Search

Systematic reviews and other forms of knowledge synthesis are increasingly common in the social sciences, including in business and management research. We surveyed academic business librarians to determine the extent of their involvement, in any capacity, in knowledge syntheses. Of 71 eligible responses, 30 percent were involved in supporting knowledge synthesis, while others expressed an awareness of and interest in knowledge synthesis methods and have participated in training opportunities to support these types of projects in the future. While still nascent, knowledge synthesis support by business librarians presents potential as a new service area providing opportunities for deep engagement with faculty research.

This guide outlines general issues in searching for studies; describes the main sources of potential studies; and discusses how to plan the search process, design, and carry out search strategies, manage references found during the search process and document and report the search process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Searches should aim to be comprehensive and reporting of search methods should be transparent and reproducible. Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews strive to adhere to the best methodological guidance available for this type of searching. The current work aims to provide an assessment of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Our objectives were to examine how searches are currently conducted in Campbell systematic reviews, how search strategies, search methods and search reporting adhere to the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and PRISMA standards, and identify emerging or novel methods used in searching in Campbell systematic reviews. We also investigated the role of information specialists in Campbell systematic reviews. We handsearched the Campbell Systematic Reviews journal tables of contents from January 2017 to March 2024. We included all systematic reviews published since 2017. We excluded other types of evidence synthesis (e.g., evidence and gap maps), updates to systematic reviews when search methods were not changed from the original pre‐2017 review, and systematic reviews that did not conduct their own original searches. We developed a data extraction form in part based on the conduct and reporting items in MECCIR and PRISMA. In addition, we extracted information about the general quality of searches based on the use of Boolean operators, keywords, database syntax and subject headings. Data extraction included information about reporting of sources searched, some aspects of search quality, the use and reporting of supplementary search methods, reporting of the search strategy, the involvement of information specialists, date of the most recent search, and citation of the Campbell search methods guidance. Items were rated as fully, partially or not conducted or reported. We cross‐walked our data extraction items to the 2019 MECCIR standards and 2020 PRISMA guidelines and provide descriptive analyses of the conduct and reporting of searches in Campbell systematic reviews, indicating level of adherence to standards where applicable. We included 111 Campbell systematic reviews across all coordinating groups published since 2017 up to the search date. Almost all (98%) included reviews searched at least two relevant databases and all reported the databases searched. All reviews searched grey literature and most (82%) provided a full list of grey literature sources. Detailed information about databases such as platform and date range coverage was lacking in 16% and 77% of the reviews, respectively. In terms of search strategies, most used Boolean operators, search syntax and phrase searching correctly, but subject headings in databases with controlled vocabulary were used in only about half of the reviews. Most reviews reported at least one full database search strategy (90%), with 63% providing full search strategies for all databases. Most reviews conducted some supplementary searching, most commonly searching the references of included studies, whereas handsearching of journals and forward citation searching were less commonly reported (51% and 62%, respectively). Twenty‐nine percent of reviews involved an information specialist co‐author and about 45% did not mention the involvement of any information specialist. When information specialists were co‐authors, there was a concomitant increase in adherence to many reporting and conduct standards and guidelines, including reporting website URLs, reporting methods for forward citation searching, using database syntax correctly and using subject headings. No longitudinal trends in adherence to conducting and reporting standards were found and the Campbell search methods guidance published in 2017 was cited in only twelve reviews. We also found a median time lag of 20 months between the most recent search and the publication date. In general, the included Campbell systematic reviews searched a wide range of bibliographic databases and grey literature, and conducted at least some supplementary searching such as searching references of included studies or contacting experts. Reporting of mandatory standards was variable with some frequently unreported (e.g., website URLs and database date ranges) and others well reported in most reviews. For example, database search strategies were reported in detail in most reviews. For grey literature, source names were well reported but search strategies were less so. The findings will be used to identify opportunities for advancing current practices in Campbell reviews through updated guidance, peer review processes and author training and support. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We aimed to describe the methods of smartphone-based cognitive ecological momentary assessment designs in clinical populations, with an intention to evaluate how the role of sex and/or gender has been considered in the design and analyses, particularly including female-specific physiology. Methods: This scoping review was conducted based on JBI scoping review methodology. On March 2nd, 2023, we searched for literature across four databases. Screening of the results and data extraction were conducted in duplicate according to the a priori methods in the pre-registered protocol. Results: 31 articles were included in this review. Participants ranged in age from 15-85 years old with various clinical disorders. Prompts were given between 1-7 times per day for 7-84 days. Executive function was the most frequently assessed cognitive domain. Over half the studies (n = 17, 55%) did not investigate the effects of sex and/or gender, and only one study considered the impact of hormonal therapy. Many studies (n = 14, 45%) used sex and gender interchangeably or incorrectly. Conclusions: Studies varied in design, with heterogeneity in the reporting of methodological information. The lack of attention to sex/gender on neuropsychological outcomes can lead to confusion and contradiction regarding its potential impact on cognition in clinical populations. This may hinder the identification of effective interventions for those assigned female at birth who have been overlooked or considered indistinguishable from their male counterparts. Given the well-documented impact of sex/gender on cognition, it is essential that future neuropsychological research, especially EMA-based studies, prioritize investigating sex/gender to ensure better outcomes for all. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Substitute decision‐makers (SDMs) make decisions that honor medical, personal, and end‐of‐life wishes for older adults who have lost capacity, including those with dementia. However, SDMs often lack support, information, and problem‐solving tools required to make decisions and can suffer with negative emotional, relationship, and financial impacts. The need for adaptable supports has been identified in prior meta‐analyses. This scoping review identifies evidence‐based decision‐making resources/tools for SDMs, outlines domains of support, and determines resource/tool effectiveness and/or efficacy. Methods: The scoping review used the search strategy: Population—SDMs for older adults who have lost decision‐making capacity; Concept—supports, resources, tools, and interventions; Context—any context where a decision is made on behalf of an adult (>25 years). Databases included MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Abstracts in Social Gerontology and SocIndex. Tools were scored by members on the research team, including patient partners, based on domains of need previously identified in prior meta‐analyses. Results: Two reviewers independently screened 5279 citations. Articles included studies that evaluated a resource/tool that helped a family/friend/caregiver SDMs outside of an ICU setting. 828 articles proceeded onto full‐text screening, and 25 articles were included for data extraction. The seventeen tools identified focused on different time points/decisions in the dementia trajectory, and no single tool encompassed all the domains of caregiver decision‐making needs. Conclusion: Existing tools may not comprehensively support caregiver needs. However, combining tools into a toolkit and considering their application relevant to the caregiver's journey may start to address the gap in current supports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The literature search underpins data collection for all systematic reviews (SRs). The SR reporting guideline PRISMA, and its extensions, aim to facilitate research transparency and reproducibility, and ultimately improve the quality of research, by instructing authors to provide specific research materials and data upon publication of the manuscript. Search strategies are one item of data that are explicitly included in PRISMA and the critical appraisal tool AMSTAR2. Yet some authors use search availability statements implying that the search strategies are available upon request instead of providing strategies up front. We sought out reviews with search availability statements, characterized them, and requested the search strategies from authors via email. Over half of the included reviews cited PRISMA but less than a third included any search strategies. After requesting the strategies via email as instructed, we received replies from 46% of authors, and eventually received at least one search strategy from 36% of authors. Requesting search strategies via email has a low chance of success. Ask and you might receive—but you probably will not. SRs that do not make search strategies available are low quality at best according to AMSTAR2; Journal editors can and should enforce the requirement for authors to include their search strategies alongside their SR manuscripts [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Background: Stricturing Crohn's disease (CD) occurs most commonly in the terminal ileum and poses a clinical problem. Cross‐sectional imaging modalities such as intestinal ultrasound (IUS), computed tomography enterography (CTE), and magnetic resonance enterography (MRE) allow for assessment of the entire bowel wall and associated peri‐enteric findings. Radiologic definitions of strictures have been developed for CTE and MRE; their reliability and responsiveness are being evaluated in index development programs. A comprehensive assessment strategy for strictures using IUS is needed. Aims: To provide a detailed summary of definitions, diagnosis and monitoring of strictures on IUS as well as technical aspects of image acquisition. Methods: We searched four databases up to 6 January 2024. Two‐stage screening was done in duplicate. We assessed risk of bias using QUADAS‐2. Results: There were 56 studies eligible for inclusion. Definitions for strictures on IUS are heterogeneous, but the overall accuracy for diagnosis of strictures is high. The capability of IUS for characterising inflammation versus fibrosis in strictures is not accurate enough to be used in clinical practice or trials. We summarise definitions for improvement of strictures on IUS, and discuss parameters for image acquisition and standardisation. Conclusions: This systematic review is the first step for a structured program to develop a stricture IUS index for CD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: A large portion of published evidence syntheses (ES) do not conform to established standards. There is a growing number of reviews labeled as a "systematized review", but authors do not always identify specific methodological adaptations or specify the biases these may introduce. Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to identify which methodological attributes common to evidence syntheses (ES) are implemented or referenced in published systematized reviews. It also aims to 1) identify and collate, where available, the reasons authors characterize their study as a systematized review 2) determine whether any justifications provided were based on resource constraints or research goals, and 3) describe common characteristics of systematized reviews. Inclusion criteria: All articles that are titled as a systematized review, attempt a collocation and synthesis of existing literature, and include some methodology for their review process, will be included. Materials and methods: A title search will be conducted for the terms "systematized" or "systematised" in proximity to the term "review" in a selection of scholarly sources that offer broad coverage of literature in many disciplines: Google Scholar, Lens, Web of Science Core Collection (Web of Science platform), Scopus (Elsevier platform), MEDLINE (Ovid platform). Screening and data extraction will be done in duplicate. Screening will be conducted in Covidence. Data extraction will be done in Google sheets. Data extraction elements will include common methodological characteristics relating to various steps of the evidence synthesis process. Descriptive, aggregate statistics, and categorization of reasons for selecting the systematized review type are the primary planned analysis for this review. Data availability: This is a registered report protocol. The data collected in this research project will be made available in the Borealis repository (https://borealisdata.ca/) upon finalization of the study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]