Article ; Online: Delphi survey on the most promising areas and methods to improve systematic reviews’ production and updating
Systematic Reviews, Vol 12, Iss 1, Pp 1-
2023 Volume 14
Abstract: Abstract Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are invaluable evidence syntheses, widely used in biomedicine and other scientific areas. Tremendous resources are being spent on the production and updating of SRs. There is a continuous need to automatize ... ...
| Abstract | Abstract Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are invaluable evidence syntheses, widely used in biomedicine and other scientific areas. Tremendous resources are being spent on the production and updating of SRs. There is a continuous need to automatize the process and use the workforce and resources to make it faster and more efficient. Methods Information gathered by previous EVBRES research was used to construct a questionnaire for round 1 which was partly quantitative, partly qualitative. Fifty five experienced SR authors were invited to participate in a Delphi study (DS) designed to identify the most promising areas and methods to improve the efficient production and updating of SRs. Topic questions focused on which areas of SRs are most time/effort/resource intensive and should be prioritized in further research. Data were analysed using NVivo 12 plus, Microsoft Excel 2013 and SPSS. Thematic analysis findings were used on the topics on which agreement was not reached in round 1 in order to prepare the questionnaire for round 2. Results Sixty percent (33/55) of the invited participants completed round 1; 44% (24/55) completed round 2. Participants reported average of 13.3 years of experience in conducting SRs (SD 6.8). More than two thirds of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed the following topics should be prioritized: extracting data, literature searching, screening abstracts, obtaining and screening full texts, updating SRs, finding previous SRs, translating non-English studies, synthesizing data, project management, writing the protocol, constructing the search strategy and critically appraising. Participants have not considered following areas as priority: snowballing, GRADE-ing, writing SR, deduplication, formulating SR question, performing meta-analysis. Conclusions Data extraction was prioritized by the majority of participants as an area that needs more research/methods development. Quality of available language translating tools has dramatically increased over the years (Google translate, ... |
|---|---|
| Keywords | Evidence syntesis ; Automation tools ; Prioritization ; Medicine ; R |
| Subject code | 001 |
| Language | English |
| Publishing date | 2023-03-01T00:00:00Z |
| Publisher | BMC |
| Document type | Article ; Online |
| Database | BASE - Bielefeld Academic Search Engine (life sciences selection) |
Full text online
More links
Kategorien
Inter-library loan at ZB MED
Your chosen title can be delivered directly to ZB MED Cologne location if you are registered as a user at ZB MED Cologne.