Conference Agenda

To read the abstracts of submissions, click on the title of the session at the top of the cell, not on the title of the submission.  

 
 
Session Overview
Session
O 2.1: Online Discussion Information Retrieval
Time:
Friday, 10/June/2022:
10:00am - 10:30am

Session Chair: Thomas Vandendriessche

The abstracts will not be presented live during this session. You can are advised to view the recorded presentations before this session. Presenters will briefly introduce themselves and then discuss their research, and answers questions.


Show help for 'Increase or decrease the abstract text size'
Presentations
ID: 146 / O 2.1: 1
Online Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

All is FAIR in health inequalities research: using machine learning to build a new database of health equity studies

Mark Clowes1, Claire Stansfield2, James Thomas2, Ian Shemilt2, Suzy Paisley3, Mark Stevenson4, Zhixue Zhao4, Iain Marshall5, Gregory Kell5

1ScHARR, University of Sheffield, UK; 2EPPI Centre, University College London, UK; 3BresMed Health Solutions Limited, UK; 4Department of Computer Science, University of Sheffield, UK; 5King's College London, UK

Introduction
Health inequalities is a rapidly expanding field of research which can make it difficult for researchers and policymakers to stay up to date. A multi-disciplinary team spanning three universities with expertise in computer science, public health and information science has created a new, freely-available database: Finding Accessible Inequalities Research in Public Health (the FAIR Database) to explore research specifically addressing this area.
Aim
To create a new, sustainable database of health inequalities research, indexed according to the PROGRESS-Plus criteria (O’Neill et al 2014). These categories represent the key dimensions of inequality including Place of residence, Race, Occupation, Gender/Sex, Religion, Education, Socioeconomic status and Social capital (PLUS personal characteristics, relationships and time factors).
Method/ Program Description

A systematic search of 14 resources identified 66 reviews to extract Progress Plus attributes for 2190 studies, which were used to train a machine learning application. This algorithm was subsequently used to automatically index new research outputs imported from by Open Alex by study type (e.g. systematic review, observational study) and ProgressPlus categories. Automatic indexing helps to secure the future sustainability of the database beyond the end of the project’s funding, ensuring it remains a useful and current resource for health equity researchers. To allow for browsing as well as searching, Wikipedia categories were used to organise records into a subject hierarchy.

Results/ Evaluation

By using a source repository of scholarly literature from across the internet, the content of the FAIR database is multidisciplinary and not constrained by the usual subject boundaries of other databases. Our own initial testing of the machine learning algorithm finds that it produces accurate indexing results, correctly identifying the study type and ProgressPlus category in the majority of cases but with some variation across the various study types and ProgressPlus categories included (F-measures for the study design classifier ranged between 0.62 and 0.99 and between 0.28 and 0.81 for the ProgressPlus classifier). User evaluation will be conducted in early 2022 and we expect to be able to report on this by the time of the conference.

Conclusion

The FAIR database enables easier discovery of research into health equities, whether through searching or browsing using the PROGRESS-Plus criteria. Automatic importation and indexing of new records from Open Alex (or similar repository) will enable the database to remain up-to-date. This is a work in progress but we will be able to demonstrate the tool and present initial user feedback.

Human Touch (Recommended)

The Covid-19 pandemic has exacerbated existing health inequalities and put them to the top of the agenda for governments across Europe. By making research in this area easier to find, we hope to save researchers’ time and increase capacity, enabling policymakers to make better evidence-informed decisions. Moreover, this project has demonstrated the potential to develop projects across disciplines and between institutions, drawing on expertise across those networks. We hope this partnership will continue to deliver further successful projects in the future.

Biography and Bibliography
Mark Clowes is an informaton specialist at ScHARR (the School of Health and Related Research) at the University of Sheffield. From 2020-2021 he was joint chair of the InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group (ISSG). His research interests focus on information retrieval and rapid evidence synthesis.

Claire Stansfield is based in the UCL Institute of Education's EPPI-Centre within the Department of Social Science. She also contributes to the Cochrane Public Health Review Group and Information Retrieval Methods Group, the Campbell Information Retrieval Methods Group, and the NICE Joint Information Group.

Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M. and Martyn-St James, M. (2021) Systematic approaches to a successful literature review. 3rd ed. Sage.

Stansfield, C., Clowes, M., Thomas, J. and Booth, A. (forthcoming) Searching and identifying studies. (chapter 4). Noyes, J. et al (2022) Cochrane Handbook Of Qualitative Evidence Synthesis. Wiley.

Stansfield, C., Stokes, G., & Thomas, J. (2021). Applying machine classifiers to update searches: analysis from two case studies. Research Synthesis Methods. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1537

Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L & Booth A (2019) Meeting the review family : exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202-222

Clowes-All is FAIR in health inequalities research-146_a.mp4
   


ID: 1136 / O 2.1: 2
Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

Evaluating search strategies used to identify systematic reviews and RCTs for an evidence gap map

Naomi Shaw, Alison Bethel

University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Introduction

Search methods for systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses should be transparent, reproducible and comprehensive. The PRISMA-S checklist requires full search strategies are reported for each bibliographic database, however, these do not provide any indication of the efficiency of the search strategy, or the usefulness of individual search lines for identifying studies for inclusion.

It is becoming increasingly important to evaluate search strategies for evidence syntheses, particularly for those that require regular updates or for ‘living’ reviews, to ensure search strategies are effective and efficient, and to minimise future screening load.

Aim

To identify a simple method for search strategy evaluation and consider how Information Specialists (ISs) can report and share search strategy evaluations.

Method

Searches were conducted to identify systematic reviews (SRs), randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and economic evaluations for an evidence gap map on peer support interventions. Search strategies included a combination of free-text and controlled vocabulary terms.

A search summary table was created to highlight where included studies were found. This indicated 27 of the 32 included SRs, and 50 of the 61 included RCTs were retrieved by the original Ovid MEDLINE searches.

Test sets were created for included references using PubMed identifiers in Ovid MEDLINE. These were used to evaluate each line of the SR and RCT topic search strategies, in order to identify the lines of the search strategy that retrieved included or unique references, and the simplest combination of search terms that would retrieve all included references.
Results

Initial findings indicate that a simple strategy (using only two search lines) would identify all included SRs, whereas a broader range of terminology (12 search lines) is needed to capture all included RCTs. 18 search lines in the peer support strategy for SRs retrieved at least one included SR. 26 search lines in the RCT search strategy picked up at least one included RCT.

We will present further findings from our evaluation of search strategies conducted for an evidence map.

Conclusion

The conduct and reporting of a search strategy evaluation, in addition to a search summary table, may improve search efficiency and minimise screening load for reviews that require frequent updates. These can be time-consuming tasks, however, search strategy evaluation provides opportunities for ISs to reflect on current practice and gather evidence about the value of different search approaches. Reporting details of search strategy evaluation ensures transparency and reproducibility of search methods, and may also guide ISs working on similar topics to make informed decisions about selection of search terms. The IS community could work together to develop simple and effective methods to evaluate search strategies and consider how this knowledge can best be shared.

The authors intend to conduct further research comparing the performance of ‘evaluated’ search strategies with our original search strategies. We will assess the efficiency and number needed to screen for both strategies to inform updates of the living evidence map of peer support interventions.


Shaw-Evaluating search strategies used to identify systematic reviews and RCTs-1136_a.pptx
   


ID: 1130 / O 2.1: 3
Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

The impact of using search filters for non-randomised studies on rapid reviews

Irma Klerings, Anna Glechner, Martin Fangmeyer

Danube University Krems, Austria

Introduction

Study selection is one of the major time-consuming tasks in the evidence synthesis process because of the necessity to screen large search results. Therefore, reducing the number or records retrieved is an important way to save time when conducting rapid reviews (RRs). The recently published MEDLINE search filters by Waffenschmidt et al.1 are a promising way to reduce search results when searching for non-randomised controlled studies (cNRS). While they are less sensitive than comparable filters for randomized controlled studies, it is unclear if missed studies would affect review conclusions.
Aim

Based on RR searches that used no study type filters and included cNRS, we retrospectively examined the impact of using the cNRS-filters for Ovid MEDLINE.

We analysed:

  1. The proportion of cNRS included in the reviews that would still be found by the MEDLINE search when the Waffenschmidt filters (sensitivity or specificity focused) are applied,
  2. The reduction in study selection workload due to a smaller search result,
  3. Whether missed studies would have been retrieved by non-Boolean searches,
  4. The impact of missing studies on the conclusions of the original review.

Method

We screened RRs completed at our institution between 2018 and 2021, identifying those that included cNRS and applied no study type filters. For each eligible RR, we identified which cNRS had been found by the original MEDLINE search, and if they would still be found when the search filters were applied. We then checked the reduction of the records retrieved and calculated the potential reduction in screening time. We also checked if missed references would have been found by reference list screening and PubMed similar articles searches used in the original RR. Finally, we are currently assessing if missed studies would have changed the conclusions of the RR.
Results

These are preliminary results; the final analysis will be completed in early 2022.

21 RRs fit our inclusion criteria and included 64 cNRS. The best sensitivity filter (Fsens) retrieved all included studies in 14 reviews, compared to 8 reviews with the best specificity filter (Fspec). Fsens lead to an average reduction of 43% (21%-75%) in retrieved records, Fspec to 56% (39-84%). This represents an average reduction in screening time of 3 hours per reviewer when using Fsens and 4 hours for Fspec. Of 8 studies missed by Fsens, 5 were found by the non-Boolean searches. Fspec missed 17 studies, 10 were found by non-Boolean searches. Using Fspec would have lead to no conclusion being possible in 2 RRs.

Conclusion

Based on preliminary results, using Fsens would reduce screening time without negatively impacting RR conclusions. Additionally, non-Boolean methods were able to retrieve more than half of the studies missed by each filter.

Human Touch

Our rapid review services provide hospital personnel with timely and concise evidence syntheses. By improving our workflows, we aim to provide better support for them.

Reference: 1 Waffenschmidt, et al. Development and validation of study filters for identifying controlled non-randomized studies in PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE. Res Syn Meth. 2020; 11: 617– 626.

Biography and Bibliography
Irma Klerings works as information specialist for the Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation and Cochrane Austria at Danube University Krems, Austria. She is also an information specialist for the Cochrane Public Health Group. Her main roles are developing search strategies for systematic and rapid reviews, assessing search strategies, and teaching systematic search methods. She also contributes to methods studies in the field of evidence synthesis.

Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Ellen, M., Klerings, I., Sfetcu, R., Riva, N., Mahmić-Kaknjo, M., ... & Gartlehner, G. (2021). Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 139, 287-296.
Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Klerings, I., Wagner, G., Heise, T. L., Dobrescu, A. I., Armijo-Olivo, S., ... & Gartlehner, G. (2018). Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of clinical epidemiology, 102, 1-11.

Klerings-The impact of using search filters for non-randomised studies-1130_a.pdf

Klerings-The impact of using search filters for non-randomised studies-1130_b.mp4
 


ID: 215 / O 2.1: 5
Online Oral Presentation
Topics: Professionals Connected

Systematic & Scoping Reviews Community of Practice @ UBC

Vanessa Kitchin

UBC, Canada

Introduction
Academic and medical librarians are increasingly being invited to support or co-author knowledge syntheses at University of British Columbia. Arising out of a need to discuss best practices, librarians and interested individuals created a Systematic & Scoping Reviews Community of Practice (SR CoP) at UBC.
Aim

A community of practice is a group of people who "share a concern or a passion for something they do and learn how to do it better as they interact regularly". The concept was first proposed by cognitive anthropologist Jean Lave and educational theorist Etienne Wenger in their 1991 book Situated Learning. The aim of this session is to explore how the SR CoP was developed at UBC and how members adere to Lave and Wenger's definition.

Method/ Program Description
The evolution of the SR CoP will be described as well as the issues, concerns, successes and novel insights.
Results/ Evaluation

In order for a community of practice to be successful, it must be consistent in differentiating its dynamic from that of a working group or committee. The SR CoP at <our organization> has been successful in remaining a space where librarians from all disciplines supporting reviews can discuss issues. Participation is fluid, not mandatory and guests/topics vary month to month.
Conclusion

The SR Community of Practice at UBC has become an invaluable space to share insights and issues related to the support and authorshop of knowledge syntheses.

Human Touch (Recommended)

In talking to colleauges at research intensive universities, a common thread is the aspiration to develop a Knowledge Synthesis Community of Practice. This oral presentation will hopefully spark ideas and inspiration for others to do the same.


Kitchin-Systematic & Scoping Reviews Community of Practice @ UBC-215_a.mp4
   


ID: 1131 / O 2.1: 6
Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

Going beyond the traditional roles: Importance of partnership working

Mala Mann1, Rhiannon Cordiner1, Annmarie Nelson2, Anthony Byrne2

1Specialist Unit for Review Evidence, Cardiff University, Wales; 2Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre (MCPCRC), School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Wales

Introduction

Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM) has expanded the role of the librarian beyond identification of the literature only, to be involved in other stages of the evidence review process.
Aim

The aim of this paper is to demonstrate the role of the librarian in conducting evidence synthesis in partnership with clinicians, health care workers, researchers, and policy makers. We will examine a series of rapid reviews conducted during the last five years to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care.
Method

The literature searches were conducted across a range of databases and supplementary sources. In addition to designing and running the literature searches, other tasks included carrying out screening and study selection, developing data extraction forms and carrying out quality assessment of the eligible studies. Final tasks included synthesising evidence and writing the review using reporting templates in collaboration with researchers.
Results

To date, twelve reviews have been conducted using a methodology developed in partnership with the research team. Findings will be presented from the start of the process at the point of partnership working, to development of the review and subsequent follow up to demonstrate impact. The evidence from these reviews impacts directly on palliative care clinicians and other decision makers, and indirectly on patients/carers in receipt of palliative care.

Conclusion

Broadening horizons provides opportunities for information professionals in health care to play an invaluable role. Librarians can be effective partners in supporting researchers to practice evidence-based medicine.

Human Touch (Recommended)

Being integrated into a research team is an invaluable experience and contributing to other aspects of the review process can be rewarding. It provides opportunities to develop our expertise and remain relevant in an ever-changing world.

Biography and Bibliography
I am an Information Specialist/Systematic Reviewer based at Cardiff University's Specialist Unit for Review Evidence (SURE), with expertise in systematic reviewing for over 20 years. My particular expertise is in advanced literature searching and the development of systematic review methodologies. I have worked on projects for a range of organisations including the National Institute for Health & Care Excellence (NICE), National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) the Welsh Government and Public Health Wales. I have co-authored over 100 publications including Cochrane reviews and methodology papers. Current projects include conducting reviews for Cardiff University Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre and the Centre for Homelessness Impact.
In addition, I teach evidence-based methodologies on several internal and external programmes including Cardiff University Doctoral Academy and lead the Cardiff Systematic Review Course. I have jointly supervised intercalated degree and postgraduate students who are involved in carrying out a systematic review as a component within their degree programme.

Bibliography

•Edwards, Deborah, Anstey, Sally, Coffey, Michael, Gill, Paul, Mann, Mala, Meudell, Alan and Hannigan, Ben 2021. End of life care for people with severe mental illness: Mixed methods systematic review and thematic synthesis (the MENLOC study). Palliative Medicine 35(10), pp. 1747-1760. (10.1177/02692163211037480)
•Harrop, Emily, Mann, Mala, Semedo, Lenira, Chao, Davina, Selman, Lucy E. and Byrne, Anthony. 2020. What elements of a systems approach to bereavement are most effective in times of mass bereavement? A narrative systematic review with lessons for COVID-19. Palliative Medicine 34(9), pp. 1165-1181. (10.1177/0269216320946273)
•Oakley, Natalie Jayne, Kneale, Dylan, Mann, Mala, Hilliar, Mariann, Dayan, Colin, Gregory, John W and French, Robert 2020. Type 1 diabetes mellitus and educational attainment in childhood: a systematic review. BMJ Open 10(1), article number: e033215. (10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033215)
•Nurmatov, Ulugbek, Foster, Catherine, Bezeczky, Zoe, Owen, Jennifer, El-Banna, Asmaa, Mann, Mala, Petrou, Stavros, Kemp, Alison, Scourfield, Jonathan, Forrester, Donald and Turley, Ruth2020. Impact of shared decision-making family meetings on children's out-of-home care, family empowerment and satisfaction: a systematic review. Project Report. [Online]. London: What Works Centre for Children's Social Care. Available at: https://whatworks-csc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/WWCSC_Family_Group_Conferencing_Report.pdf
•Mann, Mala, Woodward, Amanda, Nelson, Annmarie and Byrne, Anthony 2019. Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership. Health Research Policy and Systems 17(1), article number: 100. (10.1186/s12961-019-0504-4)

Mann-Going beyond the traditional roles-1131_a.pptx
   


ID: 1161 / O 2.1: 7
Oral Presentation
Topics: Information retrieval and evidence syntheses

Search Summary Table results for an evidence gap map

Alison Bethel, Naomi Shaw

University of Exeter, United Kingdom

Introduction

Search Summary Tables (SSTs) offer a simple way to provide an overview of the results of the searches in evidence syntheses. It combines the details from the PRISMA flow diagram with the search methods including sensitivity and precision calculations for each database, and overall. They can be used as evidence to inform future searching for the individual information professional and, if published with the systematic review/map, for the wider evidence syntheses community.

Previous SST have only been published for systematic reviews, this project will create a SST for an evidence gap map.

Aim

Create search summary tables (SSTs) for the different types of study: systematic review (SR), randomised controlled trial (RCT) and economic evaluation from an evidence gap map on peer support interventions. This is to help understand where the evidence was found for each study type and whether supplementary search techniques found any additional relevant studies.

Method/ Program Description

The searches for the Srs were run first followed by the searches for RCTs and finally the economic evaluations. The supplementary searching was all undertaken at the same time. Once the evidence gap map had been completed, the included references for each study type was input into the SST. The EndNote libraries with all of the search results (ie before duplicates were removed) were searched to find out which search in which database picked up the reference. This was carried out for all three study types.

Results/ Evaluation

The results presented will include: what database combinations would have found all of the included references, which database searches found unique references, which supplementary search methods found included references and which searches did not pick up included references which were in the database; and why.

Any results about the differences between searching for SRs, RCTs and EEs will also be presented.

Conclusion

Completing a SST can take time but it is a great learning tool for the information professional (IP) working on the project as it encourages reflection and learning, it also encourages transparency, not just of the search methods but of the search results, and provides evidence for the decisions we make as IPs. This is the first SST produced for an evidence gap map in the subject area of health and we are expecting that it will evolve into a living map and we will continue to complete SSTs to discover whether the search patterns stay the same over time.

Human Touch (Recommended)

We think SSTs are a great way for IPs to reflect on their work and share knowledge with others

Biography and Bibliography
I have over 10 years’ experience in developing and running searches for all types of evidence syntheses including systematic reviews and maps, rapid reviews and realist reviews as well as evidence briefings. Along with my colleagues, I provide advice and training to colleagues, students and clinicians on how to search.Prior to that I worked in both Government and research libraries.

Bethel-Search Summary Table results for an evidence gap map-1161_a.pptx
   


 
Contact and Legal Notice · Contact Address:
Privacy Statement · Conference: EAHIL 2022
Conference Software - ConfTool Pro 2.6.144
© 2001–2022 by Dr. H. Weinreich, Hamburg, Germany