Domestic Homicide: A Synthesis of Systematic Review Evidence

2021 ◽  
pp. 152483802110438
Author(s):  
Bitna Kim ◽  
Alida V. Merlo
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Empirical Literature ◽  
Child Homicide ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
Domestic Homicide ◽  
Policy And Practice ◽  
Main Research ◽  
Perpetrators And Victims

Domestic homicide (DH) is the most extreme form of domestic violence (DV). There has been a growing worldwide interest in DH offenses and the characteristics of perpetrators and victims, and it is evidenced in part by the increase in the number of primary research studies in this area. The findings of a large number of the available primary literature have already been summarized into several systematic reviews. The principal purposes of this study were to identify what types and aspects of DH have been reviewed systematically (research trends), to synthesize findings from recent systematic reviews of the theoretical and empirical literature on the different types of DH (main findings), and to consider what existing reviews can tell us about the implications for policy and practice as well as future primary research (implications). The current study utilized a systematic review approach to locate systematic reviews of studies on DH. The final sample included 25 systematic review articles published from 2010 to 2020, including 12 on intimate partner homicide, eight on child homicide, and five on familicide. The main research questions varied across systematic reviews, but they included risk factors, statistics on incidence and prevalence, theories, risk assessment tools, punishment and disposition, and prevention strategies. Building on the synthesis findings, the current study concludes with suggestions for future systematic review research and implications for practice and policy efforts.

scholarly journals Systematic review protocol exploring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the wellbeing of general practitioners

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Jefferson ◽  
Su Golder ◽  
Veronica Dale ◽  
Holly Essex ◽  
Elizabeth McHugh ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Systematic Review Protocol ◽  
Health And Wellbeing ◽  
Review Protocol ◽  
The Impact

Background Over recent years chronic stress and burnout have been reported by doctors working in general practice in the UK NHS and internationally. The COVID-19 pandemic has changed general practitioners working lives; adding potential pressures from avoiding infection and addressing pent-up demand for care, but also changing processes such as rapidly taking up remote consultations. To date, there has been a focus on exploring the impact of the pandemic on the wellbeing of hospital clinicians. No registered systematic reviews currently focus on exploring the impact of the pandemic on the mental health and wellbeing of general practitioners. Aims and objectives To synthesise the current international evidence base exploring the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health and wellbeing of general practitioners, and which factors are associated with their reported mental health and wellbeing during the pandemic. Methods In this paper we report a systematic review protocol, following PRISMA guidance. In our search strategy we will identify primary research studies or systematic reviews exploring the mental health and wellbeing of general practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic in four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, PsychInfo and Medrxiv) and Google Scholar. We will hand-search reference lists and grey literature. Two reviewers will undertake all stages including study selection, data extraction and quality assessment, with arbitration by a third reviewer where necessary. We will use standardised quality assessment tools to ensure transparency and reduce bias in quality assessment. Depending on the quality of included studies, we may undertake a sensitivity analysis by excluding studies from narrative synthesis that are rated as low quality using the checklists. We will describe the findings across studies using narrative thematic data synthesis, and if sufficiently homogenous data are identified, we will pool quantitative findings through meta-analysis.

scholarly journals Assessment of humoral and cell-mediated immune responses to pertussis vaccination: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. e028109 ◽  
Author(s):  
Funbi Akinola ◽  
Rudzani Muloiwa ◽  
Gregory, D Hussey ◽  
Violette Dirix ◽  
Benjamin Kagina ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Immune Response ◽  
Immune Responses ◽  
Public Space ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Population Type

IntroductionGlobally, some studies show a resurgence of pertussis. The risks and benefits of using whole-cell pertussis (wP) or acellular pertussis (aP) vaccines in the control of the disease have been widely debated. Better control of pertussis will require improved understanding of the immune response to pertussis vaccines. Improved understanding and assessment of the immunity induced by pertussis vaccines is thus imperative. Several studies have documented different immunological outcomes to pertussis vaccination from an array of assays. We propose to conduct a systematic review of the different immunological assays and outcomes used in the assessment of the humoraland cell-mediated immune response following pertussis vaccination.Methods and analysisThe primary outcomes for consideration are quality and quantity of immune responses (humoral and cell-mediated) post-pertussis vaccination. Of interest as secondary outcomes are types of immunoassays used in assessing immune responses post-pertussis vaccination, types of biological samples used in assessing immune responses post-pertussis vaccination, as well as the types of antigens used to stimulate these samples during post-pertussis vaccination immune response assessments. Different electronic databases (including PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO Host, Scopus and Web of Science) will be accessed for peer-reviewed published and grey literature evaluating immune responses to pertussis vaccines between 1990 and 2019. The quality of included articles will be assessed using standardised risk and quality assessment tools specific to the study design used in each article. Data extraction will be done using a data extraction form. The extracted data will be analysed using STATA V.14.0 and RevMan V.5.3 software. A subgroup analysis will be conducted based on the study population, type of vaccine (wP or aP) and type of immune response (cell-mediated or humoral). Guidelines for reporting systematic reviews in the revised 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement will be used in this study.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for this study as it is a systematic review. We will only make use of data already available in the public space. Findings will be reported via publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at scientific meetings and workshops.Trial registration numberCRD42018102455.

scholarly journals A Randomized Survey of the Preference of Gastroenterologists for a Cochrane Review versus a Traditional Narrative Review

2002 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-21 ◽  
Author(s):  
John WD McDonald ◽  
Jeffrey Mahon ◽  
Kelly Zarnke ◽  
Brian Feagan ◽  
Lorinda Simms ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Analogue Scale ◽  
Cochrane Review ◽  
Narrative Review ◽  
Clinical Scenario ◽  
Primary Research ◽  
Specific Therapy ◽  
Azathioprine Therapy ◽  
Inflammatory Bowel

BACKGROUND: Clinicians often rely on review material rather than analysis of primary research to guide therapy. Systematic reviews use methods to insure thoroughness and to minimize bias, but many clinicians are not familiar with systematic reviews and continue to rely on narrative reviews.OBEJCTIVES: To determine whether a traditional narrative review or a systematic review is perceived to be more useful.METHODS: A clinical scenario (patient with chronic Crohn’s disease considered for azathioprine therapy) was circulated to gastroenterologists, along with a narrative review of therapy (including azathioprine) for inflammatory bowel disease written by an acknowledged expert, or with a systematic Cochrane review of the use of azathioprine for this disease. Whether knowledge of authorship and journal source influences the perception of usefulness of a narrative review was investigated.RESULTS: The Cochrane review was rated significantly more highly than the narrative review on a 100 mm visual analogue scale (21.3 mm; 95% CI 14.5 to 28 mm). The proportion of respondents who considered the review to be a useful guide was also higher in the group that received the Cochrane review (91%) than in the group that received the narrative review, with author and journal concealed (62%) or identified (70%) (P<0.001 for both comparisons). Ratings from the two groups that received the narrative review were not significantly different.CONCLUSIONS: The focused systematic review was perceived to be more useful than a traditional broad narrative review as a guide to making a decision concerning the use of specific therapy. The possible strengths of systematic reviews should be more fully investigated. If there is additional evidence supporting their greater value to clinicians, they should be made more widely available to clinicians and their strengths should be publicized.

scholarly journals Long-term safety of prenatal and neonatal exposure to paracetamol: a protocol for a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. e000907
Author(s):  
Samira Samiee-Zafarghandy ◽  
Katelyn Sushko ◽  
John Van Den Anker
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Knowledge Exchange ◽  
Newborn Infants ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Neonatal Exposure ◽  
Meta Analyses

IntroductionA surge in the use of paracetamol in neonates has resulted in growing concerns about its potential long-term adverse events. In this study, we conduct a systematic review of the long-term safety of prenatal and neonatal exposure to paracetamol in newborn infants.Methods and analysisWe will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute Manual for Evidence Synthesis and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statements to conduct and report this review. We will conduct a systematic search of Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science and Google Scholar for studies with data on long-term adverse events in neonates that were exposed to paracetamol in the prenatal and/or neonatal period. We will not apply language or design limitations. We will use standardised risk of bias assessment tools to perform a quality assessment of each included article.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review will only involve access to publicly available data, and therefore ethical approval will not be required. The results of this study will be communicated to the target audience through peer-reviewed publication as well as other knowledge exchange platforms, such as conferences, congresses or symposia.Trial registrationThe protocol for this systematic review is submitted for registration to international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews (PROSPERO, awaiting registration number).

scholarly journals Nutrition screening and assessment tools for patients with cancer and survivors of cancer: a systematic review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (10) ◽  
pp. e037844
Author(s):  
Marianne Boll Kristensen ◽  
Irene Wessel ◽  
Kim Skov Ustrup ◽  
Karin B Dieperink ◽  
Ann-Dorthe Zwisler ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Hospital Setting ◽  
Post Treatment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Rehabilitation Services ◽  
Publication Date ◽  
Community Based ◽  
Nutrition Screening ◽  
Patients With Cancer

IntroductionNutritional challenges are common consequences of cancer, and they do not only occur in the hospital setting. They are also frequent after completion of treatment, and nutritional interventions in community-based post-treatment rehabilitation services are important. The first step towards initiating any nutritional intervention is to identify the individual in need hereof, but evidence is limited on the applicability of different nutrition screening and assessment tools in the post-treatment rehabilitation services. The aim is to systematically review and identify nutrition screening and assessment tools appropriate for use in patients with cancer and survivors of cancer in hospital or community-based healthcare settings.Methods and analysisIn this systematic review, the electronic databases PubMed, CINAHL Complete and Embase were searched systematically using comprehensive search strategies. Primary searches were carried out in August 2018 with updated searches performed in November 2019. Clinicaltrials.gov and PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews will be searched for additional relevant studies. Studies will be included if they validate a nutrition screening or assessment tool in adult patients with cancer or survivors of cancer. No restriction on publication date will be applied, and full-text articles in English, Danish, Norwegian and Swedish are eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently conduct screening of search results, study selection, data extraction and quality assessment. Data will be synthesised narratively.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical approval is required. Results will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement and published in an international peer-reviewed journal. Furthermore, results will be presented in relevant research and clinical fora to facilitate transfer of results to clinical practice in benefit of patients.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018096678.

scholarly journals Pain assessment for people with dementia: a systematic review of systematic reviews of pain assessment tools

2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentina Lichtner ◽  
Dawn Dowding ◽  
Philip Esterhuizen ◽  
S José Closs ◽  
Andrew F Long ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
People With Dementia

scholarly journals A Comparison of Two Assessment Tools Used in Overviews of Systematic Reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Perry ◽  
Alex Whitmarsh ◽  
Verity Leach ◽  
Philippa Davies
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Substantial Agreement ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

Abstract Background:AMSTAR-2 is a 16-item assessment tool to check the quality of a systematic review and establish whether the most important elements are reported. ROBIS is another assessment tool which was designed to evaluate the level of bias present within a systematic review. Our objective was to compare, contrast and establish both inter-rater reliability and usability of both tools as part of two overviews of systematic reviews. Strictly speaking, one tool assesses methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) and the other assesses risk of bias (ROBIS), but there is considerable overlap between the tools in terms of the signalling questions. Methods:Three reviewers independently assessed 31 systematic reviews using both tools. The inter-rater reliability of all sub-sections using each instrument (AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS) were calculated using Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1 for unweighted analysis and AC2 for weighted analysis).Results:Thirty-one systematic reviews were included. For AMSTAR-2 the median agreement for all questions was 0.61. Eight of the 16 AMSTAR-2 questions had substantial agreement or higher (>0.61). For ROBIS, the median agreement for all questions was also 0.61. Eleven of the 24 ROBIS questions had substantial agreement or higher. Conclusion:ROBIS is an effective tool for assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 is an effective tool at assessing quality. The median agreement between raters for both tools was identical (0.61). Reviews that included a meta-analysis were easier to rate with ROBIS; however, further developmental work could improve its use in reviews without a formal synthesis. AMSTAR-2 was more straightforward to use, however, more response options would be beneficial.

scholarly journals A comparison of two assessment tools used in overviews of systematic reviews: ROBIS versus AMSTAR-2

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Perry ◽  
A. Whitmarsh ◽  
V. Leach ◽  
P. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Assessment Tool ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Substantial Agreement ◽  
Rater Reliability ◽  
Response Options ◽  
Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

Abstract Background AMSTAR-2 is a 16-item assessment tool to check the quality of a systematic review and establish whether the most important elements are reported. ROBIS is another assessment tool which was designed to evaluate the level of bias present within a systematic review. Our objective was to compare, contrast and establish both inter-rater reliability and usability of both tools as part of two overviews of systematic reviews. Strictly speaking, one tool assesses methodological quality (AMSTAR-2) and the other assesses risk of bias (ROBIS), but there is considerable overlap between the tools in terms of the signalling questions. Methods Three reviewers independently assessed 31 systematic reviews using both tools. The inter-rater reliability of all sub-sections using each instrument (AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS) was calculated using Gwet’s agreement coefficient (AC1 for unweighted analysis and AC2 for weighted analysis). Results Thirty-one systematic reviews were included. For AMSTAR-2, the median agreement for all questions was 0.61. Eight of the 16 AMSTAR-2 questions had substantial agreement or higher (> 0.61). For ROBIS, the median agreement for all questions was also 0.61. Eleven of the 24 ROBIS questions had substantial agreement or higher. Conclusion ROBIS is an effective tool for assessing risk of bias in systematic reviews and AMSTAR-2 is an effective tool at assessing quality. The median agreement between raters for both tools was identical (0.61). Reviews that included a meta-analysis were easier to rate with ROBIS; however, further developmental work could improve its use in reviews without a formal synthesis. AMSTAR-2 was more straightforward to use; however, more response options would be beneficial.

scholarly journals A competency framework for librarians involved in systematic reviews

2017 ◽  
Vol 105 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Whitney A. Townsend ◽  
Patricia F. Anderson ◽  
Emily C. Ginier ◽  
Mark P. MacEachern ◽  
Kate M. Saylor ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Clinical Assessment ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Process Management ◽  
Core Competencies ◽  
Assessment Tools ◽  
Communication Research ◽  
Self Assessment

Objective: The project identified a set of core competencies for librarians who are involved in systematic reviews.Methods: A team of seven informationists with broad systematic review experience examined existing systematic review standards, conducted a literature search, and used their own expertise to identify core competencies and skills that are necessary to undertake various roles in systematic review projects.Results: The team identified a total of six competencies for librarian involvement in systematic reviews: “Systematic review foundations,” “Process management and communication,” “Research methodology,” “Comprehensive searching,” “Data management,” and “Reporting.” Within each competency are the associated skills and knowledge pieces (indicators). Competence can be measured using an adaptation of Miller’s Pyramid for Clinical Assessment, either through self-assessment or identification of formal assessment instruments.Conclusions: The Systematic Review Competencies Framework provides a standards-based, flexible way for librarians and organizations to identify areas of competence and areas in need of development to build capacity for systematic review integration. The framework can be used to identify or develop appropriate assessment tools and to target skill development opportunities.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document