review with meta-analysis of observational studies and PRISMA checklist are attached herewith.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
I´m planning a systematic review including cohort and registry studies to evaluate if the patient´s sex has an influence on the outcome. I know a lot of established and validated tools and approaches for writing a systematic review of interventional studies (GRADE approach, Cochrane Risk of Bias tool...). But I´m having a hard time finding similar approaches for a systematic review of observational studies. For assessing the risk of bias I have read about the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the ROBINS-E tool, but I haven’t found anything on how to assess the strength of the final body of evidence. Does anyone have suggestions or can share some experience? Thank you!
Relevant answer
Answer
The attached is the GRADE-PRO handbook which was updated in October 2013.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
It is well known in current scenario, the importance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, as I could see a lot questions related to it, would a skilled supportive community can play a crucial role in enriching the society with quality reviews and meta analysis with 24*7 support system.
If so, how many would
1. Recommend,
2. Highly recommend
3. Not necessarily required
How many of you would be interested being a part of support community? and what would be your role?
Relevant answer
Answer
In many respects, the Cochrane Collaboration (medicine, health) and Cambell Collaboration (social science) already serve this function
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
I want to write a systematic literature review. Can anyone share the standard technique .
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi, you can look for other literature review papers to understand the methods. I suggest this paper, where the PICOC and PRISMA methods are used together to provide a literature review about machine learning and optimization algorithms.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
Hi, I am doing a systematic literature review for my MPhil. Does anyone know what philosophy/research paradigm is a systematic review?
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
Can anyone guide me where I can find and understand the GRADE approach method for my ongoing systematic review? I referred to Cochrane and it's way too complicated to understand.
Thank you in advance.
Relevant answer
Answer
It gives level of evidence/certainty for the included studies of the SR (v low, low, mod, high). This level decreases a level with presence of Risk of bias, Imprecision, Inconsistency, Indirectness, or Publication bias and increases with presence of Large magnitude of effect, Dose-response gradient, or All residual confounding would decrease magnitude of effect (in situations with an effect).
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
Dear Colleagues,
I hope you’re all doing well. As we know, systematic reviews are crucial for synthesizing evidence and providing comprehensive insights into specific research questions. However, the process of conducting these reviews can be complex, demanding and time consuming. We are in the process of developing an AI-based software solution designed to assist with the article screening and data extraction stages of systematic reviews. To ensure our tool effectively addresses the needs of the research community, we’d like to learn more about your experiences and get your perspective on common problems.
· What are the most time-consuming aspects of your workflow?
· Are there particular pain points or frustrations you regularly encounter?
· How do you currently address these challenges, and what improvements would you like to see in an AI tool?
If you are interested in trying the tool or have any questions, please don't hesitate to send me a message (or visit www.revisio.ai )
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts!
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Sreenivas, thank you for your comment. Streamlining multiple article screening and data extraction are our main goals. We hope you will find the tool helpful when it is released.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
6 answers
For my PhD dissertation:
If Chapter 1 is a systematic literature review (QUANTS/QUALS) while Chapters 2, 3, and 4 are empirical chapters (QUALS), is this considered a mixed methods research design?
References would be very helpful. Thanks!
Relevant answer
Answer
No, it is not mixed methods. Literature review is background of any research but not a research in itself until you drive some finding and it's use and implications. The technique use to develop some finding is considered method.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
What are the differences between narrative and systematic
reviews, and why are systematic reviews considered the
gold standard?
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Can you explain the process involved in preparing a
systematic review, as outlined in the article?
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
What are the key considerations when searching for and
evaluating studies to include in a systematic review?
Relevant answer
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Is it acceptable to include secondary literature, such as other scoping reviews, umbrella reviews, meta-analyses, or systematic reviews, in the process of conducting a scoping review?
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Giovanni, Thank you for sharing the information. It was very helpful.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
The topic can cover any area of this specialty.
Relevant answer
Answer
Greetings Qamar,
Thank you for your question.
General Surgery is a broad specialty with a plethora of sub-specialties and sub-subspecialties underneath it.
To find a valid meta-analysis idea, I would personally advise you to narrow down your scope to a subspecialty of your interest. Try subscribing to journals & updates falling under this particular specialty and read - as frequently as possible - the most recent publications. Additionally, you may use websites such as "Medscape" to remain up-to-date with the latest advancements in your specialty of choice. This approach may help you identify possible gaps in literature which may be addressed appropriately by conducting a meta-analysis.
When validating your meta-analytic idea, try making sure it follows the FINER criteria [Although ethics might be overlooked when conducting secondary research as the primary studies you're trying to pool have already had their ethical approval].
Hopefully this answers your question!
Best Regards,
Mohamed Ibrahim
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
I have been working on a review that has been structured as a systematized review. I was told that we may need to conduct a systematic review to get published. I have seen systematized reviews published before. Just wanting some insight? Also, what journals should I target for publication for a systematized review?
Relevant answer
Answer
Some journals are specifically designed for review-like papers, such as Neurosurgical Review or Heart Failure Reviews.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Hi everyone, for some years now I've been interested in doing meta-analysis in my field of study. I am a botanist, who recently worked in seed biology. during my self-learning, I already knew how to do systematic reviews, but stuck there while I wanted to improve myself in meta-analysis.
Thus, I write to express my desire to reach everyone who may have experience in this topic and is willing to let me learn from their experience. thanks.
Relevant answer
Answer
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Menurut Bapak/Ibu, apakah editor jurnal lebih memilih Systematic Literature Review 10-20 tahun daripada yang menelaah 5 tahun?
In your opinion (Mr and Ms), what do you think, journal editors prefer Systematic Literature Reviews of 10-20 years over those of 5 years?
Relevant answer
Answer
Heba Ramadan ,I was new to a field of study, and at the same time, there was a senior who had researched it over a long time and with a lot of data. I honestly felt a lack of confidence. But thanks to your discussion, I feel more confident to complete this manuscript. Thank you
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
I am working on an article concerning a systematic literature review on the determinants of the business environment (business climate). thank you!
Relevant answer
Answer
There are various approaches for conducting a systematic review (with or without meta-analysis or meta-synthesis). Notably, there are also various guidelines. Personally, I’d recommend following PRISMA (https://www.prisma-statement.org), as these are probably the most popular ones. Clearly state your research question, you can register your work at PROSPERO (I am not sure if non-health related systematic reviews can be registered). Use a comprehensive search strategy through at least 3 literature databases (avoid Google Search as primary, can be used as secondary to find missing articles). Conduct a study triage with at least one more person (study screening with data extraction). The most basic layout for such review is short introduction, methodology (used databases, keywords, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and if you need, a statistical analyses), results (how many results were retrieved and included, briefly analyze the basic information about included works, then proceed to actual analysis), and finally discussion, where you should summarize your findings.
Remember, approaching SR requires inclusion of all possible papers relevant to your topic. This will increase reliability and minimize bias. Meta-analysis (if possible) will even more enhance your work.
Regards
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Dear Researchers,
due to a huge problem analysing the data for a systematic review, i ask for your help!
My topic focuses digital Interventions on cannabis consumption.
Which results should i focus on, when evaluating the data.
Should i just focus on Complete Cases or the ITT-Analysis or both.
For some values studies mentionend significant effects for the CC
but not in the ITT analysis. How can i evaluate this data?
(Does it mean that if a person uses the digital programm as intentend the significant effects apply?)
OR do other factors like attrition bias play a role and the results cannot be transfered to all people who use the program?
Is the ITT-Analysis the best way to draw a conclusion on the efficacy to transfer the results on the general public??
Relevant answer
Answer
I would recommend go for ITT data. It closely mirrors the expected number of dropouts in a real-life situation, so ITT analysis reflects the (realistic) expected effect of the intervention in a medical practice setting.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
Looking forward to conduct a systematic review on a new topic which primarily contains opinions and communications. Kindly provide your valuable answer.
Relevant answer
Answer
Content analysis is qualitative analysis of the written word. As long as you are systematic and rigorous, you can analyze opinion pieces.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
l need an assistance on how to carry out a systematic review of causes and preventive measures against maternal mortality in Ogun State, Nigeria, 2018-23?
Relevant answer
Answer
Stephen Dare Oloninefa First, initiate by framing your research question, followed by searching for articles in relevant databases. Then, proceed with data extraction and risk of bias assessment. If you could initiate, I can guide you through the rest.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
6 answers
I was doing a systematic literature review about the acceptance of Adaptive cruise control (ACC). The topic of ACC began in the 1990s. I want to select peer-reviewed articles and I believe that the recent studies should be included in the study. However, I don't know the year I should begin to filter the literature review works. Are there any scholarly-based decision criteria for selecting the year range I should take to perform the systematic review analysis?
#systematic #literature #review#ACC# ADAS #year range
Relevant answer
Answer
Compromising due to time constraints can be necessary, but it's essential to prioritize the most relevant studies. Mechanisms like systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and using advanced search tools can help optimize time by focusing on key findings and filtering out less pertinent research. Additionally, collaborating with peers or utilizing machine learning algorithms can aid in efficiently sifting through large volumes of literature. Balancing time constraints with the need for thoroughness is key.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
I’m writing a mixed methods systematic review, and I was about to start my write up when I realised the majority of my papers are cross sectional studies. I know that this isn’t technically primary data. Would this invalidate my dissertation.
Relevant answer
Answer
Having a majority of cross-sectional studies in your mixed methods systematic review does not necessarily invalidate your dissertation. Cross-sectional studies, while not technically primary data in the sense of data collected specifically for your research, are still valuable sources of information in systematic reviews.
In a mixed methods systematic review, you aim to synthesize evidence from various types of studies, such as qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research, to address your research questions comprehensively. While primary data collection is one aspect of mixed methods research, the synthesis of existing data from published studies is another valid approach.
Cross-sectional studies can provide valuable insights into the prevalence, distribution, and associations of variables of interest at a specific point in time. They can contribute to the overall understanding of a research topic and help identify patterns or trends that may inform future research or practice.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
According to the study of Pan et al. (2023) entitled "Diagnostic Efficacy of Serological Antibody Detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," How do the findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis impact current clinical practices related to HDV diagnosis and management?
Relevant answer
Answer
The study underscores the exceptional accuracy of serological tests like RIA, EIA, ELISA, and automatic immunoassay analysis in diagnosing HDV, with notable sensitivity (0.96) and specificity (0.98) for IgM detection. It recommends prioritizing IgM/IgG antibody detection over total antibodies due to their superior diagnostic performance. Implementing IgM and IgG tests in clinical settings could notably improve HDV diagnosis accuracy, aiding in timely identification of infected individuals for proper management. However, despite advancements in testing accuracy, challenges still persist in HDV epidemiology due to low public awareness and inadequate routine screening. The study emphasizes the urgent need for standardized testing methods and improved serological kits with enhanced sensitivity to address these challenges and ensure more reliable HDV detection.
The systematic review and meta-analysis highlight the effectiveness of serological tests, particularly IgM and IgG detection, in diagnosing HDV. However, broader adoption of these tests in clinical practice is hindered by existing challenges in public awareness, test standardization, and the need for improved testing technologies. Efforts are needed to address these issues to enhance the global understanding and management of hepatitis D.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
According to the research of Pan et al. (2023) entitled, “Diagnostic Efficacy of serological Antibody detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis,” what measures could future researchers or scientists employ to standardize HDV diagnosis with PCR in the future?
Relevant answer
Good day Ms. Miranda,
According to Turgeon (2021), the presentation of HDV antigen in serum are the two main ways to detect hepatitis D infection. EIA test procedures are used for HDV IgM antibody testing, and qualitative enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) is used to identify HDV antigen. The production of IgM or IgG HDV antibodies, occur at the same time as hepatitis A or B antibodies. However, examining the HDV antibodies using IgG and IgM present in an individual do not require special considerations.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
In relation to an article titled "Diagnostic Efficacy of Serological Antibody Detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis" by Zhenzhen Pan et al. (2023), what factors contribute to the prolonged presence of anti-HDV IgG antibodies in individuals with HDV infection?
Relevant answer
Answer
Good day, Ms. Rodriguez.
Anti-HDV IgG is detected in all individuals affected with the virus and stays positive even after viral clearance, leading to false-positive results. One factor contributing to the prolonged presence of anti-HDV in HDV-infected individuals is their immune system status. IgG anti-HDV is found to persist longer in immunocompromised individuals and may also indicate chronic or previous HDV infection. Apart from this, the prolonged presence of IgG in those affected with Hepatitis D is caused by its half-life, which is longer than the other immunoglobulins. This means that once IgG is produced, it will persist in the blood for an extended time; this prolonged half-life is what causes IgG to stay positive even after viral clearance. A chronic HDV (both IgG and IgM are present) infection can also cause its persistence. Individuals with a chronic Hepatitis D infection cause the immune system to constantly produce anti-HDV IgG to contain/ neutralize the virus. Recurrent or persistent HDV exposure is also a contributing factor because it also stimulates the immune system to produce and maintain elevated anti-HDV IgG antibodies to prevent the occurrence of reinfection.
References:
Gish, R. (n.d.). Diagnosing and Screening for Hepatitis D Viral Infection. https://www.hepb.org/assets/Uploads/Gish-HDV-Diagnositic-Analysis-Whitepaper-1.pdf
Hepatitis Delta Antigen - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics. (n.d.). Www.sciencedirect.com. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/hepatitis-delta-antigen
Routes, J. (2016). Murray and Nadel’s Textbook of Respiratory Medicine (Sixth Edition). ScienceDirect. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/neuroscience/immunoglobulin-g#:~:text=IgG%20is%20the%20most%20plentiful,that%20of%20the%20other%20isotypes
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Systematic review
Relevant answer
Answer
I use Zotero. Its very easy to use and would recommend it
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
Hi guys. I'm working in a systematic review and meta-analysis. How can I combine 4 groups to calculate the mean and standard deviation of a total cohort of patients?
I need to calculate the mean volume and SD of intracerebral hemorrhage and I have 4 studies.
Relevant answer
Answer
You can use a software recommend for meta-analysis. Ex:- RevMan. Follow several guides and learn the steps
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
What is the difference between a systematic review and a review article?
Relevant answer
Answer
In the context of academic journals, including the CBM journal, a major revision and a revision with justification of criticisms are both processes that occur after an initial submission but have slightly different implications:
Major Revision: This typically implies that the manuscript requires significant changes before it can be considered for publication. It might involve restructuring the paper, adding substantial new content, addressing major flaws or gaps in methodology, analysis, or interpretation, and generally improving the overall quality and clarity of the work. Authors receiving a major revision decision are usually given a specific set of instructions or feedback from the reviewers and editors on what needs to be addressed. The revised manuscript will undergo another round of review to ensure that the requested changes have been adequately made.
Revision with Justification of Criticisms: This suggests that the paper has been reviewed, and while it may have several criticisms or issues that need to be addressed, they are not necessarily as extensive or fundamental as those requiring a major revision. In this case, authors are typically expected to address the specific criticisms raised by the reviewers, providing detailed justifications or explanations for their choices or decisions in the manuscript. This process may involve clarifying points, providing additional evidence or analysis, or rephrasing sections to improve understanding or address concerns. Once the revisions are made, the manuscript will be re-evaluated by the reviewers and editors to ensure that the concerns have been adequately addressed.
In summary, while both types of revisions involve addressing feedback and improving the manuscript, a major revision typically implies more extensive changes, while a revision with justification of criticisms focuses on addressing specific critiques raised by the reviewers without necessarily requiring a complete overhaul of the manuscript.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
I need gain an insight into which type of a review paper that contributes significantly to establishing a rationale for the significance of a PhD thesis?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi, if the topic you are researching is relatively new then a scoping review may assist if you’re wanting to see what methodology others have used, if any. Charting the data would assist as you would see it all in front of you. Alternatively, if the construct you are researching requires conceptualisation then a scoping review may assist in providing clarity for how to proceed in your decision making once that is achieved. I hope this helps.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
I am preparing to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the prevalence of vitamin B12 deficiency and its associated factors among adult individuals with diabetes in sub-Saharan Africa. If you have expertise in this topic area and are interested in contributing to and co-authoring this systematic review, please contact me.
Contributing roles may include:
  • Identifying and screening studies for inclusion
  • Extracting data from included studies
  • Assessing risk of bias in included studies
  • Performing statistical analyses and meta-analyses
  • Assisting with drafting and revising the manuscrip
Relevant answer
Hi Mohamed Jayte do we have more colleagues to work on this systematic review? Should we create a group to start working on this?
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
When I try to do the metatrim on STATA I get the following error:
db metatrim
. metatrim _ES _seES, reffect eform
Note: default data input format (theta, se_theta) assumed.
subcommand meta __000005 is unrecognized
r(199);
Does anyone know how to solve it? I couldn't find anything on the internet.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello Giuseppe Dario Testa. What version of Stata do you have? I ask, because if it is recent enough (v16 or later, IIRC), it will have a suite of new (official) meta-analysis commands, including this one:
PS- I recommend posting questions about how to do X using Stata to Statalist. If you do decide to post there in future, see the very helpful FAQ first.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
The main reason is lack of well designed studies in the area of interest. Is there a standard tool for quality assessment of case reports?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, you can include them in the systematic review. JBI provides a tool to assess the quality of such studies: "Critical appraisal checklist for case reports" (https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/355599400/Appendix+7.4+Critical+appraisal+checklist+for+case+reports). However, let's note that Cochrane Handbook emphasized the limitation of case reports (SR of adverse events): "Spontaneous case reports or case series may assist in signalling rare and previously unknown events. However, for most Cochrane Reviews, these data sources should be used for scoping purposes only (particularly as they do not have denominator data to allow estimation of risks or rates). These spontaneous reports may guide drafting of the protocol when there is a need to choose relevant or important adverse effects as outcomes of interest." (https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-19)
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
Do you know systematic reviews and/or meta-analyses that have chosen to exclude articles from (or suspected to be) predatory journals/publishers in their work ?
Relevant answer
Answer
I think the type of journal should not a priori be an exclusion factor. You can have poor quality studies published in high impact journals (it always depends on the reviewers' that were selected to assess paper during the peer-reviewed process). Quantification of the studies' quality and risk of bias would be more robust than a priori excluding an eligible study just because it was published in a journal that is thought to be predatory.
My 2 cents.
NB: the definition of what is a predatory journal is still a debated issue.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Hi
i am trying to conduct an umbrella review.
there are some systematic reviews that report the same outcome and have same included RCTs (not all of the RCTs are similar but some of them repeated in two same meta analysis). I can not delete any of the systematic reviews because they reported different studies as well ( it seems that it is because of using different data sources)
can i include all of the systematic review and meta analyses?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Alireza,
The phenomenon you are describing is called "overlap". You can handle overlap at different stages of the umbrella review (or overview). You can define it as part of the eligibility criteria (e.g. not including a SR if it shares a certain amount of primary studies with another), at the moment of data extraction (e.g. in case of overlap, extracting data only from the most recent SR, or the one with the highest quality, etc), you can describe it within your results, or you can acknowledge that as a limitation. Carole Lunny has a great scoping review about this:
  • 10.1186/s13643-017-0617-1
  • 10.1186/s13643-018-0784-8
If you decide to describe the overlap as part of your results (the option I would recommend), I would suggest you do the following:
  • Make a matrix of evidence to visualise overlap
  • Calculate the corrected covered area to quantify the overall overlap (10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007)
  • Calculate a pairwise corrected covered area (10.1002/jrsm.1588)
With that description, you can decide if it would be better to present your results descriptively, or maybe try to solve the overlap by conducting a de novo meta-analysis. Don't ever do a meta-meta-analysis!
I did a talk about this topic recently, here is the link: https://youtu.be/QDrbL3zxUrU?si=r0Er0vWI4QJMNyyk
Hope this helps!
Javier
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
9 answers
I submitted a manuscript of bibliometric anato a journal and got reviewers' comments. One reviewer indicated that PRISMA and SLR should be applied. I never do PRISMA in bibliometric studies because systematic review is different from bibliometrics, and I am thinking of a proper way to respond to this reviewer. Could any one give me advices? Thanks.
Relevant answer
Answer
You could mention that some or most of the points on the checklist do not apply to a bibliometric study, and comply with those that do. It is worth trying to adapt PRISMA to the scenario of your bibliometric analysis. This would highly enhance reproducibility and replicability and would make it possible for other researchers to build on your research. I hope this helps.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
I'm writing a paper review / prospective paper about the use of XR tools in the space training domain - research gaps and future applications/investigations.
There are not so many papers about the topic, expect several conference papers. So I'd like to mention XR projects ongoing from companies and I'd like to do it systematically. Do you know if there's a way to do it systematically? Like a systematic Google review?
With PRIMA, we can make a systematic literature review. So I would like to search on Google terms such as 'virtual reality space training' and nominate in the papers, the companies / projects that came out from the Google search, to provide practical examples. So I hope that I would not miss any XR company which it is currently working on the topic.
Relevant answer
Answer
Since "systematic Google review" will not be replicable, it is not recommended. I would create a list of conferences related to your topic of interest (you may use Google to identify them) and then perform a systematic screening of titles and abstracts that fit your eligibility criteria. It is necessary to report all sources of data (conference names and years) and how many records were identified, screened, and included.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
8 answers
Meta-analyses and systematic reviews seem the shortcut to academic success as they usually have a better chance of getting published in accredited journals, be read more, and bring home a lot of citations. Interestingly enough, apart from being time-consuming, they are very easy; they are actually nothing but carefully followed protocols of online data collection and statistical analysis, if any.
The point is that most of this can be easily done (at least in theory) by a simple computer algorithm. A combination of if/thenstatements would simply allow the software to decide on the statistical parameters to be used, not to mention more advanced approaches that can be available to expert systems.
The only part needing a much more advanced algorithm like a very good artificial intelligence is the part that is supposed to search the articles, read them, accurately understand them, include/exclude them accordingly, and extract data from them. It seems that today’s level of AI is becoming more and more sufficient for this purpose. AI can now easily read papers and understand them quite accurately. So AI programs that can either do the whole meta-analysis themselves, or do the heavy lifting and let the human check and polish/correct the final results are on the rise. All needed would be the topic of the meta-analysis. The rest is done automatically or semi-automatically.
We can even have search engines that actively monitor academic literature, and simply generate the end results (i.e., forest plots, effect sizes, risk of bias assessments, result interpretations, etc.), as if it is some very easily done “search result”. Humans then can get back to doing more difficult research instead of putting time on searching and doing statistical analyses and writing the final meta-analysis paper. At least, such search engines can give a pretty good initial draft for humans to check and polish them.
When we ask a medical question from a search engine, it will not only give us a summary of relevant results (the way the currently available LLM chatbots do) but also will it calculate and produce an initial meta-analysis for us based on the available scientific literature. It will also warn the reader that the results are generated by AI and should not be deeply trusted, but can be used as a rough guess. This is of course needed until the accuracy of generative AI surpasses that of humans.
It just needs some enthusiasts with enough free time and resources on their hands to train some available open-source, open-parameter LLMs to do this specific task. Maybe even big players are currently working on this concept behind the scene to optimize their propriety LLMs for meta-analysis generation.
Any thoughts would be most welcome.
Vahid Rakhshan
Relevant answer
Answer
There was a recent well-publicised event where an actual legal court case included legal documents prepared by AI that included supposed legal citations to cases that did not ever exist.
So, you have two problems:
(1) Constructing code that does actually work;
(2) Persuading others that you have code that actually works.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
In relation to the systematic review and meta-analysis of Zhenzhen Pan et al. (2023) about the Diagnostic Efficacy of Serological Antibody Detection Tests for Hepatitis Delta Virus.
Relevant answer
Answer
Good day, Ms. Mercado!
To answer your question, it is the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2) tool that was utilized to evaluate the methodological quality of each study included in the systematic review.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
Hello,
My Masters research is a systematic review and meta analysis. One thing I am struggling with is when a study has undertaken a split head comparison (intervention on one side of the head, placebo/control on the other side). how is this defined in terms of population?
If there are 10 participants who received placebo and intervention, is n.i = 10 and n.c = 10 or is n.i = 5 and n.c 5? I'm mindful of double counting etc. Any advice welcomed.
Relevant answer
Answer
In the scenario you've mentioned, where 10 participants received both a placebo and an intervention, it's important to avoid double counting.
In the context of a split head comparison, each participant serves as their own control, with one side receiving the intervention and the other side receiving the control (placebo). Since the same participant is receiving both the intervention and the control, the total number of participants remains 10.
For the purpose of your analysis, n.i (number of participants receiving the intervention) would be 10 and n.c (number of participants receiving the control) would also be 10. In other words, each participant contributes to both the intervention and control groups, so you should not split the participant numbers.
When conducting your systematic review and meta-analysis, it's important to account for the paired nature of the data due to the split head design. This may involve using statistical techniques that are suitable for paired data, and ensuring that any potential correlations or dependencies between the two sides of the head are appropriately addressed.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
basic steps of the PRISMA model and how they relate to systematic reviews in management.
Relevant answer
Answer
PRISMA is a guide to reporting systematic reviews - it is not a guide to methods, although good methods are implied. There are lots of good guides to undertaking systematic reviews out there - probably some specific to 'management science' - in healthcare I would look to resources from the effective practice and organisation of care group of the Cochrane Collaboration - although this is now defunct and some resources may be hard to find. Take a look at
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
Dear ResearchGate Community,
We are currently facing a pivotal stage in revising our manuscript for submission to a prestigious journal in the fields of pharmaceutics and ophthalmology. Our article is a systematic review of observational studies, encompassing diverse study designs such as case-control, quasi-experimental studies, case series, and case reports. During the revise before peer review stage, the editor has requested that we provide a risk of bias assessment in our manuscript.
We have already conducted a qualitative assessment using JBI Checklists; however, we are unsure how to address the editor's request for a risk of bias assessment specifically tailored to the included article types. Are there specific risk-of-bias tools available for these diverse study designs? How should we approach integrating a risk of bias assessment into our systematic review effectively?
Any insights or guidance on how to respond to the editor's request and incorporate a robust risk of bias assessment into our manuscript would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your expertise and assistance.
Relevant answer
Answer
I would see 'risk of bias' assessment and 'quality' assessment as largely synonymous, although there are potentially subtle differences by implication. Risk of bias assessments tend to focus more directly on the methods of the underlying research (and therefore the potential that results are biased), using the published paper as a source of data to inform that assessment. Quality assessment tends to also consider the quality of the publication itself, but there is no absolute distinction between the two. I can see no merit in doing both and recommend that you select the most rigorous tool for the job. In general, this is likely to be a 'risk of bias assessment' because there has been a movement towards recognizing more clearly that this is the core issue. You have already assessed using the JBI tool and that might be enough, but I would recommend the ROBINS-I tool if your review is of intervention studies (https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/risk-bias-non-randomized-studies-interventions)
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
Can I publish a paper analyzing original data after a systematic review has been done on that topic?
Relevant answer
Answer
If you mean a new set of original data that wasn't included in the systematic review, then yes, definitely. If you mean a separate analysis of the same set of studies covered by the systematic review, it might be difficult to publish (no longer novel) unless there's something different about the type of analysis you did.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Why do we need systematic review of reasons? Are there any differences between systematic review and meta-analysis?
Relevant answer
Answer
A systematic review is a broader process that involves systematically collecting, appraising, and summarizing all available evidence, while a meta-analysis is a specific statistical technique used within a systematic review to quantitatively synthesize data from multiple studies to produce a more precise estimate of the treatment effect. Often, these two methodologies are used together to provide a comprehensive overview of the existing literature on a particular topic.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
8 answers
I am conducting a meta-analysis. The systematic review resulted in 5 eligible studies; of them, one study included a pooled analysis of 14 cohorts that were not published before. Is it possible to consider the pooled analysis as one study and combine it with the remaining studies as usual?
Relevant answer
Answer
Yes, unpublished studies can be included.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
10 answers
I would be grateful if someone could help me with the sources or strategy I should use. Thanks
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Edward,
I trust this message finds you in good health.
I invite you to connect with me via WhatsApp, as I am currently exploring exciting team collaborations and projects. Your expertise and unique perspective would be a valuable addition to my ongoing team studies.
Feel free to reach out at your convenience. Let's discuss your interests and how we can work together to create something impactful. You can contact me via email at ismailaiaibrahim@gmail.com or on WhatsApp at +905077871789.
I am eager to hear your thoughts and explore the possibilities of collaboration.
Best regards,
Ismail
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
I must write a systematic review study. Who is better and accepted in scientific journals?
Relevant answer
Answer
A systematic review is a summary of the medical literature that uses explicit and reproducible methods to systematically search, critically appraise, and synthesize on a specific issue. It synthesizes the results of multiple primary studies related to each other by using strategies that reduce biases and random errors.
A literature review discusses published information in a particular subject area, and sometimes information in a particular subject area within a certain time period. A literature review can be just a simple summary of the sources, but it usually has an organizational pattern and combines both summary and synthesis.
Reception depends on the respective journal selected; advice: check with the editor and look at the specialties of the editorial team. 👍
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
I am trying to conduct a systematic review for my dissertation at university. I am struggling to find the advanced search filter to add my desired words to narrow my results. My terms are: ("bat" OR "UK bats") AND ("UK") AND ("policy" OR "legislation") AND ("impact" OR "population change"). Would I just enter these key terms in the regular search bar or is there a specific section?
Relevant answer
Answer
If you're using Pubmed, the best way would be to use the search bar and follow the terms by [tiab] for title and abstract, [ti] for title only, [pt] for publication type, and [MeSH] for medical subject heading. You can use these with boolean operators OR, AND, NOT, however you think makes your search as sensitive and specific as you'd like.
For the purpose of a systematic review, you're going to need to make your search strategy more sensitive than specific, and that by using [tiab] instead of [ti], and using the synonyms of the terms as well.
For example: (bat[tiab] OR bats[tiab] OR chiroptera[tiab] OR megachiroptera[tiab] OR microchiroptera[tiab]) AND (UK[tiab] OR "united kingdom"[tiab] OR England[tiab] OR scotland[tiab] OR wales[tiab] OR "northern ireland"[tiab]) AND (policy[tiab] OR legislation[tiab] OR law[tiab] OR laws[tiab] OR regulations[tiab] OR legal[tiab]) AND (population*[tiab] OR impact*[tiab] OR change*[tiab] OR effect*[tiab] OR activity[tiab])
You can add words or remove others to make the strategy better suitable for your research question. However, if you're using a different database than pubmed, there are different codes if you will to different databases. You can find tables that can help you by googling the database (e.g: Embase search strategy)
This course can help you learn more about building a search strategy for your systematic review (module 3):
A few more tips in this page:
Best of luck!
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
4 answers
I would like to conduct the systematic review for causality. I wanna select the studies with SEM and path analysis. Pls suggestions to me.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thanks
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
3 answers
Can a rapid review study be done, if a systematic review is available recently with similar research? Is there any other alternative review which can be done?
Relevant answer
быстрое обзорное исследование всегда можно провести даже при регулярном наблюдении. Это необходимо сделать при смене исследователя, и, возможно, для выявления новых изменений, которые не проявились при регулярном наблюдении
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
2 answers
Dear professors,
Any recommendations of systematic review of structural analysis optimization using genatic algorithms or related.
If any, Please attach me.
Thank you all
Relevant answer
Answer
There are many articles and papers that you can search on science direct website specially review papers. By the way Professor, Ali Kaveh has been worked in this field of area so you can read his books and publications.
Studying review papers can help you to obtain to a general vision with enough detail about optimized structural analysis and all kinds of Meta heuristic algorithms are used to this aim.
Good luck.
  • asked a question related to Systematic Reviews
Question
1 answer
Hello academic colleagues.
I need a research collaboration to write systematic review on the said topic. drop a message if someone is interested.
Relevant answer