Great initiative !

Dr Kamal plz post your initial queries when you had started so it can help beginners trying to begin work in this domain

Sure as I can recall my initial queries were related to selection of key words and fixing the time frame of the review.

Few issues I face.

1. Some articles are not open access

2. Variable key words make difficult to access few articles

3. Statistical tests on basis of heterogeneity and risk of bias to apply if we plan a meta analysis

4. How to calculate risk of bias in above

Dr Kamal, thank you for sharing your initial hiccups. I will just share my experience.

Selection of keywords when we are starting to formulate our search strategy can be by:

1. Searching the topic on google scholar initially and taking the keywords repeated in the articles in the first two pages.

2. Later on, we can go to Pubmed and look for MeSH terminologies for the same.

I would welcome a practical approach to how different researchers do it at their end.

Regarding time frame, we have to be practical and see that good-quality systematic review and meta-analysis would not take less than 6 months. Rest, suggestions are wlecome

Dr Pranavish thank you for sharing your initial hiccups. I will just share my experience.

1. Yes, Dr Pranvish, some articles are not open access, but that is why systematic reviews take time because search has to be comprehensive and many times we need to mail the authors many times to get the full texts.

2. Key words are variable, so we preferably formulate a search that has, MeSH terminologies, which takes care of variation in words, or spellings or multiple entry terms, since it refers to a topic. Besides, we also add free-text terms, short forms to complete our search. But I agree forming a search strategy takes time, I would welcome the practical approach of researchers so we help each other.

3. I agree that statitc=stics is one point where we all get stuck. But one major requirement in Meta-analysis is the presence of a statistician or even someone comfortable with REVMAN software, it makes life simpler.

4. There are various tools for the assessment of Risk of Bias depending on the type of study designs, whether observational, RCTS or non-randomized studies. I welcome inputs from researchers working actively in this field.

Thank you so much Priyanka ma'am

It would be great if people can pour in more queries and the researchers working in these domain can put replies so that we all work towards generating solutions together

Dr Pranavish. Regarding Keywords, MeSh is one way. The other is to check for synonyms that apply closest to your research question. Use basic search strategies like a wild card, boolean logic, quotation marks etc. OVID is another great platform to provide access to Medline, Embase, EBSCO etc but it's a paid database.

Regarding ROB, as Dr Priyanka said the tool depends upon the type of included studies. My suggestion is to a Cochrane tool with the best match. In case you couldn't find one, try another individualized tool from a previously published SR of same type. But beware, the use of a non-validated tool will downgrade the overall quality of your SR.

Thank you Dr Harneet for a very comprehensive reply, truly search is a very broad topic but forms the basis of the whole systematic review.

Search strategy is what I am most jittery about. Two of us in the team did our individual search strategy both were quite different.

Now we have sent it for peer reviewing

We also donot have access to EMBACE. So we are going to work with out it.

Hey Dr Priyanka,

I am just amazed to see how this question of urs will solve so many road blocks of such a wonderful workforce. I am very happy to see our such academic family (Dr Pravnish and Dr Harneet) participating in evidence based publication solutions.

Few things:

1. SHORT CUT: For everyone who is naive in this field and all the above terms (like Cochrane tool, wild card, boolean logic, quotation marks, MeSH etc) might be appearing rocket science to you. lemme share a secret with you... easiest way to jump into systematic review business in "EXPLORE PROSPERO".

Work Flow: a) register in prospero b) explore topic you think you planning to work on c) find something close to it c) see how that topic has been reviewed (specially search strategy, inclusion / exclusion & risk of bias).

Trust me this maze will be cracked ASAP provided you keep nothing pending right away.

2. I think we can design a google form to take queries of these scientists. The form will help us to group and segregate similar problems and stream line FAQs.

Also it can have a link to telegram & WhatsApp group so that broad cast an exemplify solutions can be done.

congratulations for such a passionate leap, I guess it will change the future of Dental evidence in many context.

and I encourage budding scientists to involve us in your work to make best out of our experience and social networking.

3. Request you to share this question in upcoming lectures and workshops, because in due course of time this RG discussion shall be a guide to solve many queries of ppl stuck in reviewing

4. I think ppl dont spend time in data extraction, synthesis and presentation. just keep in mind all the effort is worthless if data that you compiled is not interpreted properly and if possible illustrated too.. for understanding about what I am trying to highlight, do visit our latest Nature venture: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41405-021-00064-7 (check out illustrations )

yours Sincerely,

Dear Dr Pragati,

As per my experience, search strategy requires inputs for both the researchers who will ultimately perform the data extraction, using keywords of both MeSH and free-text terms. Preliminary search of articles reveals a lot of keywords which we can use in our search.

I am slightly confused how you have sent search strategy for peer review? kindly tell.

EMBASE, you can have access from PGI chandigarh, anyone can apply your search for you there, provided oyuor search get finalized first.

We have Scopus and Web of Science in our university also.

Dear Dr Aman

Your reply summarizes quite a few problems and their solutions. Thank you.

1. And yes, we have taken this endeavor of generating interest and providing the necessary skills to perform evidence based research. Hence we are conducting lectures and workshops to present basic steps and skills to initiate scoping or systematic reviews, to make our contribution to creating high quality evidence. I have noticed the strata of audience and the people interested in this science are varied ranging from post graduate students to very experienced faculty. And since, they have varied levels of understanding , their challenges also are different. Hence , by this question, we can compile the challenges of different strata of researchers working in this field, to provide solutions and collaborate and perform.

2. I have also taken your suggestion and am posting this question in all forthcoming lectures and workshops. People are free to join our whatsapp group, if they are keen to work further in this domain. They can send request via this platform so we can share link.

3. We also provide tips based on purely personal experience, like providing illustrations, maintain data records from the very beginning, working on a checklist pattern sticking to few basic steps, for which have applied our mind map for copyright.

I do wish and hope to see this science growing in a systematic , ethical manner and many collaboration seeing the light of the day in near future.

I encourage readers t pos their queries, so we can work on solving them and in due course everyone can benefit.

1.How to choose a suitable topic?

2.How do we conduct a research on databases to which our University does not have access?

Is there a process by which we can apply to external resources?

Is there any checklist available for doing a systematic review?

Dear Mona mam

It is great that you have raised these relevant queries,

1. TOPIC selection is based on FINER criteria, feasibility, novelty and relevance. And how we can look for such topic is by searching the last three latest issues in major journals of our respective fields and the topics getting repeated can determine the relevance (these are practical tips)

2. For databases, we need to create a network, because these are paid costly subscriptions and no university can have access to all. Our university offers, Scopus and web of science, and PGI Chandigarh has access to Embase.

3. We have prepared a mindmap for systematic reviews and sent fo copyright, it serves as a checklist and can make us understand the basic steps to follow.

I usually cover all these topics in my lectures and talks. Will be dealing with these in the lectures tomorrow also. Please do post if you have other queries. So everyone gets benefitted.

Greetings

Congratulations on choosing to conduct a systematic review. It is an intensive process. You need to immerse yourself into it completely to make sense of what you are doing. You and your team have to put in a lot of hard work. Choose members of the team wisely. You will need subject experts, an expert in research methodology, and a good biostatistician. It is good if you undergo training in the process from people who have conducted SRs. CMC Vellore offers workshops for protocol writing and completing SRs.

Choosing a topic - Visit Cochrane database of systematics reviews and PROSPERO to get a drift of what topics are currently trending and also to find out whether someone has already chosen your topic of interest. If you are unknowingly duplicating something that is already in process all your efforts are in vain. You can also search in PUBMED. If your area of interest is already done then do not waste more time on it, look for something else. You can still continue with a fresh review if the published review is at least 5 years old.

A systemic review is intended to answer clinical queries and find best practices. Your topic needs to be of clinical significance. There is no use of directing your efforts in the wrong direction. It will be a pointless exercise.

Type of SR - Once you have decided that you want to conduct a SR, you also need to decide what type of SR you are going to do. Read the Cochrane handbook and Joanna Briggs Manual for SR more information. Read a few SRs in each category to understand the process.

Process - You will find all the information you need in the two handbooks mentioned above.

It is a learning process. You will understand as you go along. You will find plenty of resources online. You will have to keep revisiting the handbooks periodically.

One of the most common problems encountered is the lack of randomized controlled clinical trials and the heterogeneity of the statistical analysis. These create an issue when performing meta analysis on the included studies. Please find the systematic review reference below from our group.

Gandhi V, Mehta S, Gauthier M, et al. Comparison of external apical root resorption with clear aligners and pre-adjusted edgewise appliances in non-extraction cases: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2021;43(1):15-24. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjaa013

Abu Arqub S, Mehta S, Iverson MG, Yadav S, Upadhyay M, Almuzian M. Does Mini Screw Assisted Rapid Palatal Expansion (MARPE) have an influence on airway and breathing in middle-aged children and adolescents? A systematic review. Int Orthod. 2021;19(1):37-50. doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2021.01.004

Thanks Dr Shivam for sharing...it is correct that finding good quality primary research in the form of RCTs is difficult to include in the systematic review. But I feel, one of the major outcomes of systematic review is also to.highlight the limitations in methodology so that future research or RCTs can be planned with a robust methodology ....I feel that component is very important in an SR

Some articles are not open access and not full-text, Variable key words make difficult to access few articles, search strategy, statistical tests on basis of heterogeneity and risk of bias to apply if we plan a meta analysis, choose the right tools to do the risk of bias.

I think systematic review is a subjective research, because when we use different database we also have another results of extraction data

Thank you Kevin for your useful insights.

Actually, systematic review means all evidence has to be retrieved . Personally, I sometimes have to write to the authors multiple times for full texts but mostly they oblige when they know you are doing a systematic review, apart from trying all websites where full texts can be retrieved. Also, the variable keyword is a problem but going through the MesH database gives us almost all words used for the particular term, which we can use during database search other than PubMed also. But in cases where words are not present in MeSH, we need to use all available free-text terms,

In all, the search strategy takes a long time and effort, but once we are able to make it, we can retrieve all related evidence. These are just based on my personal experience with systematic review

Priyanka Kapoor in my opinion the most frequent challenge encountered is, having access to all databases to search.

Best regards

- Dr. Irfan Adil Majid

for that let's all help each other... in case you find any difficulty in accessing databases we have a whatsapp support group.. different institutions have access to different databases which we can extend support for.. you may join if you like

Since sci-hub started, the question of finding full access to paid journals no longer remains. Majority of researchers worldwide use this resource for free but they don't share it.

Dear Dr Syed, I understand Sci-hub solves the majority of issues regarding full texts but still some journals do not open with this site too. In that case, we need to depend on conventional means of requesting librarians or our fellow colleagues or authors themselves.