Evans Et Al 2017 Lit Review of Psychosocial
Introduction
Moher et al. (2007) estimated a yearly production of 2,500 systematic reviews, equaling a daily production of vi.viii. By 2014 the daily product had increased to 22 (Folio et al., 2016), leading to the assumption that the annual publication of systematic reviews is greater than that of randomized controlled trials (Ioannidis, 2016). The need for systematic reviews is not disputed, equally they define the country of knowledge and provide a synthesis of previous research on a given issue (Cooper, 1982; Foster and Jewell, 2017), are valuable for researchers, practitioners, consumers, and policy makers (PLoS Medicine Editors, 2007; Liberati et al., 2009), inform future enquiry (Liberati et al., 2009; Ioannidis, 2016), and help practitioners remain upwards-to-engagement in a fourth dimension efficient way (Moher et al., 2007; Schlosser et al., 2007; Liberati et al., 2009; Wormald and Evans, 2018).
The Cochrane handbook provides the post-obit caption of what constitutes a systematic review: "A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical prove that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific inquiry question. Information technology uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made" (Higgins and Greenish, 2011). This definition distinguishes systematic reviews from other reviews, where the methodology is non explicitly stated, and the reader cannot replicate the process (Foster and Jewell, 2017).
Many systematic reviews include meta-analyses to provide estimates of issue, using statistical methods to combine data from all relevant studies (Higgins and Green, 2011). Thus, meta-analyses share recommendations for rigor, transparency, and reporting of methods with systematic reviews (Morton et al., 2018).
The time and effort required to conduct a high-quality systematic review are considerable, and then it is essential to justify the need for a systematic review or meta-assay (Wormald and Evans, 2018), avoid redundancy (Ioannidis, 2016; Cooper et al., 2018), and ensure that it is trustworthy. Authors planning to carry systematic reviews have good sources to guide them in methodological questions, such as The Cochrane handbook (Higgins and Green, 2011), Standards for systematic reviews from the Found of Medicine (Establish of medicine, 2011), and Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews from the Agency for healthcare research and quality (Agency for healthcare research and quality, 2015). There are also guiding documents for critical appraisal and reporting questions for systematic reviews such as: A MeaSurement Tool to Appraise systematic Reviews (AMSTAR ii) (Shea et al., 2017), and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Liberati et al., 2009). In add-on, those new to critical appraisal tin can acquire from systematic review checklists, such as the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) checklist (Disquisitional Appraisal, and Skills Programme., 2018).
The vast increase in the publication of systematic reviews can partially be explained by the following factors: for clinicians, systematic reviews tin guide choices between different interventions (Folio et al., 2016); systematic reviews are considered to be reliable and valuable (Bastian et al., 2010; Folio et al., 2016); the authors do not need to apply for approval from an ethics commission (Wormald and Evans, 2018); and several institutions place a neat bargain of emphasis on the number of publications, which may bulldoze authors to conduct and publish systematic reviews that might lack the necessary systematic rigor (Page et al., 2016). We also recognize that financing can be an upshot in research projects, i of many barriers that do non utilize to systematic reviews (Wormald and Evans, 2018).
The studies identified in a systematic search form the footing of the review, and the search process is of importance for the methodology for both performing and reporting the search (Liberati et al., 2009; Sampson et al., 2009; McGowan et al., 2016; Wormald and Evans, 2018). The systematic search process consists of deciding what sources to search, planning the search process, designing search strategies, managing references, and documenting and reporting the search process (Higgins and Light-green, 2011). Cooper et al. (2018) have identified eight fundamental stages of the search process from central guidance documents for systematic reviews, every bit shown in Table 1.
Table ane. Key stages of the literature search process.
This process aims to build a sound base for analyzing and synthesizing evidence, thus minimizing the risk of not including all relevant studies (Cooper et al., 2018).
Controlled vocabulary, or subject area terms, is considered fundamental for retrieving relevant records (Higgins and Green, 2011). The employ of relevant bailiwick terms in a search strategy is 1 of 6 elements that highly bear upon the precision of the search and the number of relevant records retrieved (Sampson et al., 2009), other elements being translation of the inquiry question, logical operator errors, line number errors and spelling errors. Subject specific databases use controlled vocabulary to index and draw the content of an commodity. Medical Subject Headings (MeSH®) used by, eastward.k., Medline, Pubmed, and Cochrane might be the most commonly known1. Other subject specific databases, such equally PsycInfo, have their own controlled vocabulary. The controlled vocabulary helps the searcher by mapping synonyms and concepts that might differ in American English and British English, or where the same concept has been described in different words (Higgins and Green, 2011). Some other advantage is the possibility to simultaneously search for more specific terms, 'explode' (Higgins and Green, 2011). Author guidelines may require authors to use MeSH-terms to describe the content of their article, rather than keywords chosen by the author, and the National Library of Medicine provides authors with tools for doing this (National Library of Medicine, 2017).
For systematic reviews to fulfill their purpose, methodological quality in all stages are of importance. Discussions on methodology are ongoing; we demand for instance to discuss the term "systematic" and how systematic reviews and narrative reviews together can broaden our understanding of a topic (Greenhalgh et al., 2018). Reporting has been plant to be inconsistent (Moher et al., 2007; Koffel and Rethlefsen, 2016; Folio et al., 2016), and then non all systematic reviews are systematic.
The purpose of the nowadays study was to evaluate the quality of non-Cochrane systematic reviews by analyzing their reporting methods, more specifically how the search to identify a trunk of testify was performed. This is exemplified by systematic reviews on heart motion desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), a trauma-focused therapy commonly used for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD; Bisson et al., 2013). We carried out a scoping search to map existing research on EMDR, and found a large number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on PTSD. Cochrane published systematic reviews on psychological therapies for PTSD in adults in 2007 and 2013 (Bisson and Andrew, 2007; Bisson et al., 2013), and for children and adolescents in 2012 and 2016 (Gillies et al., 2012, 2016).
Materials and Methods
We performed a systematic search for studies on EMDR using the following subject term: Eye movement desensitization therapy, and text words: emdr; eye move desensiti?ation. The search strategy was peer reviewed and adjusted to the different databases. A list of the databases and the search strategy is available from http://hdl.handle.net/11250/2597407. The search started on December 12th 2017 and ended on January 25th 2018. In total, v,576 studies were retrieved. Duplicates (North = ii,723) were removed using EndNote X8 (Clarivate Analytics). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses reporting the effects of EMDR were manually sorted into a separate EndNote-grouping, after which those covering PTSD in adults were added to a subgroup, resulting in 22 systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We limited the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to those published between 2010 and 2017, equally we assumed that the authors would be familiar with the PRISMA guidelines, AMSTAR or Cochrane Handbook from 2010. Nosotros have excluded ane review equally we were unable to obtain information technology in full text (Novo Navarro et al., 2016), and i Cochrane review due to the aim of the study (Bisson et al., 2013). Run across Figure 1.
Figure one. Prisma2009 flow diagram. Adapted from Moher et al. (2009).
We initially examined all studies independently using the following broad question regarding the literature search from the Norwegian version of the CASP checklist for Systematic reviews (Critical Appraisement, and Skills Programme., 2018): "Do you retrieve all the important, relevant studies were included?". Response alternatives are Yes, Unclear or No. This question corresponds with that in AMSTAR 2, asking: "Did the review authors apply a comprehensive literature search strategy?" (Shea et al., 2017). Secondly, disagreements were solved through give-and-take. Later, the methods chapters were examined and the searches and reporting rated using relevant elements from the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins and Light-green, 2011) and PRISMA 2009 Checklist (Liberati et al., 2009).
Medline, Embase, and Central are regarded as the well-nigh important sources to search for trials (Higgins and Green, 2011). In addition, the Cochrane handbook suggests the inclusion of subject specific databases. PsycInfo and PILOTS (Published International Literature on Traumatic Stress) are relevant due to the inquiry question of the systematic reviews. Reviews stating that these databases were used, were awarded one indicate for each database. If no database was mentioned the rating was zero.
A comprehensive search should consist of a combination of discipline terms and text words (Higgins and Green, 2011), and we assumed that authors of systematic reviews using subject terms would provide precise information on this aspect. We considered the use of subject terms to exist a more objective measure out, than evaluating the text words used in the search strategy. Reviews that reported using field of study terms received one point, reviews not using subject terms received zero points.
We accept rated particular ane (Title), particular 7 (Information sources), and item 8 (Search) from the PRISMA Checklist. We have also checked whether the reviews include a menstruation diagram (item 17), and whether or not they refer to the Cochrane review on psychological therapies for PTSD in adults (Bisson and Andrew, 2007; Bisson et al., 2013). These elements are rated with Yeah when information on a given criterion is stated, and No when data is lacking, see Table two.
Table 2. Elements used for rating search methods and reporting.
Results
The systematic reviews in Table iii plant our data sample.
Tabular array 3. Included systematic reviews.
Viii reviews were published betwixt 2010 and 2013; twelve reviews were published from 2014 to 2017.
Geographically, correspondence address for the included reviews is Us-6, The Netherlands-four, U.k.-two, Canada-2, Australia-1, Brazil-1, Taiwan-1, China-1, Frg-i, and French republic-1.
The systematic reviews and meta-analyses were published in sixteen dissimilar journals, from ten different publishers.
Initial Screening of Search Methods
The authors of iii reviews (Stergiopoulos et al., 2011; Chen et al., 2014; Thomaes et al., 2014) had reported their search strategies in such a way that we could answer the critical appraisal question: "Do you remember all the important, relevant studies were included?" with "Yes". For four reviews (Zantvoord et al., 2013; Cusack et al., 2016; Swan et al., 2017; Torchalla and Strehlau, 2017), it was unclear whether the reported search strategy had found all important, relevant studies; for two of these, Cusack et al. (2016) and Zantvoord et al. (2013), we were unable to access the full search strategy. We answered the question with "No" for 13 of the reviews (Lapp et al., 2010; Goodson et al., 2011; Haugen et al., 2012; Ho and Lee, 2012; Mello et al., 2013; Watts et al., 2013; Ehring et al., 2014; Jong et al., 2014; Chen et al., 2015; Haagen et al., 2015; Erford et al., 2016; Lenz et al., 2017; Tribe et al., 2017).
Databases and Subject Terms
Of the 3 databases (Primal, Medline, Embase) recommended for all systematic reviews by the Cochrane handbook (Higgins and Green, 2011), only Medline/Pubmed was used by xix reviews. Ten reviews used Embase, and nine Fundamental for identifying single studies. Seventeen reviews used PsycInfo, 1 review only used PsycInfo out of these databases, while three reviews used Medline, only not PsycInfo. Eleven studies in our sample used PILOTS. Five reviews reported using all five databases, encounter Effigy 2. Four reviews reported using subject terms as part of their search strategy.
Effigy 2. Number of reviews using selected databases.
The scores for search characteristics in Table 4 are consistent with the findings from the initial screening of search methods, where three reviews were rated Yep, 4 Unclear, and 11 No. All the reviews rated between 1 and 3 were assessed as No, meaning we consider it unlikely that all important and relevant studies were found. The reviews receiving 6 points, were rated Yep [1] and Unclear [ane]. I of the reviews scoring 4 points, was too rated aye in the initial screening.
Table four. Scores for search characteristics.
The total scores for the search, reporting and context are shown in Table 5.
Table 5. Included systematic reviews and meta-analysis with results for the search, reporting and context.
Documentation of the Search and Results in Accordance With PRISMA, Figure 3
17 out of 20 reviews identified the newspaper equally either a "meta-assay" or systematic review' in the championship. All reviews listed the names of the databases used in the search, but only three stated the names of the database providers. Database hosts or full text resources from one publisher were listed as databases in several of the reviews.
Figure iii. Use of PRISMA items. Number of articles reviewed adhering to PRISMA guidelines regarding the reporting of Title, Information sources, Search and Flow diagram.
Information on fourth dimension span, and date on which the search ended was found in nine and 12 reviews respectively. Time span searched is provided as general data, not for each database. Supplementary search techniques, such as contacting authors and manually searching journals, were used in 17 papers.
The full search strategy from at least 1 database was reported by five of the reviews.
A full of 14 reviews (70%) used a flow chart. Of these, simply 3 used the PRISMA flowchart, referring to the PRISMA statement.
Context
Vii of the reviews did not refer to the 2007 Cochrane systematic review on psychological therapies for PTSD in adults past Bisson, or the revised version in 2013 (Bisson and Andrew, 2007; Bisson et al., 2013).
Discussion
Designing and conducting a systematic review or a meta-analysis is fourth dimension-consuming if all the stages from planning to reporting are performed according to appropriate methodological standards (Liberati et al., 2009; Higgins and Greenish, 2011). The reported search methods tin can indicate the certainty that the synthesis or analysis is based on an accurate and complete evidence base (Sampson et al., 2009; Cooper et al., 2018).
Our initial screening found that simply 3 out of the twenty systematic reviews or meta-analyses adhered to recommended systematic search methods. This is a general, overall evaluation of the search strategies reported, without applying specific criteria. In her study of 103 systematic reviews from prosthodontic and implant-related journals, Layton establish that only 5% met all assessment criteria (Layton, 2017). A recent study of search strategies (Salvador-Olivan et al., 2019) found that 92.7% of 137 systematic reviews published in Jan 2018 contained strategies with error. It seems likely that our wide gauge of quality regarding the search is higher than that in studies using specific criteria.
Loftier impact journals publish systematic reviews that have been constitute to be lacking in quality (Koffel and Rethlefsen, 2016), and then there is a need for critical appraisal at article level (DORA, 2012).
The Cochrane handbook recommends that all systematic reviews perform searches in Fundamental, Medline and Embase, with Primal considered to be the all-time unmarried database for searching for reports of trials (Higgins and Green, 2011). This recommendation seems to be unfamiliar to many of the authors in our sample. We practice not consider the full number of databases to be relevant in our cess. Many databases may look impressive to the reader, only to enhance comprehensiveness, information technology is important to search the appropriate databases, thus reducing the chance of database bias (Schlosser et al., 2007; Cooper et al., 2018). Access to appropriate databases can exist a challenge if your institution does not subscribe, just PubMed and PILOTS are freely available, and the PILOTS database is central for studies on PTSD. It may exist that authors lack cognition about available and advisable databases relevant to their enquiry question.
All of the studies in our sample provided information on which databases they used, but merely 3 named the providers of the databases. In contrast, Koffel and Rethlefsen (2016) found that 61% named the database provider. This information is of import for the reproducibility of the search strategies; dissimilar providers give differing options and functionality for conducting a search (Cooper et al., 2018). Some of the authors seem to be confused about the difference between a database and a provider, stating that they have searched, e.g., Ebscohost and Medline. When merely information on the provider is given, it is impossible to infer which databases were searched, or if the search terms were applied beyond a range of databases.
When giving advice on designing a search strategy, the Cochrane handbook conveys the following summary point: "Avert also many different search concepts merely utilise a wide variety of synonyms and related terms (both gratis text and controlled vocabulary terms) combined with 'OR' within each concept" (Higgins and Green, 2011). Only four publications in our sample use subject headings. This corresponds with the findings from a study of 300 systematic reviews, where 12% reported using controlled vocabulary terms (Page et al., 2016). It tin can be questioned whether authors are enlightened of the increased needs for accuracy and comprehensiveness in the search strategy of a systematic review or meta-analysis and the importance of using subject headings (Sampson et al., 2009; McGowan et al., 2016; Salvador-Olivan et al., 2019), or if they should seek assistance for designing the search strategy. Table vi illustrates how different text words are interpreted past different databases, and the consequent demand for accommodation of search strategies.
Table vi. Subject specific example of text word searching in ii databases.
Research librarians are methodologists and can be included as part of teams conducting reviews (Rethlefsen et al., 2015; Metzendorf and Featherstone, 2018), or librarians can peer review search strategies for systematic reviews, like to statistics experts (Koffel and Rethlefsen, 2016). The PRESS-guidelines assume that a librarian or an information specialist plans, performs, and reviews a search strategy (Sampson et al., 2009; McGowan et al., 2016). This can accept some advantages for the review squad, namely time saved through improved search precision, resulting in less studies to examine, and abstention of late adjustments to the search strategy, and consequently more than studies to examine (Sampson et al., 2009). Teams conducting systematic reviews could turn a profit from an inter-disciplinary approach, involving research librarians. Nosotros would welcome a discussion on the inclusion of discipline terms as a specific criterion for critical appraisement in AMSTAR 2 (Shea et al., 2017), and a more specific reference in detail 8 of the PRISMA statement (Liberati et al., 2009).
As far as we can tell, the search criteria stated as a minimum by the Cochrane handbook (Higgins and Green, 2011) are manageable for authors. The discussion on methodology for systematic reviews, and whether we should differentiate betwixt elaborate reviews and 'leaner' reviews to cover of import clinical questions, is essential (Bastian et al., 2010).
Readers often use titles of publications as a first sifting instrument, thus the title should draw the content of the articles precisely. The PRISMA-guidelines suggest including data about the participants, intervention, comparator, outcome, and study design in the title (Liberati et al., 2009). Seventeen of the 20 reviews in our sample included the term 'systematic review' or 'meta-assay' in the title. Of the three that failed to practise so, one provided this information in the abstract, and the other two in the total text. Page et al. (2016) found that 94% of the publications examined included "systematic review" or "meta-assay" in the title, increasing from 68.2% for non-Cochrane reviews in 2004 (Moher et al., 2007). Another new study using the PRISMA to appraise quality, found that 79 % of systematic reviews include this data (Sharma and Oremus, 2018). We await a further rise in precise titles, as found by Folio, and believe readers will welcome this improvement.
Ix out of the xx reviews in our sample provided general information on the time span of their search, and twelve out of xx stated the date on which the search ended. Co-ordinate to the PRISMA-guidelines, information on dates of coverage should exist given for each database (Liberati et al., 2009). It is important to distinguish between coverage for each database and time span as full general information (Koffel and Rethlefsen, 2016), as databases such every bit Medline, Embase, and PsycInfo can be searched for unlike timespans. Folio et al. (2016) report that 65% of studies contain information on offset and finish dates for all databases, while for Cochrane reviews the share is 91%, and in their sample, 29% of the reviews examined gave general information on time span. Koffel and Rethlefsen (2016) constitute that 25% of the systematic reviews provide start and finish dates for each database. Our sample has only general information on included time span for the search, and in addition, we observed a lack of specific information on database providers. This may point a need for authors to be more careful in reporting their methods. Data on timespan for the databases and last engagement of the search is necessary to reproduce the search strategy and for updating reviews (Liberati et al., 2009).
The majority of reviews nosotros examined added supplementary techniques to their search strategy to support the collection of relevant studies. The most commonly used technique plant in other studies was to review reference lists (Koffel and Rethlefsen, 2016; Page et al., 2016), while other techniques can be identifying unpublished trials, or contacts with experts. Among other things, the aim of using supplementary techniques is to reduce the risk of missing relevant studies, and publication bias (Cooper et al., 2018).
The PRISMA guidelines suggest that the authors of systematic reviews should include a total search strategy for at to the lowest degree one database (Liberati et al., 2009). Merely five of the twenty reviews or meta-analyses in our sample fulfilled this criterion. This is similar to findings past Koffel and Rethlefsen (2016) [24%] and Page et al. (2016) [xxx%] for not-Cochrane reviews, while Sharma and Oremus (2018) study college adherence [63.2%]. The main reason for this advice is to make disquisitional evaluation possible and allow replication and updating (Bastian et al., 2010; McGowan et al., 2016), thus giving the reader a take chances to make up one's mind whether or not the foundations of the work are audio (Sampson et al., 2009).
Similar to Koffel and Rethlefsen (2016), nosotros discover that a majority of reviews report their search strategies at a level that is too general, hence insufficient for replication. Item seven of the PRISMA guideline recommends detailed reporting of information sources, whereas Detail 8, Search, can be answered with Aye or No. This can explicate why Sharma and Oremus (2018) institute high compliance with Item 7 in their study. We contend that adherence to the PRISMA guidelines is necessary to provide sufficient detail to reproduce and assess search strategies.
Flow charts to illustrate identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion, are used in fourteen of the 20 [70%] reviews in our study, although only three of these use the PRISMA catamenia diagram (Moher et al., 2009). This upshot corresponds with Folio et al. (2016) and Sharma and Oremus (Sharma and Oremus, 2018), 69 and 89.v% respectively. Folio et al. differentiate between complete, partial, and no reporting, which can explicate the difference.
In their study of systematic reviews from 2012, Koffel and Rethlefsen (2016) ask if enhanced knowledge of reporting and methodology guidelines will improve reporting quality. Our study of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published between 2011 and 2017, using PRISMA and Cochrane Handbook criteria shows no positive development regarding reporting quality. Although some authors, [3/xx] in our sample, stated that they followed the PRISMA guidelines, we establish that they did not comply with them (Liberati et al., 2009). 1 explanation tin be that editors are more occupied with other details, or lack resources to follow-up on reporting or methodology standards (Moher et al., 2007). Other reasons might be the lack of courses for researchers on systematic search methods and reporting standards (Koffel and Rethlefsen, 2016), or the lack of software to help authors report their systematic review (Page et al., 2016). For the time being, PRISMA checklists practice not ensure actual use of the guidelines (Page et al., 2016), and can announced to exist a "ticking-the-boxes" exercise (Greenhalgh et al., 2018).
Every bit we noted a large number of reviews and meta-analyses on PTSD in adults in our initial scoping search, nosotros added an extra criterion assessing whether the publications referred to a specific Cochrane review (Bisson and Andrew, 2007; Bisson et al., 2013) addressing this research question. Interestingly, seven of the twenty reviews exercise not refer to the Bisson review (Bisson and Andrew, 2007; Bisson et al., 2013). It is of import that authors of reviews or meta-analyses place their work in the context of other reviews (Bastian et al., 2010). Furthermore, Bastian et al. (2010) indicate out that this is as well the responsibility of editors.
In general, the studies identified in a systematic search form the footing of the review process, and should build a sound base for analyzing and synthesizing evidence (Cooper et al., 2018), and minimize bias in forming conclusions. If the methods used for searching are not systematic or the search strategy is flawed, at that place is a run a risk of not including all relevant studies, thus influencing the conclusions of systematic reviews (Salvador-Olivan et al., 2019).
More than specifically, poor systematic reviews can affect the field of psychotherapy, and treatments such as EMDR, negatively, equally mental health practitioners who wish to notice prove based treatments they can use to treat their patients, may become confused by conflicting statements.
In the nowadays newspaper, we observe that one-half of the reviews have a score of three points or lower. This result suggests that there is non plenty attention to the literature search process. The different phases of planning and doing a systematic review have their own methodological challenges, and may introduce bias in conclusions. There is a possibility that poor quality in the reviews can lead to inaccurate conclusions. We have non focused directly on the conclusions from each of the reviews. That may become the subject of another paper.
At that place are some weaknesses in this study. Our examination of search methods relies on reported characteristics, and our sample is small. However, assessing systematic reviews and meta-analyses in calorie-free of a relatively narrow research question reveals results that raise some of import issues regarding the trustworthiness of the body of knowledge pertaining to that question. Furthermore, two reviewers individually screened the methods sections of the reviews and assessed the overall confidence in the completeness of the search. In our evaluation we used the minimum criteria in the Cochrane Handbook (Higgins and Green, 2011) and PRISMA (Liberati et al., 2009) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and have discussed our findings with reference to studies with larger samples.
Conclusion
The aim of this article has been to evaluate the quality of non-Cochrane systematic reviews addressing the subject area of EMDR as a therapy normally used for PTSD past analyzing their search and reporting methods. Nosotros found inadequacies in the methods employed for searching and reporting the search strategy, which could have been avoided by greater adherence to guiding documents for performing systematic reviews.
The methods used for performing and reporting a search can, like other methods used in a systematic review, enhance or undermine trustworthiness. Review teams could profit from involving different methodologists, such every bit inquiry librarians. Alternatively, authors should expect for, and participate in, courses on systematic searching. Table vii lists some key points relevant for authors of systematic reviews.
Table 7. Good practice key points for effective searching and reporting.
Our findings heighten important questions for time to come fence on the risk of omitting studies, thus impairing the conclusions of a systematic review. For clinical purposes, researchers should investigate if, and how, the search strategy in a systematic review affects the torso of knowledge and the results. Poor systematic reviews may confuse mental health practitioners who wish to notice show-based treatments they can use to treat their patients.
Data Availability
The datasets generated for this study are available on asking to the corresponding author.
Author Contributions
EO and PA appraised included studies. EO drafted the manuscript. PA, MJ, BA, and KK contributed to disquisitional revision of the draft. All authors conceived and designed the study, and read and approved the concluding version of the manuscript.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed every bit a potential disharmonize of interest.
Acknowledgments
We give thanks senior adviser Sari Susanna Ormstad, Norwegian Establish of Public Health, for peer reviewing the search strategy.
Footnotes
- ^ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mesh
References
Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., and Chalmers, I. (2010). Seventy-v trials and eleven systematic reviews a twenty-four hours: how will we always keep up? PLoS Med. 7:e1000326. doi: ten.1371/journal.pmed.1000326
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Bisson, J. I., Roberts, North. P., Andrew, Thou., Cooper, R., and Lewis, C. (2013). Psychological therapies for chronic post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in adults. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. CD003388. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003388.pub4
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Chen, L., Zhang, G., Hu, M., and Liang, X. (2015). Eye movement desensitization and reprocessing versus cognitive-behavioral therapy for adult posttraumatic stress disorder: systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Nerv. Ment. Dis. 203, 443–451. doi: 10.1097/nmd.0000000000000306
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Chen, Y. R., Hung, K. W., Tsai, J. C., Chu, H., Chung, M. H., Chen, S. R., et al. (2014). Efficacy of eye-motion desensitization and reprocessing for patients with posttraumatic-stress disorder: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. PLoS I 9:e103676. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0103676
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Cooper, C., Berth, A., Varley-Campbell, J., Britten, Due north., and Garside, R. (2018). Defining the process to literature searching in systematic reviews: a literature review of guidance and supporting studies. BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 18:85. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0545-3
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Cooper, H. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Rev. Educ. Res. 52, 291–302. doi: x.3102/00346543052002291
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Cusack, Thousand., Jonas, D. East., Forneris, C. A., Wines, C., Sonis, J., Middleton, J. C., et al. (2016). Psychological treatments for adults with posttraumatic stress disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 43, 128–141. doi: ten.1016/j.cpr.2015.10.003
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ehring, T., Welboren, R., Morina, North., Wicherts, J. M., Freitag, J., and Emmelkamp, P. M. (2014). Meta-analysis of psychological treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder in adult survivors of babyhood abuse. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 34, 645–657. doi: ten.1016/j.cpr.2014.ten.004
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Erford, B. T., Gunther, C., Duncan, K., Bardhoshi, M., Dummett, B., Kraft, J., et al. (2016). Meta-assay of counseling outcomes for the handling of posttraumatic stress disorder. J. Counsel. Dev. 94, 13–30. doi: 10.1002/jcad.12058
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Foster, M. J., and Jewell, S. T. (2017). Assembling the Pieces 0f a Systematic Review: a Guide for Librarians. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Google Scholar
Gillies, D., Maiocchi, L., Bhandari, A. P., Taylor, F., Gray, C., and O'Brien, L. (2016). Psychological therapies for children and adolescents exposed to trauma. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 10:CD012371. doi: x.1002/14651858.CD012371
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Gillies, D., Taylor, F., Gray, C., O'Brien, L., and D'Abrew, N. (2012). Psychological therapies for the treatment of post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 12:CD006726. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD006726.pub2
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Goodson, J., Helstrom, A., Halpern, J. M., Ferenschak, Yard. P., Gillihan, Due south. J., and Powers, M. B. (2011). Treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder in U.S. combat veterans: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Rep. 109, 573–599. doi: 10.2466/02.09.15.xvi.PR0.109.5.573-599
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, Due south., and Malterud, One thousand. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious bureaucracy of systematic over narrative reviews? Eur. J. Clin. Invest. 48:e12931. doi: 10.1111/eci.12931
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Haagen, J. F., Smid, G. E., Knipscheer, J. W., and Kleber, R. J. (2015). The efficacy of recommended treatments for veterans with PTSD: a metaregression assay. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 40, 184–194. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2015.06.008
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Haugen, P. T., Evces, K., and Weiss, D. S. (2012). Treating posttraumatic stress disorder in kickoff responders: a systematic review. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 32, 370–380. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2012.04.001
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ho, 1000., and Lee, C. (2012). Cerebral behaviour therapy versus eye movement desensitization and reprocessing for mail-traumatic disorder-Is it all in the homework and so? Eur. Rev. Appl. Psychol. 62, 253–260. doi: 10.1016/j.erap.2012.08.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Jong, K. d., Knipscheer, J. W., Ford, N., and Kleber, R. J. (2014). The efficacy of psychosocial interventions for adults in contexts of ongoing homo-made violence—a systematic review. Health 6:504. doi: 10.4236/wellness.2014.66070
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Koffel, J. B., and Rethlefsen, K. 50. (2016). Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in loftier-affect pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional report. PLoS I 11:e0163309. doi: ten.1371/journal.pone.0163309
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lapp, L. K., Agbokou, C., Peretti, C. S., and Ferreri, F. (2010). Direction of post traumatic stress disorder after childbirth: a review. J. Psychosom. Obstet. Gynecol. 31, 113–122. doi: x.3109/0167482X.2010.503330
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Layton, D. (2017). A critical review of search strategies used in recent systematic reviews published in selected prosthodontic and implant-related journals: are systematic reviews actually systematic? Int. J. Prosthodont. 30, 13–21. doi: 10.11607/ijp.5193
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Lenz, A. S., Haktanir, A., and Callender, One thousand. (2017). Meta-analysis of trauma-focused therapies for treating the symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. J. Couns. Dev. 95, 339–353. doi: ten.1002/jcad.12148
CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., et al. (2009). The PRISMA argument for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health intendance interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. half dozen:e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
McGowan, J., Sampson, Chiliad., Salzwedel, D. 1000., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., and Lefebvre, C. (2016). Press peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 75, 40–46. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Mello, P., Silva, Thousand., Donat, J., and Kristensen, C. (2013). An update on the efficacy of cognitive-behavioral therapy, cerebral therapy, and exposure therapy for posttraumatic stress disorder. Int. J. Psychiatry Med. 46, 339–357. doi: 10.2190/PM.46.4.b
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Metzendorf, K. I., and Featherstone, R. M. (2018). Ensuring quality every bit the basis of testify synthesis: leveraging information specialists' knowledge, skills, and expertise. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 4:ED000125. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000125
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann. Intern. Med. 151, 264–269.
Google Scholar
Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A. C., Sampson, M., and Altman, D. One thousand. (2007). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. four:e78. doi: x.1371/journal.pmed.0040078
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Morton, S. C., Murad, Yard. H., O'Connor, Eastward., Lee, C. S., Booth, Thousand., Vandermeer, B. Westward., et al. (2018). Quantitative Synthesis—An Update: Methods Guide for Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
Google Scholar
Novo Navarro, P., Landin-Romero, R., Guardiola-Wanden-Berghe, R., Moreno-Alcazar, A., Valiente-Gomez, A., Lupo, Due west., et al. (2016). 25 years of eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR): the EMDR therapy protocol, hypotheses of its mechanism of action and a systematic review of its efficacy in the handling of post-traumatic stress disorder. Rev. Psiquiatr. Salud Ment. 11, 101–114. doi: 10.1016/j.rpsm.2015.12.002
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Page, 1000. J., Shamseer, 50., Altman, D. Thousand., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A. C., et al. (2016). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional report. PLoS Med. 13:e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Rethlefsen, M. L., Farrell, A. K., Trzasko, L. C. O., and Brigham, T. J. (2015). Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 68, 617–626. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Salvador-Olivan, J. A., Marco-Cuenca, Thousand., and Arquero-Aviles, R. (2019). Errors in search strategies used in systematic reviews and their effects on data retrieval. J. Med. Libr. Assoc. 107, 210–221. doi: 10.5195/jmla.2019.567
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Sampson, M., McGowan, J., Cogo, E., Grimshaw, J., Moher, D., and Lefebvre, C. (2009). An evidence-based practise guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 62, 944–952. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Schlosser, R. W., Wendt, O., and Sigafoos, J. (2007). Not all systematic reviews are created equal: considerations for appraisal. Evid. Based. Commun. Assess. Interv. i, 138–150. doi: 10.1080/17489530701560831
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Sharma, S., and Oremus, M. (2018). PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 99, 123–131. doi: ten.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.03.012
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, M., Thuku, Grand., Hamel, C., Moran, J., et al. (2017). AMSTAR ii: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 358:j4008. doi: ten.1136/bmj.j4008
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Stergiopoulos, E., Cimo, A., Cheng, C., Bonato, Southward., and Dewa, C. Southward. (2011). Interventions to amend piece of work outcomes in work-related PTSD: a systematic review. BMC Public Wellness xi:838. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-11-838
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Swan, Due south., Swell, North., Reynolds, N., and Onwumere, J. (2017). Psychological interventions for post-traumatic stress symptoms in psychosis: a systematic review of outcomes. Front. Psychol. viii:341. doi: ten.3389/fpsyg.2017.00341
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Thomaes, K., Dorrepaal, East., Draijer, N., Jansma, East. P., Veltman, D. J., and van Balkom, A. J. (2014). Can pharmacological and psychological treatment modify brain structure and function in PTSD? A systematic review. J. Psychiatr. Res. 50, 1–15. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.xi.002
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Total Text | Google Scholar
Torchalla, I., and Strehlau, V. (2017). The evidence base for interventions targeting individuals with piece of work-related PTSD: a systematic review and recommendations. Behav. Modif. 42, 273–303. doi: 10.1177/0145445517725048
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Tribe, R. H., Sendt, M. 5., and Tracy, D. K. (2017). A systematic review of psychosocial interventions for adult refugees and asylum seekers. J. Ment. Health. doi: 10.1080/09638237.2017.1322182 [Epub alee of print].
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Watts, B. Five., Schnurr, P. P., Mayo, L., Young-Xu, Y., Weeks, West. B., and Friedman, M. J. (2013). Meta-analysis of the efficacy of treatments for posttraumatic stress disorder. J. Clin. Psychiatry 74, e551–e557. doi: 10.4088/JCP.12r08225
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Wormald, R., and Evans, J. (2018). What makes systematic reviews systematic and why are they the highest level of evidence? Ophthalmic Epidemiol. 25, 27–30. doi: 10.1080/09286586.2017.1337913
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Zantvoord, J. B., Diehle, J., and Lindauer, R. J. (2013). Using neurobiological measures to predict and assess treatment event of psychotherapy in posttraumatic stress disorder: systematic review. Psychother. Psychos. 82, 142–151. doi: 10.1159/000343258
PubMed Abstruse | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Source: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01558/full
0 Response to "Evans Et Al 2017 Lit Review of Psychosocial"
Enregistrer un commentaire