Cargando…

Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting

Background: Different user groups regard systematic reviews as reliable and valuable sources for answering research questions. For systematic reviews to fulfill their purpose, methodological quality in all stages are of importance. The studies identified in a systematic search form the basis of the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Opheim, Elin, Andersen, Per Normann, Jakobsen, Marianne, Aasen, Bjørn, Kvaal, Kari
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Frontiers Media S.A. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6630178/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31354575
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01558
_version_ 1783435241385361408
author Opheim, Elin
Andersen, Per Normann
Jakobsen, Marianne
Aasen, Bjørn
Kvaal, Kari
author_facet Opheim, Elin
Andersen, Per Normann
Jakobsen, Marianne
Aasen, Bjørn
Kvaal, Kari
author_sort Opheim, Elin
collection PubMed
description Background: Different user groups regard systematic reviews as reliable and valuable sources for answering research questions. For systematic reviews to fulfill their purpose, methodological quality in all stages are of importance. The studies identified in a systematic search form the basis of the review, thus the search process methodology is important for both performing and reporting the search. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the quality of non-Cochrane systematic reviews by analyzing how they perform and report the search. This is exemplified by systematic reviews on eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), a trauma-focused therapy commonly used for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Methods and Results: We examined the method chapters of 20 systematic reviews on the subject, and rated their searches and reporting using relevant elements from the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA. We found inadequacies in the methods employed for searching and reporting the search strategy, which could have been avoided by greater adherence to guiding documents for performing systematic reviews. Conclusion: Our findings raise important questions for future debate on the risk of omitting studies, thus impairing the conclusions in a systematic review. For clinical purposes, researchers should investigate if, and how, the search strategy in a systematic review affects the body of knowledge and the results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6630178
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher Frontiers Media S.A.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-66301782019-07-26 Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting Opheim, Elin Andersen, Per Normann Jakobsen, Marianne Aasen, Bjørn Kvaal, Kari Front Psychol Psychology Background: Different user groups regard systematic reviews as reliable and valuable sources for answering research questions. For systematic reviews to fulfill their purpose, methodological quality in all stages are of importance. The studies identified in a systematic search form the basis of the review, thus the search process methodology is important for both performing and reporting the search. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the quality of non-Cochrane systematic reviews by analyzing how they perform and report the search. This is exemplified by systematic reviews on eye movement desensitization and reprocessing (EMDR), a trauma-focused therapy commonly used for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Methods and Results: We examined the method chapters of 20 systematic reviews on the subject, and rated their searches and reporting using relevant elements from the Cochrane Handbook and PRISMA. We found inadequacies in the methods employed for searching and reporting the search strategy, which could have been avoided by greater adherence to guiding documents for performing systematic reviews. Conclusion: Our findings raise important questions for future debate on the risk of omitting studies, thus impairing the conclusions in a systematic review. For clinical purposes, researchers should investigate if, and how, the search strategy in a systematic review affects the body of knowledge and the results. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC6630178/ /pubmed/31354575 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01558 Text en Copyright © 2019 Opheim, Andersen, Jakobsen, Aasen and Kvaal. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
spellingShingle Psychology
Opheim, Elin
Andersen, Per Normann
Jakobsen, Marianne
Aasen, Bjørn
Kvaal, Kari
Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting
title Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting
title_full Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting
title_fullStr Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting
title_full_unstemmed Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting
title_short Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR – An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting
title_sort poor quality in systematic reviews on ptsd and emdr – an examination of search methodology and reporting
topic Psychology
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6630178/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31354575
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01558
work_keys_str_mv AT opheimelin poorqualityinsystematicreviewsonptsdandemdranexaminationofsearchmethodologyandreporting
AT andersenpernormann poorqualityinsystematicreviewsonptsdandemdranexaminationofsearchmethodologyandreporting
AT jakobsenmarianne poorqualityinsystematicreviewsonptsdandemdranexaminationofsearchmethodologyandreporting
AT aasenbjørn poorqualityinsystematicreviewsonptsdandemdranexaminationofsearchmethodologyandreporting
AT kvaalkari poorqualityinsystematicreviewsonptsdandemdranexaminationofsearchmethodologyandreporting