overcite: the new newsletter from policyfromscience.com

By: Paul Whaley|April 3, 2017No Comments

This month we are launching overcite, a new newsletter covering the latest developments in systematic review methods in environmental health research.

overcite will be issued monthly. Each newsletter will contain:

brief synopses of the most interesting methodology papers and systematic reviews published in the previous month;
a list of open public consultations to which systematic review researchers working in environmental health may wish to respond;
a list of training courses and workshops which readers may be interested in attending.

The newsletter will be short, to the point, and help the reader keep abreast of the latest developments in the rapidly-evolving field of systematic review methods in environmental health research. It will look like this.

>> Click here to subscribe to overcite. <<

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

News & Research Feed

Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis | Systematic Reviews | Full Text
In this practical guide, we provide an overview of current machine learning methods that have been proposed to expedite evidence synthesis. We also offer guidance on which of these are ready for use, their strengths and weaknesses, and how a systematic review team might go about using them in practice.
Letter re: stratification of meta-analyses based on risk of bias is appropriate and does not induce selection bias - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
We read, “Stratification by quality induces selection bias in a meta-analysis of clinical trials” by Stone et al. [1] with interest. We think that the authors have misunderstood the implications of their findings and that their conclusions could mislead authors of systematic reviews.
Reporting quality in systematic reviews of in vitro studies: a systematic review: Current Medical Research and Opinion: Vol 0, No 0
Out of 7702 search results, 65 SRs were included and evaluated with the PRISMA checklist. Overall, the mean overall quality score of reported items of the PRISMA checklist was 68%. We have noticed an increasing pattern in the numbers of published SRs of in vitro studies over the last 10 years. In contrast, the reporting […]
Risk of bias assessments for blinding of participants and personnel in Cochrane reviews were frequently inadequate
We analyzed judgments for performance bias of 10 429 RCTs included in 718 Cochrane reviews. Overall, 1828 out of 6918 judgments (26%) for performance bias were not in line with the Cochrane Handbook and were therefore considered inadequate.
Assessments of attrition bias in Cochrane systematic reviews are highly inconsistent and thus hindering trial comparability
We found very high inconsistency in methods of appraising risk of attrition bias in recent Cochrane reviews. Systematic review authors need clear guidance about different categories they should assess and judgments for those explanations.