Quality of reporting of literature search strategies in systematic reviews published on the role of telehealth during COVID-19

Abstract

A comprehensive and reproducible search strategy for systematic reviews especially about COVID-19 plays a pivotal role in conducting a reliable and unbiased review. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the quality of the search strategy reporting in systematic reviews conducted on the role of telehealth during COVID-19. The secondary aim of study was to explore some affecting factor in the quality of search strategy. The study evaluated the quality of the search strategy reporting with PRISMA-S checklist. The search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and other related databases. Systematic reviews were included. There was no language restriction. The correlation of the PRISMA-S scores with journal impact factor, CiteScore, and librarians’ role were evaluated using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. A total of 85 articles were included in the review. The overall mean score of PRISMA-S checklist was 6.12 ± 1.46. PubMed was the most popular database for search. More than half of the studies did not provide a full search strategy. There was a significant positive correlation between PRISMA-S score and the journal impact factor (Spearman’s rho = 0.217; P = 0.46) and CiteScore (Spearman’s rho = 0.235; P = 0.03). The quality of literature search was poor in the included studies. Using the PRISMA-S as a search reporting guideline can be a helpful tool for authors. A professional librarian can be beneficial in improving the quality of the search. It is recommended to use a new pattern in COVID-19-related searches, such as preprint sources.

Keywords

COVID-19 reporting quality SARS-CoV-2 search strategies systematic reviews as topic telemedicine

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Qian

Jiang

. COVID-19 and social distancing. J Public Health 2022; 30: 259–261.

Fryer

Delgado

Foti

et al. Implementation of obstetric telehealth during COVID-19 and beyond. Matern Child Health J 2020; 24(9): 1104–1110.

Joshi

Lewiss

. Telehealth in the time of COVID-19. Emerg Med J 2020; 37(10): 637–638.

Young

Schneider

. Clinical care, research, and telehealth services in the era of social distancing to mitigate COVID-19. AIDS Behav 2020; 24: 2000–2002.

Fantz

Rivers

. COVID-19 awakens a new focus on surge capacity blood glucose testing and the critical role of telehealth in self-management. J Diabetes Sci Technol 2020; 14(4): 733–734.

Gharib

Rahmani

. Telerehabilitation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Arch Rehabilit 2021; 22(1): 2–9.

Ghazanfarpour

Ashrafinia

Zolala

et al. Investigating the effectiveness of tele-counseling on mental health of staff in coronavirus reference clinics and hospitals. SSRN 2020: 3572898, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3572898

Mohammadzadeh

Maserat

Kariminezhad

. Application of information technology models, approaches and tools in COVID-19 management: rapid review. Depiction Health 2021; 12(1): 78–95.

Monaghesh

Hajizadeh

. The role of telehealth during COVID-19 outbreak: a systematic review based on current evidence. BMC Public Health 2020; 20(1): 1193.

10.

Burns

Rohrich

Chung

. The levels of evidence and their role in evidence-based medicine. Plast Reconstr Surg 2011; 128(1): 305–310.

11.

Aromataris

Munn

. Chapter 1: JBI systematic reviews. In: Aromataris

Munn

(eds) JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI, 2020, https://jbi-global-wiki.refined.site/space/MANUAL/3283910671/Chapter+1%3A+JBI+Systematic+ Reviews

12.

Gates

Duarte

et al. Quality and risk of bias appraisals of systematic reviews are inconsistent across reviewers and centers. J Clin Epidemiol 2020; 125: 9–15.

13.

Shea

Grimshaw

Wells

et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007; 7(1): 10.

14.

Whiting

Savović

Higgins

et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 69: 225–234.

15.

Page

McKenzie

Bossuyt

et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372: n71.

16.

Higgins

Lasserson

Chandler

et al. Methodological expectations of Cochrane intervention reviews, version February 2021. London: Cochrane.

17.

Stroup

Berlin

Morton

et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA 2000; 283(15): 2008–2012.

18.

Rethlefsen

Kirtley

Waffenschmidt

et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021; 10(1): 39.

19.

Grant

Booth

. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J 2009; 26(2): 91–108.

20.

McGowan

Sampson

Salzwedel

et al. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 75: 40–46.

21.

Ajibade

Younas

Pullan

. Telemedicine in cardiovascular surgery during COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and our experience. J Card Surg 2020; 35: 2773–2784.

22.

Abbott

Bethel

Rogers

et al. Characteristics, quality and volume of the first 5 months of the COVID-19 evidence synthesis infodemic: a meta-research study. BMJ Evid Based Med. Epub ahead of print 3 June 2021. DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111710.

23.

Biocic

Fidahic

Puljak

. Reproducibility of search strategies of non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals is suboptimal: primary methodological study. Br J Anaesth 2019; 122(6): e79–e81.

24.

O’Donohoe

Bridson

Shafik

et al. Quality of literature searches published in leading neurosurgical journals: a review of reviews. Neurosurgery 2021; 88(5): 891–899.

25.

Faggion

Jr Wu

Y-C

Y-K

et al. Quality of search strategies reported in systematic reviews published in stereotactic radiosurgery. Br J Radiol 2016; 89(1062): 20150878.

26.

Koffel

Rethlefsen

. Reproducibility of search strategies is poor in systematic reviews published in high-impact pediatrics, cardiology and surgery journals: a cross-sectional study. PLoS ONE 2016; 11(9): e0163309.

27.

Fathifar

Hasankandi

Sadeghi-Ghyassi

. 158: assessing the quality of search strategies in decision support system (DSS) systematic reviews. BMJ Open 2017; 7(Suppl. 1): bmjopen-2016-015415.158.

28.

Harari

Parola

Hartwell

et al. Literature searches in systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a review, evaluation, and recommendations. J Vocat Behav 2020; 118: 103377.

29.

Yaylali

Alaçam

. Critical assessment of search strategies in systematic reviews in endodontics. J Endod 2016; 42(6): 854–860.

30.

Lake

Lawrence

Martinez Alonso

et al. Quality of systematic reviews in HIV: the case of clinical outcomes associated with patient medication adherence. J Evid Based Med 2021; 14(1): 7–16.

31.

Fraser

Brierley

Dey

et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biol 2021; 19(4): e3000959.

32.

Higgins

Thomas

Chandler

et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, version 6.2. London: Cochrane Community, 2021.

33.

Rethlefsen

Farrell

Trzasko

LCO

et al. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2015; 68(6): 617–626.

34.

Schellinger

Sewell

Bloss

et al. The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine. PLoS ONE 2021; 16(9): e0256833.

35.

Sadeghi-Ghyassi

Nosraty

Ghojazadeh

et al. Evidence databases application: comparison of university faculties versus clinical residents in a developing country. J Eval Clin Pract 2013; 19(2): 292–297.

36.

Koffel

. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS ONE 2015; 10(5): e0125931.

37.

Gavgani

Vahed

. 184: key word validity ratio (KWVR); a tool for validity of keywords for building an accurate literature search strategy. BMJ Open 2017; 7(Suppl. 1): bmjopen-2016-015415.184.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB