PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration. METHODS: The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process. RESULTS: The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. CONCLUSIONS: The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews.

BACKGROUND: Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration. METHODS: The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process. RESULTS: The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. CONCLUSIONS: The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and therefore reproducible.

Measuring the health literacy of the Upper Midwest.

OBJECTIVES: Health literacy-the ability to obtain, process, and understand basic health information-is a major determinant of an individual's overall health and health care utilization. In this project, the authors examined predictors of health literacy levels, including numeracy and graphic literacy, among an adult population in the Upper Midwest. METHODS: The research was conducted at the Minnesota State Fair. Three previously validated scales were used to assess health literacy: Newest Vital Sign, the General Health Numeracy Test, and questions from Galesic and Garcia-Retamero's Graph Literacy Scale. Demographic information-such as age, educational attainment, zip code, and other potential predictors and modifiers-was collected. Multivariate linear regression was conducted to examine the independent effects of educational attainment, race, ethnicity, gender, and rural or urban location on overall health literacy and scores on each of the individual instruments. RESULTS: A total of 353 Upper Midwest residents completed the survey, with the majority being white, college-educated, and from an urban area. Having a graduate or professional degree or being under the age of 21 were associated with increased health literacy scores, while having a high school diploma or some high school education, being Asian American, or being American Indian/Alaska Native were associated with lower health literacy scores. CONCLUSION: Advanced health literacy skills, including the ability to calculate and compare information, were problematic even in well-educated populations. Understanding numerical and graphical information was found to be particularly difficult, and more research is needed to understand these deficits and how best to address them.

What Definition Is Used to Describe Second Impact Syndrome in Sports? A Systematic and Critical Review.

Concern about what has been termed, "second impact syndrome" (SIS) is a major factor determining return-to-play decisions after concussion. However, definitions of SIS vary. We used Scopus to conduct a systematic review and categorize the definitions used to describe SIS. Of the 91 sources identified, 79 (87%) clearly specified that SIS involved either cerebral edema or death after a concussion when a prior concussion had not resolved. Twelve articles (13%) could be interpreted as merely the events of two consecutive concussions. Among the articles that listed mortality rates, nearly all (33/35, 94%) said the rate of death was "high" (e.g., 50% to 100%). Our review found that most articles define SIS as a syndrome requiring catastrophic brain injury after consecutive concussive episodes. Given that it is unclear how common it is to have a second concussion while not fully recovered from a first concussion, the actual mortality rate of SIS is unknown.

Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: A high-quality search strategy is considered an essential component of systematic reviews but many do not contain reproducible search strategies. It is unclear if low reproducibility spans medical disciplines, is affected by librarian/search specialist involvement or has improved with increased awareness of reporting guidelines. OBJECTIVES: To examine the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews published in Pediatrics, Surgery or Cardiology journals in 2012 and determine rates and predictors of including a reproducible search strategy. METHODS: We identified all systematic reviews published in 2012 in the ten highest impact factor journals in Pediatrics, Surgery and Cardiology. Each search strategy was coded to indicate what elements were reported and whether the overall search was reproducible. Reporting and reproducibility rates were compared across disciplines and we measured the influence of librarian/search specialist involvement, discipline or endorsement of a reporting guideline on search reproducibility. RESULTS: 272 articles from 25 journals were included. Reporting of search elements ranged widely from 91% of articles naming search terms to 33% providing a full search strategy and 22% indicating the date the search was executed. Only 22% of articles provided at least one reproducible search strategy and 13% provided a reproducible strategy for all databases searched in the article. Librarians or search specialists were reported as involved in 17% of articles. There were strong disciplinary differences on the reporting of search elements. In the multivariable analysis, only discipline (Pediatrics) was a significant predictor of the inclusion of a reproducible search strategy. CONCLUSIONS: Despite recommendations to report full, reproducible search strategies, many articles still do not. In addition, authors often report a single strategy as covering all databases searched, further decreasing reproducibility. Further research is needed to determine how disciplinary culture may encourage reproducibility and the role that journal editors and peer reviewers could play.

Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors.

BACKGROUND: Previous research looking at published systematic reviews has shown that their search strategies are often suboptimal and that librarian involvement, though recommended, is low. Confidence in the results, however, is limited due to poor reporting of search strategies the published articles. OBJECTIVES: To more accurately measure the use of recommended search methods in systematic reviews, the levels of librarian involvement, and whether librarian involvement predicts the use of recommended methods. METHODS: A survey was sent to all authors of English-language systematic reviews indexed in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from January 2012 through January 2014. The survey asked about their use of search methods recommended by the Institute of Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and if and how a librarian was involved in the systematic review. Rates of use of recommended methods and librarian involvement were summarized. The impact of librarian involvement on use of recommended methods was examined using a multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: 1560 authors completed the survey. Use of recommended search methods ranged widely from 98% for use of keywords to 9% for registration in PROSPERO and were generally higher than in previous studies. 51% of studies involved a librarian, but only 64% acknowledge their assistance. Librarian involvement was significantly associated with the use of 65% of recommended search methods after controlling for other potential predictors. Odds ratios ranged from 1.36 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.75) for including multiple languages to 3.07 (95% CI 2.06 to 4.58) for using controlled vocabulary. CONCLUSIONS: Use of recommended search strategies is higher than previously reported, but many methods are still under-utilized. Librarian involvement predicts the use of most methods, but their involvement is under-reported within the published article.

A meta-analysis of group cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia.

Insomnia is the most common sleep disorder among the general population. Although cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the psychological treatment of choice, the availability of individual therapy is often not sufficient to meet the demand for treatment. Group treatment can increase the efficiency of delivery, but its efficacy has not been well-established. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing group CBT-I to a control group in patients with insomnia were identified. A review of 670 unique citations resulted in eight studies that met criteria for analysis. Outcome variables included both qualitative (e.g., sleep quality) and quantitative (e.g., sleep diary) outcomes, as well as depression and pain severity, at both pre- to post-treatment and follow-up (3-12 mo post-treatment). Overall, we found medium to large effect sizes for sleep onset latency, sleep efficiency, and wake after sleep onset and small effect sizes for pain outcomes. Effect sizes remained significant at follow-up, suggesting that treatment gains persist over time. Other variables, including total sleep time, sleep quality, and depression, showed significant improvements, but these findings were limited to the within treatment group analyses. It is clear that group CBT-I is an efficacious treatment. Implications for stepped care models for insomnia are discussed.