The Research Sidekick: Elevate Your Research through the SOM Library! - LibGuides at University of the Incarnate Word

Cabells Journalytics Medicine
Your Trusted Guide to Publishing in Reputable Medical Journals

Every month, I hear from someone looking for a credible, reputable journal to publish in. Sometimes they’re ready to submit but unsure where to start; other times, they’ve received an unsolicited email from a journal offering to publish their work. The old saying still holds true: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

It’s essential to be cautious about where you submit your research. If you choose a journal that lacks credibility or is primarily interested in collecting fees, your hard work may never reach the audience it deserves. Experienced researchers know how to spot journals that aren’t worth reading—and if they won’t read them, they won’t cite your work, no matter how strong it is.

Fortunately, UIW Libraries has a powerful tool to help you navigate this landscape: Cabells Journalytics Medicine. This resource can help you evaluate journals, identify reputable publishers, and make informed decisions about where to submit your research. https://app.cabells.com/medicine

Cabells Journalytics Medicine is a curated database and analytical tool that helps medical researchers find and evaluate legitimate medical journals, providing data on publication quality, impact, and potential risks like predatory publishing. It offers integrated "Predatory Reports" to flag unreliable journals and provides tools for comparing journals' metrics, submission guidelines, and open access details to make informed publication decisions.

Additional information on Cabells:

https://cabells.com/solutions/journalytics-medicine

https://cabells.com/our-process

https://cabells.com/solutions/predatory-reports

https://cabells.com/journal-selection

https://cabells.com/predatory-criteria-v1.1

Example of a High-Quality Journal (by Cabells Standards):
Journalytics allows you to filter your search results to include only verified, reputable journals that are considered safe and trustworthy for manuscript submission. This ensures you're targeting publications that meet rigorous standards for credibility and integrity.

A screenshot of a medical search

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a medical journal

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Example of a Predatory Report (per Cabells standards):
Cabells identifies journals that are not credible, reliable, or reputable through its Predatory Reports. These journals often lack transparency, peer review integrity, and ethical publishing practices. Submitting your work to such outlets can jeopardize its visibility, impact, and scholarly value.

A screenshot of a medical search

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Explore Compass AI (Beta) – A New Feature in Cabells
https://app.cabells.com/medicine/compassai

Cabells now offers Compass AI Beta, a tool designed to help you identify reputable journals for your research. While it's still in beta—meaning some features are being refined—it can be a helpful starting point.

Simply paste your abstract into the tool, and Compass AI will analyze your content and suggest reliable, high-quality journals from the Cabells Journalytics database.

CompassAI uses advanced AI to match your research with verified journals, saving you time and helping protect your scholarly reputation.
https://cabells.com/compassai

A screenshot of a computer

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

A screenshot of a medical survey

AI-generated content may be incorrect.

Please continue to reach out to me if you need assistance in this area.

Should you wish for me to present this topic, or any other, to your group or to you individually, please don't hesitate to reach out. I would be glad to assist.

Happy Searching!

Dawn Field, Your UIWSOM Librarian

Recent Posts

The Power of Presentation: Showcasing Your Research

You’ve completed your research—great job! Now comes the next big step: presenting it. Whether you’re creating a poster or putting together a PowerPoint, the way you communicate your findings matters just as much as the research itself.Key Tips for Presenting Your Research (Poster or PowerPoint)Know Your AudienceAvoid talking down to or going over their heads.Adjust your language and level of detail based on their knowledge.Professional AppearanceEnsure your poster or slides look polished and organized.Include your name, credentials, affiliation, email, and date on your PowerPoint.Dress professionally, regardless of the audience.Check the Presentation SpaceVisit the room beforehand, especially for PowerPoint presentations.Understand the setup and equipment available.Follow Organizer GuidelinesConfirm if they require: Pre-recorded presentations (and in what format).PowerPoint submission in advance (and by what deadline).Specific poster dimensions—stick to them.Know whether you’ll present on Mac or Windows, practice on the correct system.Enhance AccessibilityUse clear fonts and appropriate colors.Include white space for readability.Avoid unnecessary clip art or images—only use visuals that add value.Content TipsKeep text concise; use bullet points instead of long paragraphs.Organize your content logically.Have someone proofread for spelling and grammar errors.Engagement & PreparationPractice your PowerPoint and Poster in front of others for clarity and timing.Arrange for someone to ask the first question you know the answer to—it helps break the ice.Leave time for questions at the end.For posters, prepare answers to likely questions.Technical ReadinessBring your PowerPoint in multiple formats (flash drive, email, the cloud).Test videos and internet connectivity in advance.Expect the unexpected—always have a backup plan.Extra ResourcesConsider handouts or a QR code for additional information.Keep these tips in mind whether you are doing Grand Rounds, Journal Club Presentation, Paper or Poster presentation at a conference/meeting, or at a Research Day. All of the tips will help you in some way.Answer these three questions before you start your poster or PowerPoint presentation design:What is the most important/interesting/astounding finding from my research project?How can I visually share my research with conference attendees? Should I use charts, graphs, photos, images?What kind of information can I convey during my talk that will complement my poster?Graphic Design research guide from University of Delaware – some great available content on poster design https://guides.lib.udel.edu/design/homeGoes over color schemes:https://guides.lib.udel.edu/design/colorOver accessibility:https://guides.lib.udel.edu/design/accessibilityOver images:https://guides.lib.udel.edu/design/imagesNew type of Poster design from the University of Delaware research guide: (https://guides.lib.udel.edu/design/research-poster)I agree with the presenter’s description of a poster session. Not sure the new type of design will work out but I like that we see the conclusion up front and central.Title: Dos and Don'ts of Designing a Research Poster by University of Guleph Library by Mike Morrison, PhD is licensed under a CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 international license. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RwJbhkCA58Templates of the new design: (https://osf.io/ef53g/files/6ua4k)Poster making software: PowerPoint (Windows and MAC)Adobe Illustrator, Photoshop, or InDesign (if available) Microsoft 365 Copilot (if available) Google Docs – includes a Google Slides Poster Template Slides from a presentation I did on PowerPoint Presentations:Link to 5-5-5 Rule Link to The Golden Rules of Presentation DesignFonts and colorsOrganizing your content. What looks better and gets your point across faster?Link to 10 Bad PowerPoint Slides Examples to AvoidLink to Ten simple rules for effective presentation slidesLink to Susan McConnell (Stanford): Designing effective scientific presentations DisclaimersProfessors often include a lot of information on their slides, so you have comprehensive material to study from. Otherwise, you’d need to take more detailed notes. This isn’t wrong—it’s simply a different approach. Teaching and presenting serve different purposes.Information here is not meant to compete with your advisors or mentors. If they have specific requirements or preferences, always follow their guidance.Skeleton presenting to other skeletons was make by Microsoft 365 Copilot.Please continue to reach out to me if you need assistance in this area. Should you wish for me to present this topic, or any other, to your group or to you individually, please don't hesitate to reach out. I would be glad to assist. Happy Searching! Dawn Field, Your UIWSOM Librarian...

Trust but Verify: Resources for Evaluating Scholarly Journals, Publishers, and Retracted Articles.

This post builds on last month’s overview of Cabells Journalytics Medicine. In addition to Cabells, there are several other valuable resources available to help evaluate the credibility of journals and publishers, as well as track article retractions. This post highlights those tools and how they can support informed research decisions.! THINK √CHECK >SUBMIT– https://thinkchecksubmit.orgUse their Think, Check and Submit questions to make sure you are choosing a trusted journal and books. Evaluating Journals - Web of Science – Journal Citation Reports –https://www.webofscience.com/wos/woscc/basic-searchCons – Only searches the journals indexed by Web of ScienceTo Start: go from Library Homepage (https://libguides.uiwtx.edu/c.php?g=1323635&p=97398930)Databases/Website tab > scroll down Medical Databases/Websites box in the middle and click on Web of Science Core Collection link. On the top right hand corner of the page next to small squares it says Products, click on small squares and scroll down to find Journal Citation Reports (https://jcr.clarivate.com/jcr/home?app=jcr&Init=Yes&authCode=null&SrcApp=IC2LS) and click on it. On this page, search for a journal name, ISSN, categories or JCR abbreviation to find out more about it.Journal Citation Reports (JCR) is a subscription-based tool from Clarivate that provides citation data and impact metrics for thousands of journals. This helps you understand a journal's influence in its field.Webpage tutorial for Journal Citation Reports: Learn the Basics - http://clarivate.libguides.com/jcrMaster Journal List (Clarivate): A free resource that allows you to search and compare journals indexed in the Web of Science. These journals are carefully selected for high editorial standards. https://mjl.clarivate.com/home PubMed NLM catalog - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nlmcatalog/ Cons – Only searches the journals indexed by Medline, PubMed Central, PubMed and other NCBI databasesTo start: Go to Library homepage and click on PubMed in the right-hand side of page. Search in search box using your title. Change the drop down to NLM catalog. Then when your results open, click on Journals referenced in the NCBI Databases on the left side of the page. Read through the page that either opens for your title or you click on to open if it says Access not provided by NLM, Not in NLM, not currently indexed for MEDLINE or Not in NLM collection then it is not indexed by PubMed and doesn’t meet the criteria that PubMed requires to be in its collection. Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) - https://doaj.org/ A reputable directory that vets and indexes high-quality, open-access journals. Inclusion in the DOAJ is a strong indicator of an open-access journal's legitimacy. Journal Guide - https://www.journalguide.com/https://journalguide.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/journalguideverifiedwhitepaper-9-9.pdfIt is a free tool that helps researchers to evaluate scholarly journals. In addition to searching by journal name, category or publisher, authors can use the title and abstract of a paper to discover journals that have already published articles on similar topics. By matching journals to a paper’s content, researchers can see which journals would be most likely to have interest in their story. Ulrichsweb Global Serials Directory - https://ulrichsweb.serialssolutions.com/This comprehensive database provides information on over 300,000 periodicals, including details on peer-review status, publisher, and indexing. JANE (Journal/Author Name Estimator) - https://jane.biosemantics.org/A free tool that suggests journals, authors, or related articles by comparing your submitted text to documents in the PubMed database. Elsevier Journal Finder - https://journalfinder.elsevier.com/?elsevierOnly=true&fieldsOfResearch=&goldOpenAccess=true&keywords=&paperAbstract=investigating%20findings%20of%20autisim%20and%20down%20syndrome%20in%20infants%20during%20covid&paperTitle=did%20Covid%20increase%20Autisim%20diagnosis%20in%20infants&subscription=trueThis tool uses an abstract and title to recommend suitable journals published by Elsevier. Springer Nature Journal Suggester - https://link.springer.com/journals Provides a list of matching journals from the Springer Nature and BMC library based on your manuscript details. Evaluating Publishers – Cope (Committee on Publication Ethics) – https://publicationethics.orgCOPE offers guidelines and resources to promote ethical publishing practices. Verifying that a publisher is a member of COPE is a good sign of their legitimacy. Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association(OASPA) - https://oaspa.org/ Check to see if the publisher of the journal you are looking at are a member of this association. All their members undergo a strict initial review procedure and must then continue to exemplify high standards to remain part of OASPA. To start: Top of the page hover over the Membership and use the down arrow on Membership tab and then click on Current Members to give you a full list. Open Policy Finder - https://openpolicyfinder.jisc.ac.uk/Open Policy Finder is an online tool that serves as a centralized database of open access (OA) policies for publishers, funders, and journals worldwide. It provides clear summaries of copyright, archiving, and publication requirements, helping authors, librarians, and researchers make informed decisions about OA compliance by streamlining the process of finding and understanding complex policies from a single source. Evaluating Articles -Retraction Watch Database - https://retractiondatabase.org/RetractionSearch.aspxIs a journalism organization and database tracking the retraction of scientific papers, offering tools like a searchable database and a Hijacked Journal Checker, and providing news and analysis on research integrity. Since its acquisition by Crossref in 2023, the database is publicly available and contains over 60,000 retractions of scientific publications, updated daily. Retraction Watch Hijacked Journals Checker – DO NOT click on any of the links on this google doc. Just for your information. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ak985WGOgGbJRJbZFanoktAN_UFeExpE/edit?gid=5255084#gid=5255084What a retracted article looks like in PubMed: What a retracted article looks like in Web of Science: What a retracted article looks like in Cinahl Complete: What a retracted article looks like in Cochrane Library: What a retracted article looks like in PsycInfo: What a retracted article looks like in SPORTDiscus with Full Text: If you click the article over into LibKey, you will see a lot more information: Please continue to reach out to me if you need assistance in this area. Should you wish for me to present this topic, or any other, to your group or to you individually, please don't hesitate to reach out. I would be glad to assist. Happy Searching! Dawn Field, Your UIWSOM Librarian ...

Cabells Journalytics Medicine: Your Trusted Guide to Publishing in Reputable Medical Journals.

Cabells Journalytics MedicineYour Trusted Guide to Publishing in Reputable Medical JournalsEvery month, I hear from someone looking for a credible, reputable journal to publish in. Sometimes they’re ready to submit but unsure where to start; other times, they’ve received an unsolicited email from a journal offering to publish their work. The old saying still holds true: If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.It’s essential to be cautious about where you submit your research. If you choose a journal that lacks credibility or is primarily interested in collecting fees, your hard work may never reach the audience it deserves. Experienced researchers know how to spot journals that aren’t worth reading—and if they won’t read them, they won’t cite your work, no matter how strong it is.Fortunately, UIW Libraries has a powerful tool to help you navigate this landscape: Cabells Journalytics Medicine. This resource can help you evaluate journals, identify reputable publishers, and make informed decisions about where to submit your research. https://app.cabells.com/medicineCabells Journalytics Medicine is a curated database and analytical tool that helps medical researchers find and evaluate legitimate medical journals, providing data on publication quality, impact, and potential risks like predatory publishing. It offers integrated "Predatory Reports" to flag unreliable journals and provides tools for comparing journals' metrics, submission guidelines, and open access details to make informed publication decisions.Additional information on Cabells:https://cabells.com/solutions/journalytics-medicinehttps://cabells.com/our-processhttps://cabells.com/solutions/predatory-reportshttps://cabells.com/journal-selectionhttps://cabells.com/predatory-criteria-v1.1Example of a High-Quality Journal (by Cabells Standards):Journalytics allows you to filter your search results to include only verified, reputable journals that are considered safe and trustworthy for manuscript submission. This ensures you're targeting publications that meet rigorous standards for credibility and integrity.Example of a Predatory Report (per Cabells standards):Cabells identifies journals that are not credible, reliable, or reputable through its Predatory Reports. These journals often lack transparency, peer review integrity, and ethical publishing practices. Submitting your work to such outlets can jeopardize its visibility, impact, and scholarly value. Explore Compass AI (Beta) – A New Feature in Cabellshttps://app.cabells.com/medicine/compassaiCabells now offers Compass AI Beta, a tool designed to help you identify reputable journals for your research. While it's still in beta—meaning some features are being refined—it can be a helpful starting point.Simply paste your abstract into the tool, and Compass AI will analyze your content and suggest reliable, high-quality journals from the Cabells Journalytics database.CompassAI uses advanced AI to match your research with verified journals, saving you time and helping protect your scholarly reputation.https://cabells.com/compassai Please continue to reach out to me if you need assistance in this area. Should you wish for me to present this topic, or any other, to your group or to you individually, please don't hesitate to reach out. I would be glad to assist. Happy Searching! Dawn Field, Your UIWSOM Librarian ...

Mastering Literature Reviews: Choosing the Right Type.

Literature Review TypesEach semester, students visit my office expressing interest in conducting a systematic review. However, a full systematic review usually requires a well-trained team and can take anywhere from 1 to 2 years to complete—far more time than most students have available.For reference, here are key resources on the Systematic Review process:Steps for writing a systematic reviewCochrane Handbooks for different types of systematic reviewsWhat is a systematic review? Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approachExample - Stiff Landings, Core Stability, and Dynamic Knee Valgus: A Systematic Review on Documented Anterior Cruciate Ligament Ruptures in Male and Female Athletes.Systematic reviews are a family of reviews using rigorous methodologies, with common types including standard Systematic Reviews, which provide a comprehensive overview of a topic; Scoping Reviews, which map the breadth of a topic’s literature; Rapid Reviews, which use expedited methods for urgent questions; Meta-analyses, which combine quantitative data to produce a single effect estimate; and Umbrella Reviews, which synthesize findings from multiple systematic reviews.Given the number of questions I receive, I thought it would be helpful to highlight some different types of literature reviews—including the “mini-systematic review.” Until recently, I wasn’t aware this was a recognized type, but it seems to be gaining traction for certain purposes.Before beginning your research, visit PubMed and search for articles that align with the type of review you intend to conduct (e.g., systematic review, scoping review, narrative review). This will help you better understand the structure, expectations, and scope of that review type—and confirm whether it’s the right fit for your research goals. You’ll find an overview of the mini-systematic steps at the bottom of this blog.___________________________________________________See additional review types in the Libguide listed below.UIW Medical Library Literature Review types – scroll to the bottom of that page.Review type: Critical Review - StepsWrite a Critical Review of a Scientific Journal ArticleWriting a Critical ReviewExample - Lateral Patellar Dislocation: A Critical Review and Update of Evidence-Based Rehabilitation Practice Guidelines and Expected Outcomes Time – 6-18 months, 1 or more people.Critical review: This approach involves a detailed analysis and critique of existing literature, suitable for a solo researcher with deep subject-matter expertise.Purpose: To evaluate the strengths, weaknesses, and contradictions in the literature and offer a critical perspective.Methodology: Involves detailed analysis and assessment of research credibility.Best for: Challenging established assumptions and opening new research avenues._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Review type: Literature Review/Overview/Narrative Review - StepsSteps in the Literature Review ProcessNarrative ReviewsExample - Magnesium and Fibromyalgia: A Literature ReviewTime – 1-3 months or longerNarrative review: This is the most common type of literature review and is well-suited for a single author.Purpose: Summarizes existing literature to provide a broad overview, context for a research topic, and identify gaps.Methodology: Less structured and more flexible than other types, relying on the author's expertise and judgment to select and interpret research.Best for: Exploring new or complex topics, providing background for a larger paper, or gaining a general understanding of a subject._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Review type: Mapping Review/Systematic Map - StepsAccess to primary and community health-care services for people 16 years and over with intellectual disabilities: a mapping and targeted systematic review. Chp 2: The mapping review methods.Example - Mapping current research trends on neuromuscular risk factors of non-contact ACL injury.Time – 6-12 months or longer takes a team_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Review type: Meta-analysis - StepsTen simple rules for carrying out and writing meta-analyses.A step by step guide for conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis with simulation data.Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis: A Guide for Beginners.Example - Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS): systematic review and meta-analysis of measurement properties.Time – Several month to several years takes a team_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Review type: Rapid Review – StepsRapid Review ProtocolRapid Review GuidebookRapid literature review: definition and methodologyRapid ReviewsExample - A rapid review of the impact of COVID-19 on the mental health of healthcare workers: implications for supporting psychological well-being.Time – approx. 6 months, 1 or more people.Rapid review: This expedited approach prioritizes speed over exhaustive coverage and is manageable for one person under time constraints.Purpose: To provide timely insights for decision-making by quickly synthesizing relevant research.Methodology: Involves a simplified systematic process, which may mean using a narrower search or limiting the number of databases.Best for: Urgent policy or practice-based questions where a comprehensive, systematic review is not feasible._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _Review type: Scoping review – StepsSteps for Conducting a Scoping ReviewScoping ReviewsSystematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach.What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences.Example - Double-Leg and Single-Leg Jump Test Reference Values for Athletes With and Without Anterior Cruciate Ligament Reconstruction Who Play Popular Pivoting Sports, Including Soccer and Basketball: A Scoping Review Time – 6-12 months, 1 or more people.Scoping review: This type of review aims to map the key concepts and extent of research on a broad topic, rather than answering a specific question.Purpose: To explore the range and nature of research, clarify concepts, and identify gaps in the literature.Methodology: Systematic in its searching but does not require a quality assessment of included studies.Best for: Preliminary research on a new topic or before undertaking a full systematic review._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __Review type: Umbrella review – StepsTen simple rules for conducting umbrella reviewsUmbrella ReviewsExample - Effectiveness of multicomponent lower extremity injury prevention programmes in team-sport athletes: an umbrella review Time – several months to a year depending on what type it is, recommended to have at least 2 people or more.______________________________________________________Mini Systematic review – What is it?A mini-systematic review provides a concise summary of recent research on a specific topic, typically with a narrower scope than a full systematic review.It focuses on a single question and often utilizes a limited number of databases and a shorter timeframe for the literature search.The goal is to provide a focused and updated overview of the evidence in a given area, particularly useful when there are limited resources or time constraints. Key differences from a full systematic reviewScope: Mini-systematic reviews typically address a single question or a very focused area, while full systematic reviews often cover multiple questions and a broader scope.Databases: Mini-systematic reviews may utilize a limited number of databases, whereas full systematic reviews strive to be more comprehensive by searching a wider range of databases.Timeframe: Mini-systematic reviews often focus on a limited timeframe of publications, while full systematic reviews aim to synthesize all valid evidence regardless of publication date.Resources: Mini-systematic reviews are often conducted with limited resources, such as those available to a postgraduate student. When is it appropriate?Mini-systematic reviews are useful in situations where a full systematic review may not be feasible or necessary, such as:Emerging or rapidly evolving fields: When there's a need to quickly synthesize recent findings on new or rapidly changing topics.Limited resources or time: When time and resources are constrained, but a systematic approach to literature review is still desired.Initial assessment of a topic: To help determine if a topic is amenable to a full systematic review or to organize and direct the approach for future research.Updating existing knowledge: To provide an updated overview of key areas and address gaps or inconsistencies in the literature. ConsiderationsWhile mini-systematic reviews are designed to be concise, it's crucial to maintain rigor and transparency in the methodology to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings.The limitations of the narrower scope and timeframe should be acknowledged and discussed when interpreting the results. In essence, a mini-systematic review is a valuable tool for summarizing evidence in a focused and timely manner, especially when a full systematic review is not practicable. However, authors should be mindful of the trade-offs between scope and rigor, and clearly articulate the methodology employed to ensure transparency and reproducibility. Key disadvantage One key disadvantage of conducting a mini-systematic review (also known as a mini-review) in medicine is the potential for increased bias and reduced comprehensiveness compared to a full systematic review.Mini-systematic review steps:1. Define the Research Question: Start with a clear, focused research question, often framed using PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) framework. Consider the scope and feasibility of a mini review, ensuring the question is answerable within the constraints of a smaller review. Conduct preliminary searches to identify existing reviews and refine the question. 2. Develop a Protocol: Create a detailed protocol outlining the review's objectives, inclusion/exclusion criteria, search strategy, data extraction forms, and quality assessment methods. This protocol serves as a roadmap and ensures consistency throughout the review process. Consider registering the protocol with a registry like PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews). 3. Search for Relevant Studies: Conduct comprehensive searches of relevant databases (e.g., PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, CINAHL Complete).Develop a search strategy using keywords and MeSH terms relevant to the research question. Consider searching grey literature (e.g., conference abstracts, theses) to minimize publication bias. 4. Select Studies: Apply the predefined inclusion/exclusion criteria to the retrieved citations. Screen titles and abstracts, then full-text articles to identify eligible studies. Document the selection process using a PRISMA flow diagram. 5. Extract Data: Develop a data extraction form based on the review's objectives and the protocol. Extract relevant information from included studies, such as study characteristics, participant demographics, interventions, outcomes, and risk of bias assessments. Consider using a data extraction tool to facilitate this process. 6. Assess Study Quality: Evaluate the methodological quality of included studies using validated tools (e.g., Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, AMSTAR 2). Assess potential sources of bias and limitations in each study. Document the quality assessment process and results. 7. Synthesize the Evidence: Synthesize the findings of the included studies, either qualitatively or quantitatively (e.g., meta-analysis). Consider using forest plots or other visual aids to present the results. Assess the consistency and strength of the evidence. 8. Report the Findings: Write a concise and clear report of the review, including the methods, results, and conclusions. Use the PRISMA guidelines to structure the report. Consider writing a plain language summary for a broader audience.Mini-review: CriteriaIntroduction to Mini-ReviewExample - Vestibular Rehabilitation Effectiveness for Adults With Mild Traumatic Brain Injury/Concussion: A Mini-Systematic ReviewTime – several months, 1 or more people.______________________________________________________Once you have a clearer idea of the type of review you’d like to pursue, please come see me so we can discuss the next steps together.Should you wish for me to present this topic, or any other, to your group or to you individually, please don’t hesitate to reach out. I would be glad to assist.Happy Searching! Dawn Field, Your UIWSOM Medical Informatics Librarian...

Cabells Journalytics Medicine: Your Trusted Guide to Publishing in Reputable Medical Journals.

Leave a comment