Reid C Robson1, Ba' Pham1, Jeremiah Hwee2, Sonia M Thomas1, Patricia Rios1, Matthew J Page3, Andrea C Tricco4. 1. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada. 2. Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. 3. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia. 4. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. Electronic address: triccoa@smh.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the article was to identify and summarize studies assessing methodologies for study selection, data abstraction, or quality appraisal in systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review was conducted, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 1, 2016. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2, and key results on accuracy, reliability, efficiency of a methodology, or impact on results and conclusions were extracted. RESULTS: After screening 5,600 titles and abstracts and 245 full-text articles, 37 studies were included. For screening, studies supported the involvement of two independent experienced reviewers and the use of Google Translate when screening non-English articles. For data abstraction, studies supported involvement of experienced reviewers (especially for continuous outcomes) and two independent reviewers, use of dual monitors, graphical data extraction software, and contacting authors. For quality appraisal, studies supported intensive training, piloting quality assessment tools, providing decision rules for poorly reported studies, contacting authors, and using structured tools if different study designs are included. CONCLUSION: Few studies exist documenting common systematic review practices. Included studies support several systematic review practices. These results provide an updated evidence-base for current knowledge synthesis guidelines and methods requiring further research.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the article was to identify and summarize studies assessing methodologies for study selection, data abstraction, or quality appraisal in systematic reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review was conducted, searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library from inception to September 1, 2016. Quality appraisal of included studies was undertaken using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2, and key results on accuracy, reliability, efficiency of a methodology, or impact on results and conclusions were extracted. RESULTS: After screening 5,600 titles and abstracts and 245 full-text articles, 37 studies were included. For screening, studies supported the involvement of two independent experienced reviewers and the use of Google Translate when screening non-English articles. For data abstraction, studies supported involvement of experienced reviewers (especially for continuous outcomes) and two independent reviewers, use of dual monitors, graphical data extraction software, and contacting authors. For quality appraisal, studies supported intensive training, piloting quality assessment tools, providing decision rules for poorly reported studies, contacting authors, and using structured tools if different study designs are included. CONCLUSION: Few studies exist documenting common systematic review practices. Included studies support several systematic review practices. These results provide an updated evidence-base for current knowledge synthesis guidelines and methods requiring further research.
Authors: Pier-Alexandre Tardif; Lynne Moore; François Lauzier; Imen Farhat; Patrick Archambault; Francois Lamontagne; Michael Chassé; Henry Thomas Stelfox; Belinda J Gabbe; Fiona Lecky; John Kortbeek; Paule Lessard-Bonaventure; Catherine Truchon; Alexis F Turgeon Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-10-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Chantelle M Garritty; Leah Boulos; Craig Lockwood; Michael Wilson; Jessie McGowan; Michael McCaul; Brian Hutton; Fiona Clement; Nicole Mittmann; Declan Devane; Etienne V Langlois; Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Catherine Houghton; Claire Glenton; Shannon E Kelly; Vivian A Welch; Annie LeBlanc; George A Wells; Ba' Pham; Simon Lewin; Sharon E Straus Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 6.437