OSH EVIDENCE – CLEARINGHOUSE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS 2009-2015

Leader:
FIOH – Jos Verbeek, jos.verbeek@ttl.fi

Partners:
BAuA, IFA, INAIL, INSST, NFA, TNO

Collaborative partners:
University Dresden (Germany), University Bologna (Italy)

Target groups:
Researchers, stakeholders and professionals in OSH.

 


former PEROSH Coordinator – Daniela Treutlein

Aims

The main aim of the OSH Evidence working group was to promote the use of evidence through high quality systematic reviews. So the aim was to collect systematic reviews on occupational health topics and to exchange experiences on any aspect of systematic reviews.
Further objectives were:

  • To facilitate knowledge transfer from scientific research into policy making by making systematic reviews available from many different sources and presenting them in a systematic way
  • To coordinate the conducting of systematic reviews in the field of occupational health and safety to prevent duplication of work
  • To bring together expertise in this area to improve the quality and the usability of systematic reviews

 

The working group developed a methodology, built up a database on systematic reviews on OSH topics, made workshops and gave presentations on international conferences.

After the Perosh project OSH Evidence ended in 2015, the following outputs were summarized in order to make the work of the OSH Evidence group available for everybody. We hope that these outputs are helpful for OSH professionals for the future.

Any supplements are welcome! annette.nold@dguv.de

Project summary Download full description of the project

Presentations The project members presented their work on several conferences

Report Priority setting for future OSH research

 

Outputs

The OSH Evidence working group developed a method paper for recommendations on:
• Systematic literature searches for OSH topics (relevant databases and search strategies)
• Quality criteria for quality assessment of systematic reviews
There are other institutions working on recommendations on literature searches in general or specific for databases, e.g.

Checklist: What makes a good literature search?

PubMed: Online Training

Embase: Searching with Embase

In order to assess the quality of the systematic reviews selected from literature searches, a grading system was developed. The OSH Evidence working group took standard checklists used in evidence based medicine and adapted them for usage for systematic reviews in OSH.
The checklists used for OSH Evidence are:
R-AMSTAR and SIGN

The OSH Evidence working group developed a database for easy access to systematic reviews on topics in occupational safety and health. The topics were defined as research questions ( e.g. „Do occupational risks lead to the carpal tunnel syndrome?“) and the referring systematic reviews were searched and graded according to the quality assessment in the method paper.
Systematic reviews on 27 topics were collected and are presented in the database. Details on literature searches and quality assessment for each topic are documented in the referring „Search documentation form“.
In spite of the database is not maintained anymore, the list of systematic reviews and the referring documents can be helpful for update literature searches.

There are many literature databases relevant for occupational safety and health topics. The OSH Evidence working group summarized the databases, ranking by relevance. Those databases can be helpful for searching literature on primary studies and reviews.

Database: MEDLINE
/PubMed
Producer: National Library of Medicine, U.S.
Fees: No
Comments: Largest medical literature database worldwide, international journals, medical and related topics, comprehensive thesaurus MESH (Medical Subject Headings), smart retrieval

Database: EMBASE, Different providers, e.g. STN
Producer: Elsevier B. V.
Fees: Yes
Comments: Medical and health related topics, international journals with European focus, thesaurus

Database: Cochrane Work
Producer: FIOH, Finland
Fees: No
Comments: Reviews on interventions in prevention and treatment of occupational or work-related diseases, injuries and disorders; part of the Cochrane Library.

Database: NIOSHTIC 2
Producer: NIOSH, U.S.
Fees: No
Comments: bibliographic database of occupational safety and health publications, documents, grant reports, and other communication products supported in whole or in part by NIOSH

Database: HSELINE, different providers
Producer: HSE, U.K.
Fees: Yes
Comments: bibliographic database of occupational safety and health publications

Database: Cochrane Library
Producer: Cochrane Collaboration
Fees: No
Comments: Systematic reviews on interventions in medicine and health care, evidence based medicine. Title and abstracts for free, full text is subject to fees

Database: CRD databases: Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and NHS Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED)
Producer: University of York, Center for Reviews and Dissemination
Fees: No
Comments: Medical reviews, updates ended March 2015

Database: CINAHL
Producer: EBSCO Publishing
Fees: No
Comments: nursing and allied health literature, 4 databases

Database: CISDOC
Producer: ILO
Fees: No
Comments: international, multilingual database provides references to all aspects of health and safety with an emphasis on training and policy documents from various countries

Database: Systematic reviews in OSH
Producer: Institute of Work and Health, Canada
Fees: No
Comments: Reviews mainly about MSD, Cochrane Back Review Group at the IWH

Database: TOXNET databases
Producer: National Library of Medicine, U.S.
Fees: No
Comments: A cluster of databases on toxicology, hazardous chemicals, and related areas

Database: EMF-PORTAL
Producer: University Aachen, Germany
Fees:
No
Comments:
Scientific research data on the effects of electromagnetic fields (EMF) in English and German (literature, measurement, technology, effects, limit values, glossary, links etc.).

Database: Databases of the European Union Observatory for Nanomaterials (EUON)
Comments: NanoData, a knowledge base on nano science and technology and the eNanoMapper that helps you find safety information about nanomaterials.

Database: PsychINFO, different providers
Producer: American Psychological Association
Fees: Yes
Comments: International literature on psychology and related fields

Database: PSYNDEX, provider DIMDI
Producer: ZPID, Germany
Fees: Yes
Comments: English and German literature on psychology topics

Database: Several databases in the SAFETY cluster, provider: STN
Producer: Cambridge Scientific Abstracts
Fees: Yes
Comments: Bibliographic database with mainly safety topics

Database: Several databases, provider: WTi Frankfurt
Producer: wti, Germany
Fees: Yes
Comments: Bibliographic databases on technology and management

Database: BAUA 
Literature, use WebOPAC
Producer: BAuA, Germany
Fees: No
Comments: German and international literature on occupational safety and health

Database: IFA publications
Producer: IFA, Germany
Fees: No
Comments: Publications of the IFA institute

Database: ScienceDirect
Fees: No
Comments: Online search

Database: Google Scholar
Fees: No
Comments: Online search

Database: NoRa
Fees: No
Comments: Search tool for standards in OSH

Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jan;10(1):45-53. PubMed PMID: 15667704.

Harbour R, Lowe G, Twaddle S. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network: the first 15 years (1993-2008). J R Coll Physicians Edinb. 2011 Jun;41(2):163-8. PubMed PMID: 21677923.

Hutton B et al.: The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015 Jun 2;162(11):777-84. PubMed PMID: 26030634

Liberati et al.: The PRISMA Statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2005, 6(7): e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

Mattioli et al.: Search strings for study of putative occupational determinants of disease. Occup Environ Med 2010 July; 67(7): 436–443 doi:10.1136/oem.2008.044727

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336-41. PubMed PMID: 20171303.

Schaafsma F. et al.: Developing search strategies in Medline on the occupational origin of diseases. Am J. Ind. Med. 2006; 49:127-137. PubMed PMID: 16362948

Schonstein E, Verbeek JH. Occupational health systematic reviews: An overview.
Work. 2006;26(3):255-8. PubMed PMID: 16720965.

Shea BJ et al.: AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009, 62(10):1013-1020. PubMed PMID: 19230606

Verbeek J et al.: Synthesizing study results in a systematic review. Scand J Work Environ Health. 2012 May;38(3):282-90. PubMed PMID: 22015561.

Verbeek J. The occupational health field in the cochrane collaboration. Ind Health. 2007 Jan;45(1):8-12. PubMed PMID: 17284867.

Verbeek J et al.: A search strategy for occupational health intervention studies. Occup Environment Med 2005; 62: 682-687. PubMed PMID: 16169913

Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB; Hedges Team: EMBASE search strategies achieved high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving methodologically sound systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Jan;60(1):29-33. PubMed PMID: 17161751

Van den Heuvel S, Verbeek J, Nold A, Fishta A, Euler U, Mattioli S: Priority setting for future European OSH research. From research challenge to research questions.
Perosh OSH Evidence working group 2014

AMSTAR: A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews

PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

SIGN: Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.

The Cochrane Collaboration: Reporting Guidelines

PHP Code Snippets Powered By : XYZScripts.com