Systematic Reviews - Science topic

You can go to DOAJ Journals directory. Search for relevant journals in deep learning. Select one and submit your manuscript. If you have grants, I will suggest you go for subscription journals especially non-Gold APC journals.

In your university, I think both - Scopus and Web of Science are available. Try to read the original research papers. I suggest 'no shortcut' is best policy.

An important question, I am waiting for the answer, too....

Yes, it is possible!

The social-ecological model is a framework that recognizes the complex and dynamic interactions between individuals and their environments that influence health outcomes.

It can be used to identify the factors and interventions at different levels (individual, interpersonal, institutional, community, and policy) that affect health behaviours and outcomes.

A systematic review that uses this model can synthesize the evidence from different types of studies and interventions without aggregating the effect estimates using meta-analysis.

However, conducting a synthesis without meta-analysis can pose some challenges for reporting the methods and results of the review.

There is no clear definition or guidance on how to perform a narrative synthesis, which is often used as an alternative to meta-analysis. This can lead to a lack of transparency and consistency in the reporting of the synthesis process, the presentation of the data, and the interpretation of the findings.

To address this issue, a reporting guideline called Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) has been developed to promote clear and transparent reporting for reviews of interventions that use alternative synthesis methods to meta-analysis of effect estimates. The SWiM guideline consists of nine items that cover how studies are grouped, the standardized metric used for the synthesis, the synthesis method, how data are presented, a summary of the synthesis findings, and limitations of the synthesis. The SWiM guideline can help reviewers to report their synthesis methods and results in a comprehensive and rigorous way.

You can have high income families from LMIC what will you do than? whole data is messed up then. We generalize in this case according to our IN-EX criteria. Mohammad Hashim

I share your enthusiasm for conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the fields of sports medicine, rehabilitation, and physiotherapy. Collaboration is indeed key, following Cochrane guidelines. I'm interested in joining a systematic review group to work together on upcoming projects. Let's connect and explore opportunities for productive teamwork Osama Alshana

Don't have a "protocol", but guidelines and checklists. I recommend looking at the Cochrane Handbook (https://training.cochrane.org/handbook), Campbell Guidelines (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/pb-assets/assets/18911803/Campbell%20Policies%20and%20Guidelines%20v4-1559660867160.pdf) and JBI Manual (https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL), in the respective chapters on how to conduct searches. The PRISMA-S Checklist (http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/Searching) is specific to evaluate the search strategy.

Definitely but case report or case series systemic review having lesse quality than RCT

Thank you, Dr. Farooq Azam Rathore, for your recommendations and resources related to systematic reviews. I'm familiar with Rayyan as a tool for systematic reviews, but I appreciate your introduction of Cadima as well. I look forward to learning more about it.

Regarding the two articles you recommended for reading, I find them very interesting. I intend to read them and make the most of the information they provide.

Once again, thank you ever so much for your generous guidance and support.

Hi Zahra,

Your topic may be very detailed, so I suggest changing the components of PICOS and/or the inclusion criteria to include a higher number of eligible studies.

Durgesh Nandhini You raises the question of quality--andfor sure, systematic reviews and meta-analyses should follow the PRISMA guidelines. Even there, what is often lacking is a way of integrating quality of the included studies and their findings. A Risk of Bias bias assessment is almost always included, but we need a better way to integrate the risk of bias--a measure of the strength or trustworthiness of the data--with the findings. Too often, weak studies with high RoB data are included yet their findings are not weighted in some fashion to reflect this poor quality, leading to misleading conclusions what what is actually known and what sort of recommendations can/should be made. BUT--my primary concern here is the over-production of such papers in the absence of a good scientific rationale. They have a useful to play, but we should always be able to provide a good answer to the question, "What is the scientific contribution of this paper?"

Reducing unintentional plagiarism in quality assessment tables or any other academic work involves careful citation and proper paraphrasing techniques.

Considering your question, the studies that particularly indicate the number of participants enrolled initially in the study and the number of participants that have completed the study would be the primary inclusion criteria in your review.

Additionally, if the studies have denoted the sample size calculation method, the reason for the observed drop-outs, and the power of the study after removing the dropouts would be an additional benefit for your review question.

Rahim Alijani No matter how brilliant you feel you are, there is always something you can learn. Because you know it all does not mean you can not find out what others know. It is always wise to ignore the question if it is below you than making comments that questions your intellect.

Fight the temptation to becoming the authority on the question people ought to ask. Keep the attempt at cyber bullying to your immediate vicinity. I have the freedom to even ask what a "Condescending Academic" is like?

"The Greatest Enemy of Knowledge is not Ignorance, It is the Illusion of Knowledge" -Stephen Hawking

Hi Sam, I would advise you get advice from a statistician. But, my hunch is that if the sub-group is representative of the overall cohort, not "cherry-picked" and their characteristics and experiences/exposures are relevant to the study question, AND analysis and conclusions refer to the 100 and not the 500, it's not missing data per se. Would welcome comments from others having stuck my neck out!

Ideally, it should be included but I haven't seen a journal request specifically that it should be included like QA and registration in PROSPERO.

Your observation raises an important point about the use of validated descriptors and terminology in research across different fields. While it is true that in the health field, using established descriptors from thesauri or glossaries is common practice, it may not be the case in other disciplines.

In some fields, researchers may choose to use their own terminology or terms they feel are most appropriate for their study. This can be due to various reasons such as the emergence of new concepts, evolving terminology, or the unique characteristics of a particular context being studied. However, as you rightly mentioned, there can be consequences for not using accepted terminology.

Importance of Validated Descriptors

Using validated descriptors has several advantages. Firstly, it enhances the findability of research. Validated descriptors are often linked to standardized vocabularies and indexing systems used in databases, making it easier for researchers to locate relevant studies in literature searches. This improves the chances of their work being discovered by other researchers and contributes to the overall visibility of their research within the academic community.

Secondly, using established terminology facilitates effective communication and understanding among researchers. When researchers adhere to a common terminology, it becomes easier to build upon existing knowledge, compare findings, and establish connections between different studies. This promotes collaboration and the advancement of knowledge in the field.

Individual Context and Flexibility

However, it is also important to acknowledge that research is a dynamic process that evolves with the changing needs of different disciplines. Some fields, such as the social sciences, may have more diverse and context-specific research topics that require flexibility in terminology selection. Researchers in these fields often draw from different theoretical frameworks and conceptual perspectives, which can lead to the use of non-standardized keywords and terms.

It is crucial to strike a balance between adhering to established terminology and allowing for flexibility in research. While embracing new terminology is valuable in advancing knowledge, it is also important for researchers to be mindful of the potential consequences, such as reduced discoverability of their work.

Reflection and Debate

The issue you raised regarding the potential impact of not using validated descriptors in literature reviews should indeed be a subject of further reflection and debate within the research community. There needs to be ongoing discussions about the trade-offs between using established terminology and the flexibility required in certain fields. Researchers, professional societies, and database creators can collaborate to find ways to bridge this gap and explore innovative solutions.

Ultimately, the goal is to ensure that research remains accessible, discoverable, and robust, while also accommodating the evolving nature of knowledge production across various disciplines.

Taufik Ridwan Joseph Whittaker

I have the same problem. Could you find a solution over it? I could not open the files on my MACbook.

Yes, but it depends upon what questions you are trying to answer and what field; can you provide more information?

Sahar Echajei you're welcome and good luck

You can try the tools NEWCASTLE - OTTAWA QUALITY ASSESSMENT SCALE

or Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies (AXIS)

bmjopen-2016-December-6-12--inline-supplementary-material-2.pdf

When building a literature review, researchers often use a combination of software tools and online platforms to gather and manage their research sources efficiently. Here are some popular software tools commonly used for this purpose:

Remember that the choice of software will depend on individual preferences, the specific requirements of the literature review project, and any institutional or collaborative considerations

1.Siddaway AP, Wood AM, Hedges LV. How to Do a Systematic Review: A Best Practice Guide for Conducting and Reporting Narrative Reviews, Meta-Analyses, and Meta-Syntheses. Annu Rev Psychol. 2019 Jan 4;70:747-770. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102803. Epub 2018 Aug 8. PMID: 30089228.

2.RevMan: Systematic review and meta-analysis tool for researchers worldwide | Cochrane RevMan

No. It is a type of literature review that systematically searches, critically appraises, and synthesizes all available evidence on a specific research question.

I believe there are very few journals that will publish open access without charging a fee; it is necessary to cover the costs of publishing as the journal does not receive fees from subscribers such as universities. However, there are a few options.

1. Check if your university has any 'read and publish' agreements with publishers, they enable one to publish open access free in any journal under that publisher.

2. Newly created open access journals often waive the APC fee, look at MDPI and Elsevier journals first, though other publishers do this as well.

3. Apply for funding for organisations with an interest in your review topic.

4. Settle for 'green open access'. All the major publishers (excluding MDPI and Frontiers) offer 'green open access' for free. This lets you share the 'accepted manuscript' on your institution's website and sometimes also on AXVIR. The 'pre-print' is not copyrighted and can be shared anywhere you like. Elsevier and SAGE have generous polices on this. The accepted manuscript and pre-print will be index by Google Scholar and linked to your research/ citation within a few weeks.

As a side, I think you should be more concerned about getting the actual systematic review publisher open access (same steps as above apply). Few people will be interested in your protocol, unless you are doing some massive ground-breaking review.

Thanks James

It is probably too late for the original poster, but blog post on how to create a havest plot in R using ggplot (which I contributed to) is available at https://medium.com/@cxiao94/creating-harvest-plots-in-r-75fb45c8f393 Hopefully the code used there can be adapted to your needs.

Including master's theses and doctoral dissertations in your systematic review can be a valuable addition to your search strategy. These sources often contain original and detailed research that may not have been published in peer-reviewed journals or other sources. However, there are some arguments against including theses and dissertations in a systematic review. Some of these arguments include:

Quality Control: Unlike published peer-reviewed articles, theses and dissertations are not subject to the same level of scrutiny and review.

Limited Access: Some theses and dissertations may not be easily accessible, which can limit their inclusion in your review.

Publication Bias: Theses and dissertations are often focused on a specific topic or research area, which may result in publication bias.

When deciding whether to include master's theses and/or doctoral dissertations in your systematic review, it is important to consider the quality and relevance of the sources. You may want to focus on including theses and dissertations that are relevant to your research question and meet certain quality criteria. It is recommended that you consult with your team and consult the guidelines of the specific journal or publication you plan to submit your systematic review to for guidelines on including theses and dissertations.

I will use JBI because is more robust the the others like CASP

No,it is already shows polled effect

Dear Dr. Dinede

Transparency is key here. As long as you mention this, it may be appropriate. Searching for reports via web pages is a great supplement to the database search, and it is ok if you cannot use the search terms that you use in the databases. The reference lists and the citations of the included papers and similar reviews are also valuable sources.

I hope this aided you

Sincerely

Martin

I associate with your idea but care should be taken so that the objectives of the lesson can be achieved.

Dear Martin Bjørn Stausholm I know this is not helping you but I need your help. Revman sofware is no longer available from Cochrane's website and I need it for my my metaanalysis. Could you share the file with me via google drive or something? I'm desperate about this issue. Thank you in advance.

The best review article is that focusing on a specific important topic, when you give all related ideas to that article, interconnect, and then conclude and recommend, the specific article will be the best. Some review articles are general, in that case you should go and collect all related results, then conclude. Regards.

I am preparing a case study in dermatoimmunology

Hello, I am a final year medical student and I have already participated in some systematic reviews, original works, case reports and other types of studies. I am interested in increasing my experience as a researcher. Please get in touch if you have an opportunity for me to do a systematic review or meta-analysis. Thanks!

Hello, I am a final year medical student and I have already participated in some systematic reviews, original works, case reports and other types of studies. I am interested in increasing my experience as a researcher. Please get in touch if you have an opportunity for me to do a systematic review or meta-analysis. Thanks!

Hello, I am a final year medical student and I have already participated in some systematic reviews, original works, case reports and other types of studies. I am interested in increasing my experience as a researcher. Please get in touch if you have an opportunity for me to do a systematic review or meta-analysis. Thanks!

Performing a comprehensive literature review and bibliometric study can be a daunting task, but there are some effective methods and best practices that can help ensure the effectiveness and comprehensiveness of your work. Here are some answers to your specific questions:

What methods have you found most effective for conducting literature reviews and bibliometric studies, and why?

I have found that a systematic approach to conducting literature reviews and bibliometric analyses is most effective. This means starting with a clear research question and specific inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting relevant literature. It is also important to develop a search protocol and use multiple search engines and databases. In addition, I recommend using citation management software to keep track of all articles and data.

What strategies have you employed to manage and organize the vast amount of literature and data these types of reviews typically involve?

One strategy is to use a spreadsheet to organize relevant information about each paper, such as the title, authors, publication year, and key findings. This can help you identify common themes and patterns across studies. I also recommend keeping a separate folder for each paper, so you can easily find and reference the full-text versions.

Are there any software or tools you recommend for conducting and managing these studies?

There are many software and tools available that can help with conducting and managing literature reviews and bibliometric studies. Some popular options include EndNote, Mendeley, and Zotero for citation management, and VOSviewer and CiteSpace for bibliometric analysis. These tools can help you save time and stay organized throughout the review process.

How do you ensure the quality and relevance of the literature selected for review and analysis?

To ensure the quality and relevance of the literature, it is important to carefully assess each paper for its research design, methodology, and relevance to your research question. I recommend using a standardized quality assessment tool to evaluate each paper and ensure that it meets specific inclusion criteria. It is also important to critically evaluate the conclusions and implications of each paper in the context of your research question.

What challenges have you faced during such reviews and studies, and how have you overcome them?

One of the biggest challenges I have faced during literature reviews and bibliometric analyses is managing the sheer volume of literature and data involved. To overcome this challenge, I recommend breaking down the review into smaller, more manageable parts and setting clear timelines and deadlines for each stage. It is also helpful to work collaboratively with other researchers and seek input and feedback from colleagues throughout the process.

Hello, it would be my pleasure to help out.

This is my research CV.

Let me know if there is anything i can do for you.

Their emotions will fall.

I believe that Google Scholar (GS) is a good database when used properly. The advantage of GS is that it includes almost all PubMed and non-PubMed indexed journals.

Lafta R. Al-Khazraji There are multiple types of revision, with different particularities. Systematic review is characterized by a rigorous and replicable methodology that ensures

1. The inclusion of all the articles dealing with the topic (according to predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria).

2. The rigorous evaluation of the methodological quality and the risk of bias of each of the papers.

3. The potential quantitative analysis (meta-analysis) of the reported data by means of a global mathematical model that helps in the interpretation of the results.

Although narrative reviews and other types of reviews are of interest, from a scientific point of view, systematic reviews are a priority for the scientific community because of these elements.

You may be interested in the PRIOR statement (preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions): https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-070849. PRIOR Explanation and Elaboration are also available: https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/suppl/2022/08/09/bmj-2022-070849.DC1/gatm070849.ww2.pdf

I agree with Francis Umeoguaju

The number one determinant of how long a systematic review takes is the number of studies you are reviewing. If you have fewer studies, it takes less time. Do careful preliminary searches so you know how roughly how many studies will be included in your review.

Awareness of prevention of teenage pregnancy amongst secondary school learners in Makhado municipality - PMC (nih.gov)

It is hard to address a research gap with an SR, since you are summarizing what is already out there; that is typically done with primary research.

Find an area which has no/ little consensus i.e., studies show conflicting results. This is a good area for an SR, as you can examine all the studies, and settle the controversy.

I agree with Helena Rezende

Do not use RG for a systematic review. This is not standard practice, you can cite the Cochrane handbook if you need a supporting reference, which lists Medline, Embase, and Cochrane databases as the essential ones.

Use google scholar but limit it to the first 200 or 300 results. I have used this in three of my SRs. The protocol is drawn from -

Reviewers often make erogenous comments, that one has to successfully rebut, without being rude or offending the reviewer.

PubMed allows you to export the first 10,000 results to a citation manager - click on the 'send to' button at the top of the search results. There are also other options to for export the results that may be more relevant to you.

However, you have to bear in mind the time it takes to screen the results. If you screen one result per minute, that is 420 results in a standard 7hr workday. Meaning to screen 125,000 would take 298 days. Obviously, this is not feasible.

Use more search terms, Boolean operators (AND, NOT, OR), and search filters to get your results to about 1000. That is reasonable for a systematic review.

What is Risk of Bias in a Systematic Review? | Edanz Learning Lab

It is based on the type of strategy that you are using for mixed methods SLR. One way to get an idea on this is that identify similar studies and follow the process.

Risk of bias (quality) assessment of the included articles in a systematic review is different from assessing the overall strength of the body of evidence of the results.

depending on the study design that is included, there are multiple risk of bias assessment tools such as RoB.

For assessing the overall strength of the body of evidence of the results, there are tools such as Grade.

I think there's no risk of bias concerns if participants drop out before randomization as long as more participants are recruited to cover for the drop out.

Best wishes, Victor.

Sincere thanks for all of that info!

Secondary data analysis is a research method that involves the use of existing data that was collected for a different purpose or by another researcher. While it may involve original research and analysis, secondary data analysis is generally not considered a unique study in the sense that the data being analyzed has already been collected and is not unique to the researcher conducting the analysis.

Instead, secondary data analysis is often used as a way to answer new research questions or test new hypotheses using existing data sources. It can be a valuable method for researchers who want to study a topic that would be difficult or impractical to study using primary data collection methods, or for researchers who want to compare their findings to those of previous studies.

That being said, secondary data analysis still requires careful planning, analysis, and interpretation, and can lead to novel and important findings. Therefore, while it may not be considered a unique study in the traditional sense, it is still a valuable research method that can contribute to the advancement of knowledge in a particular field.

You may be interested in our approach on quantifying mental health:

Green roofs reduce building energy use by cooling roofs and providing shading, thermal mass and insulation. Biodiversity and Habitat: Green roofs provide new urban habitat for plants and animals, like birds and insects, thereby increasing biodiversity. Green buildings are designed to reduce the overall impact of the built environment on human health and the natural environment by: Efficiently using energy, water, and other resources. Green roofs are used in residential, commercial, government and public buildings. Innovative energy-efficient construction technologies will bring great benefit to the ecology and help to relief the heat island effect. To achieve our sustainability goals, need to invest in disruptive practices and green technologies to optimize water consumption, improve air quality, ensure energy security, biodiversity and reduce carbon footprint. Green roofs have been shown to increase biodiversity. The type and amount of biodiversity will depend on the type of green roof installed. Green roofs are eco-friendly and a great way to promote environmental sustainability. Compared to other roof types, green roofs have numerous benefits, including reduced energy costs. By lowering temperatures and reducing energy use, green roofs can help reduce concentrations of several pollutants that affect air quality, climate, and health. Green roofs reduce energy consumption in space heating through shading, evapotranspiration, insulation, increase in thermal mass, and reduction of heat loss through radiation.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are proliferating, as they are an important building block to inform evidence-based guidelines and decision-making. Enforcement of best practice in clinical trials is firmly on the research agenda of good clinical practice, but there is less clarity as to how evidence syntheses that combine these studies can be influenced by bad practice. Our aim was to conduct a living systematic review of articles that highlight flaws in published systematic reviews to formally document and understand these problems...

Many hundreds of articles highlight that there are many flaws in the conduct, methods and reporting of published systematic reviews, despite the existence and frequent application of guidelines. Considering the pivotal role that systematic reviews have in medical decision-making due to having apparently transparent, objective and replicable processes, a failure to appreciate and regulate problems with these highly cited research designs is a threat to credible science...

One option that the Cochrane group supports using is the CASP Qualitative Research checklist: https://casp-uk.net/images/checklist/documents/CASP-Qualitative-Studies-Checklist/CASP-Qualitative-Checklist-2018_fillable_form.pdf

Another useful resource is Section 21.8 "Assessing methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative studies" from the Cochrane group: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-21

Yes, there are several online platforms that support registration for community-based/public health studies. Some examples include:

REDCap (Research Electronic Data Capture) - https://projectredcap.org/

REDCap is a secure, web-based platform for building and managing online surveys and databases. It is designed for clinical research data management and supports a wide range of study designs, including observational studies, interventional trials, and registries.

OpenClinica - https://www.openclinica.com/

OpenClinica is a web-based platform for clinical data management. It provides features for data collection, data management, and data analysis. It supports studies of varying sizes and complexity, from single-site studies to multinational trials.

Castor EDC - https://castoredc.com/

Castor EDC is a cloud-based electronic data capture platform that helps researchers manage and analyze data in real-time. It offers a range of features for study design, data collection, and data management, making it well-suited for public health studies.

Medrio - https://www.medrio.com/

Medrio is a cloud-based platform for clinical data management that offers a range of features for study design, data collection, and data management. It is designed to be user-friendly and supports a wide range of study types, including observational studies, interventional trials, and registries.

These platforms provide a range of features and tools to support the administration of community-based/public health studies, including study design, data collection and management, and data analysis. However, the specific features and capabilities of each platform may vary, so it is important to carefully evaluate the options and choose a platform that best meets the needs of your study.

Yes

Zafar Khan In general where you have 1 RCT reported in X papers you present one risk of bias assessment for the entire study, so that is an accepted approach. However, the risk of bias may vary for different outcomes reported in different papers (or indeed within the same paper) - for example, because methods of outcome assessment or follow-up rates differed. In this case, it may be an entirely appropriate thing to do a per-outcome risk of bias assessment - but that also applies when you have several outcomes reported in one paper. This is the approach recommended for assessing the risk of bias in observational studies. However, it could all get rather tedious - my suggestion is to use your judgement and do what best reflects the quality of the evidence you have and if a single risk of bias assessment reasonably reflects overall bias (and your primary outcome in particular) that is OK.

Hi Sohail,

From my experience, I learnt a lot from Cochrane training material, PRISMA & PRISMA-P guidelines (including explanatory articles) online. These are all freely available.

It's also a great asset to find a supervisor or mentor who is well-versed in systematic reviews to guide you through the process.

Best of luck!

I am facing the same problem currently.

You can also refer to this paper:

Lan Ma, Saeed Pahlevan Sharif & Kok Wei Khong (2022) What factors drive the purchase of paid online courses? A systematic literature review, Journal of Marketing for Higher Education, DOI: 10.1080/08841241.2022.2101172

Thank you so much for your answer.

Regards

Hello, Ayesha Yasin for mix-methods studies you will have to assess both quantitative and qualitative parts of each mix-methods study. I suggest you check Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for conducting a mix-methods systematic review, chapter 8. The link for the manual is below:

Also, you may need to use JBI critical appraisal tools that cover all types of quantitative studies and qualitative studies as well. Please see below:

Funnel plots are a useful tool for identifying small study effects, such as publication bias, in meta-analyses. They can be created by plotting the effect size of each study included in the meta-analysis against a measure of the study's precision, typically the standard error of the effect size estimate.

To combine data from multiple systematic reviews for creating a funnel plot, you will need to ensure that the studies included in the different reviews are sufficiently similar in terms of the population, intervention, comparator, and outcome measures. Once you have identified the relevant studies, you will need to extract the data on the effect size and the measure of precision for each study.

You will also have to standardize the data so it can be combined, since the studies might have reported their results in different ways. For example, for the effect size, you might have to convert Odds ratios to Risk ratios or Risk differences.

Once you have collected and standardized the data, you can then create a funnel plot by plotting the effect size on the y-axis and the precision (standard error) on the x-axis. You should also include a line that represents the overall effect size estimate from the meta-analysis.

It is also important to note that funnel plots are not conclusive evidence of publication bias, and other methods such as Egger's test or the trim and fill method are recommended to be used as sensitivity analyses.