2025
Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial
Rethlefsen M, Schroter S, Bouter L, Kirkham J, Moher D, Ayala A, Blanco D, Brigham T, Nardini H, Kirtley S, Nyhan K, Townsend W, Zeegers M. Improving peer review of systematic reviews and related review types by involving librarians and information specialists as methodological peer reviewers: a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2025, bmjebm-2024-113527. PMID: 40074237, DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2024-113527.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchRisk of biasQuality of reportingIntervention groupSystematic reviewPeer reviewMonths post-studyRandomised controlled trialsSystematic review searchControl groupReview typesPRISMA itemsInformation specialistsPost-peer reviewImprove peer reviewGroup allocationReview searchPost-studyInclusion criteriaStudy enrollmentSecondary outcomesJournal peer review processControlled TrialsPrimary outcomePeer review processAdequate reporting
2020
An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analyses
Hameed I, Demetres M, Tam DY, Rahouma M, Khan FM, Wright DN, Mages K, DeRosa AP, Baltich Nelson B, Pain K, Delgado D, Girardi LN, Fremes SE, Gaudino M. An assessment of the quality of current clinical meta-analyses. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2020, 20: 105. PMID: 32380945, PMCID: PMC7204021, DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-00999-9.Peer-Reviewed Original ResearchConceptsSystematic reviewPreferred Reporting ItemsElectronic search strategyOverall median scoreMeta-analysis characteristicsCochrane HandbookMethodological qualityBackgroundThe objectiveReporting ItemsConclusionThis studyMeta-analysisMedian scoreClinical journalsEarly involvementStrict adherenceScoresMedical librariansInvolvement of librariansInformation specialistsOverall qualityGuidelinesReviewMultiple regressionPRISMAQuality scores
This site is protected by hCaptcha and its Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply