Involvement of information specialists and statisticians in systematic reviews

Author:

Waffenschmidt SiwORCID,Bender Ralf

Abstract

Abstract Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are usually conducted by a highly specialized group of researchers. The routine involvement of methodological experts is a core methodological recommendation. The present commentary describes the qualifications required for information specialists and statisticians involved in SRs, as well as their tasks, the methodological challenges they face, and potential future areas of involvement. Tasks and qualifications Information specialists select the information sources, develop search strategies, conduct the searches, and report the results. Statisticians select the methods for evidence synthesis, assess the risk of bias, and interpret the results. The minimum requirements for their involvement in SRs are a suitable university degree (e.g., in statistics or librarian/information science or an equivalent degree), methodological and content expertise, and several years of experience. Key arguments The complexity of conducting SRs has greatly increased due to a massive rise in the amount of available evidence and the number and complexity of SR methods, largely statistical and information retrieval methods. Additional challenges exist in the actual conduct of an SR, such as judging how complex the research question could become and what hurdles could arise during the course of the project. Conclusion SRs are becoming more and more complex to conduct and information specialists and statisticians should routinely be involved right from the start of the SR. This increases the trustworthiness of SRs as the basis for reliable, unbiased and reproducible health policy, and clinical decision making.

Publisher

Cambridge University Press (CUP)

Subject

Health Policy

Reference30 articles.

1. 6. EUnetHTA 21. [Internet] D5.3.1 – Procedural guidance for appointment of assessors and co-assessors for JCA/CA – guidance document [cited 15.08.2022]. 2022. Available from: https://d2yaq9q3r816qg.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/D5.3.1_Appointment_Assessors_CoAssessors-final-version-v1.0.pdf?x69613.

2. 7. Cochrane Community. [Internet] Information Specialists Portal [cited 15.08.2022]. 2022. Available from: https://community.cochrane.org/organizational-info/resources/resources-groups/information-specialists-portal.

3. Considerations on what constitutes a ‘qualified statistician’ in regulatory guidelines;Gerlinger;Stat Med.,2012

4. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

5. PRISMA-S: An extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews;Rethlefsen;Syst Rev.,2021

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3