Information retrieval for systematic reviews in food and feed topics: A narrative review

Influenza A virus vaccine research conducted in swine from 1990 to May 2018: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Influenza A viruses of swine (IAV-S) are a global zoonotic and economic concern. Primary control is through vaccination yet a formal evidence map summarizing vaccine research conducted in pigs is not available.

OBJECTIVE

Ten characteristics of English language primary IAV-S vaccine research, conducted at the level of the pig or higher, were charted to identify research gaps, topics for systematic review, and coverage across different publication types.

DESIGN

Six online databases and grey literature were searched, without geographic, population, or study type restrictions, and abstracts screened independently and in duplicate for relevant research published between 1990 and May 2018. Full text data was charted by a single reviewer.

RESULTS

Over 11,000 unique citations were screened, identifying 376 for charting, including 175 proceedings from 60 conferences, and 170 journal articles from 51 journals. Reported outcomes were heterogeneous with measures of immunity (86%, n = 323) and virus detection (65%, n = 246) reported far more than production metrics (9%, n = 32). Study of transmissibility under conditions of natural exposure (n = 7), use of mathematical modelling (n = 11), and autogenous vaccine research reported in journals (n = 7), was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Most research used challenge trials (n = 219) and may have poor field relevance or suitability for systematic review if the purpose is to inform clinical decisions. Literature on vaccinated breeding herds (n = 89) and weaned pigs (n = 136) is potentially sufficient for systematic review. Research under field conditions is limited, disproportionately reported in conference proceedings versus journal articles, and may be insufficient to support systematic review.

Scoping Reviews, Systematic Reviews, and Meta-Analysis: Applications in Veterinary Medicine

Evidence-based decision making is a hallmark of effective veterinary clinical practice. Scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses all are methods intended to provide transparent and replicable ways of summarizing a body of research to address an important clinical or public health issue. As these methods increasingly are being used by researchers and read by practitioners, it is important to understand the distinction between these techniques and to understand what research questions they can, and cannot, address. This review provides an overview of scoping reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analysis, including a discussion of the method and uses. A sample dataset and coding to conduct a simple meta-analysis in the statistical program R also are provided. Scoping reviews are a descriptive approach, designed to chart the literature around a particular topic. The approach involves an extensive literature search, following by a structured mapping, or charting, of the literature. The results of scoping reviews can help to inform future research by identifying gaps in the existing literature and also can be used to identify areas where there may be a sufficient depth of literature to warrant a systematic review. Systematic reviews are intended to address a specific question by identifying and summarizing all of the available research that has addressed the review question. Questions types that can be addressed by a systematic review include prevalence/incidence questions, and questions related to etiology, intervention efficacy, and diagnostic test accuracy. The systematic review process follows structured steps with multiple reviewers working in parallel to reduce the potential for bias. An extensive literature search is undertaken and, for each relevant study identified by the search, a formal extraction of data, including the effect size, and assessment of the risk of bias is performed. The results from multiple studies can be combined using meta-analysis. Meta-analysis provides a summary effect size, and allows heterogeneity of effect among studies to be quantified and explored. These evidence synthesis approaches can provide scientific input to evidence-based clinical decision-making for veterinarians and regulatory bodies, and also can be useful for identifying gaps in the literature to enhance the efficiency of future research in a topic area.

Benchmarking veterinary librarians' participation in systematic reviews and scoping reviews

Objectives

The objectives of this study were to benchmark roles that veterinary librarians at universities and colleges play in systematic reviews (SRs) and scoping reviews that are conducted by faculty and students at their institutions, to benchmark the level of training that veterinary librarians have in conducting SRs, to identify barriers to their participation in SRs, and to identify other types of literature reviews that veterinary librarians participate in.

Methods

Sixty veterinary librarians in universities and colleges in Canada, the United States, England, Scotland, Ireland, Australia, and New Zealand were surveyed online about their roles and training in conducting SRs, barriers to participation in SRs, and participation in other types of literature reviews.

Results

Veterinary librarians’ highest participation was at an advising level in traditional librarian roles as question formulator, database selector, search strategy developer, and reference manager. Most respondents reported pretty good to extensive training in traditional roles and no or some training in less traditional roles. Sixty percent of respondents received few or no requests to participate in SRs, and only half of respondents had participated in SRs as a review team member. Sixty percent of respondents stated that their libraries had no policies regarding librarian roles and participation in SRs.

Conclusions

The surveyed veterinary librarians participated in SRs to a lesser degree than human health sciences librarians, experienced low demand from veterinary faculty and students to participate in SRs, and participated as review team members at significantly lower rates than human health sciences librarians. The main barriers to participation in SRs were lack of library policies, insufficient training, and lack of time.