The overarching aim of this paper is to define, develop and present a processing pipeline that has practical application for companies, meaning, being extendable, representative from marketing perspective, and reusable with high reliability for any new, unseen data that generates insights for evaluation of the reputation construct based on collected reviews for any (e.g. retail) organisation that is willing to analyse or improve its performance. First, determinant attributes have to be defined in order to generate insights for evaluation with respect to corporate reputation. Second, in order to generate insights data has to be collected and therefore a method has to be developed in order to extract online stakeholder data from reviews. Furthermore, a suitable algorithm has to be created to assess the extracted information based on the determinant attributes in order to analyse the data. Preliminary results indicate that application of our processing pipeline to online employee review data that are publicly available on the web is valid.
DOCUMENT
Richtlijnen vormen een belangrijke bron voor zorgprofessionals om evidence-based te kunnen handelen. Richtlijnen zijn veelal gebaseerd op systematic reviews, waarbij alle beschikbare wetenschappelijke literatuur over een bepaald onderwerp systematisch beoordeeld wordt op de kwaliteit van de onderzoeken. Dit artikel gaat over wat er aan bod komt bij een systematic review.
DOCUMENT
Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science.
LINK
Background: Emergency department utilization has increased tremendously over the past years, which is accompanied by an increased necessity for emergency medicine research to support clinical practice. Important sources of evidence are systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs), but these can only be informative provided their quality is sufficiently high, which can only be assessed if reporting is adequate. The purpose of this study was to assess the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs in emergency medicine using the PRISMA statement. Methods: The top five emergency medicine related journals were selected using the 5-year impact factor of the ISI Web of Knowledge of 2015. All SRs and MAs published in these journals between 2015 and 2016 were extracted and assessed independently by two reviewers on compliance with each item of the PRISMA statement. Results: The included reviews (n = 112) reported a mean of 18 ± 4 items of the PRISMA statement adequately. Reviews mentioning PRISMA adherence did not show better reporting than review without mention of adherence (mean 18.6 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.8 (SE 0.5); p = 0.214). Reviews published in journals recommending or requiring adherence to a reporting guideline showed better quality of reporting than journals without such instructions (mean 19.2 (SE 0.4) vs. mean 17.2 (SE 0.5); p = 0.001). Conclusion: There is room for improvement of the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs within the emergency medicine literature. Therefore, authors should use a reporting guideline such as the PRISMA statement. Active journal implementation, by requiring PRISMA endorsement, enhances quality of reporting.
DOCUMENT
OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization (WHO) recently proposed an Integrated Care for Older People approach to guide health systems and services in better supporting functional ability of older people. A knowledge gap remains in the key elements of integrated care approaches used in health and social care delivery systems for older populations. The objective of this review was to identify and describe the key elements of integrated care models for elderly people reported in the literature.DESIGN: Review of reviews using a systematic search method.METHODS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane database in June 2017. Reviews of interventions aimed at care integration at the clinical (micro), organisational/service (meso) or health system (macro) levels for people aged ≥60 years were included. Non-Cochrane reviews published before 2015 were excluded. Reviews were assessed for quality using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 1 tool.RESULTS: Fifteen reviews (11 systematic reviews, of which six were Cochrane reviews) were included, representing 219 primary studies. Three reviews (20%) included only randomised controlled trials (RCT), while 10 reviews (65%) included both RCTs and non-RCTs. The region where the largest number of primary studies originated was North America (n=89, 47.6%), followed by Europe (n=60, 32.1%) and Oceania (n=31, 16.6%). Eleven (73%) reviews focused on clinical 'micro' and organisational 'meso' care integration strategies. The most commonly reported elements of integrated care models were multidisciplinary teams, comprehensive assessment and case management. Nurses, physiotherapists, general practitioners and social workers were the most commonly reported service providers. Methodological quality was variable (AMSTAR scores: 1-11). Seven (47%) reviews were scored as high quality (AMSTAR score ≥8).CONCLUSION: Evidence of elements of integrated care for older people focuses particularly on micro clinical care integration processes, while there is a relative lack of information regarding the meso organisational and macro system-level care integration strategies.
DOCUMENT
Background: The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care, increases patients’ risk of surgical site infection and other wound complications. Objectives: To synthesise and evaluate the recommendations for nursing practice and research from published systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library on nurse-led pre-operative prophylaxis and post-operative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses. Design: Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Data sources: The Cochrane Library database. Review methods: All Cochrane Systematic Reviews were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extracted data. One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) checklist. A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals. The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Results: Twenty-two Cochrane reviews met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 reviews focused on pre-operative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on post-operative interventions (one review assessed both pre-and post-operative interventions). Across all reviews, 14 (63.6%) made at least one recommendation to undertake a specific practice, while two reviews (9.1%) made at least one specific recommendation not to undertake a practice. In relation to recommendations for further research, insufficient sample size was the most predominant methodological issue (12/22) identified across reviews. Conclusions: The limited number of recommendations for pre- and post-operative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
MULTIFILE
Background: The increasing numbers of surgeries involving high risk, multi-morbid patients, coupled with inconsistencies in the practice of perioperative surgical wound care, increases patients’ risk of surgical site infection and other wound complications. Objectives: To synthesise and evaluate the recommendations for nursing practice and research from published systematic reviews in the Cochrane Library on nurse-led preoperative prophylaxis and postoperative surgical wound care interventions used or initiated by nurses. Design: Meta-review, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Data sources: The Cochrane Library database. Review methods: All Cochrane Systematic Reviews were eligible. Two reviewers independently selected the reviews and extracted data. One reviewer appraised the methodological quality of the included reviews using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 checklist. A second reviewer independently verified these appraisals. The review protocol was registered with the Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. Results: Twenty-two Cochrane reviews met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 11 reviews focused on preoperative interventions to prevent infection, while 12 focused on postoperative interventions (one review assessed both pre-postoperative interventions). Across all reviews, 14 (63.6%) made at least one recommendation to undertake a specific practice, while two reviews (9.1%) made at least one specific recommendation not to undertake a practice. In relation to recommendations for further research, insufficient sample size was the most predominant methodological issue (12/22) identified across reviews. Conclusions: The limited number of recommendations for pre-and-postoperative interventions reflects the paucity of high-quality evidence, suggesting a need for rigorous trials to address these evidence gaps in fundamentals of nursing care.
DOCUMENT
AIM: To obtain an overview of existing evidence on quality criteria, instruments, and requirements for nursing documentation.DESIGN: Systematic review of systematic reviews.DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched the databases PubMed and CINAHL for the period 2007-April 2017. We also performed additional searches.REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently selected the reviews using a stepwise procedure, assessed the methodological quality of the selected reviews, and extracted the data using a predefined extraction format. We performed descriptive synthesis.RESULTS: Eleven systematic reviews were included. Several quality criteria were described referring to the importance of following the nursing process and using standardized nursing terminologies. In addition, some evidence-based instruments were described for assessing the quality of nursing documentation, such as the D-Catch. Furthermore, several requirements for formats and systems of electronic nursing documentation were found that refer to the importance of user-friendliness and development in consultation with nursing staff.CONCLUSION: Aligning documentation with the nursing process, using standard terminologies, and using user-friendly formats and systems appear to be important for high-quality nursing documentation. The lack of evidence-based quality indicators presents a challenge in the pursuit of high-quality nursing documentation.IMPACT: There is uncertainty in nursing practice about which criteria have to be met to achieve high-quality documentation. Aligning documentation with the nursing process, using standard terminologies, and using user-friendly formats and systems appear to be important. These findings can help nursing staff and care organizations enhance the quality of nursing documentation.
DOCUMENT
BACKGROUND: Family engagement in care for adult inpatients may improve shared decision making in the hospital and the competence and preparedness of informal caregivers to take over the care at home. An important strategy to involve family members in hospital care processes is to include them in (ward) rounds, also called 'family-centered rounds'(FCRs).OBJECTIVES: Summarize the evidence regarding the added value of FCRs from the perspectives of patients, family, and healthcare professionals.METHODS: A review protocol was registered a priori with PROSPERO (number CRD42022320915). The electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL, and PsycInfo were searched for English-written systematic reviews with a focus on FCRs. The results and methods were presented in line with the PRISMA guidelines, and the methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using the adapted version of the AMSTAR tool.RESULTS: Of the 207 initial records, four systematic reviews were identified covering a total of 67 single studies, mainly performed in critical and pediatric care. Added values of FCR were described at review level, with references to single studies. All four systematic reviews reported an improvement in satisfaction among patients, family, and healthcare professionals, whereby satisfaction is linked to improved communication and interaction, improved situational understanding, inclusion of family in the decision-making process, and improved relationships within the care situation.CONCLUSION: Although only limited research has been conducted on the value of FCRs in the adult non-critical care setting, and despite the existence of a variety of outcome measures, the results available from the pediatric and acute care setting are positive. The findings of the sole study in an adult non-critical patient population are in line with these results. Further research in adult non-critical care is required to verify its effects in this setting.
DOCUMENT
Active learning has become an increasingly popular method for screening large amounts of data in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The active learning process continually improves its predictions on the remaining unlabeled records, with the goal of identifying all relevant records as early as possible. However, determining the optimal point at which to stop the active learning process is a challenge. The cost of additional labeling of records by the reviewer must be balanced against the cost of erroneous exclusions. This paper introduces the SAFE procedure, a practical and conservative set of stopping heuristics that offers a clear guideline for determining when to end the active learning process in screening software like ASReview. The eclectic mix of stopping heuristics helps to minimize the risk of missing relevant papers in the screening process. The proposed stopping heuristic balances the costs of continued screening with the risk of missing relevant records, providing a practical solution for reviewers to make informed decisions on when to stop screening. Although active learning can significantly enhance the quality and efficiency of screening, this method may be more applicable to certain types of datasets and problems. Ultimately, the decision to stop the active learning process depends on careful consideration of the trade-off between the costs of additional record labeling against the potential errors of the current model for the specific dataset and context.
LINK
