As the “pause” period in our region extends, it’s more important than ever for everyone to stay active as best they can to maintain their optimum physical and mental health. There are already published articles appearing in PubMed on this topic – for example these recent papers:

1: Chen P, Mao L, Nassis GP, Harmer P, Ainsworth BE, Li F. Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): The need to maintain regular physical activity while taking precautions. J Sport Health Sci. 2020 Mar;9(2):103-104. doi: 10.1016/j.jshs.2020.02.001. Epub 2020 Feb 4. PubMed PMID: 32099716; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7031771.

2: Jiménez-Pavón D, Carbonell-Baeza A, Lavie CJ. Physical exercise as therapy to fight against the mental and physical consequences of COVID-19 quarantine: Special focus in older people. Prog Cardiovasc Dis. 2020 Mar 24. pii: S0033-0620(20)30063-3. doi: 10.1016/j.pcad.2020.03.009. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 32220590; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC7118448.

3: Altena E, Baglioni C, Espie CA, Ellis J, Gavriloff D, Holzinger B, Schlarb A, Frase L, Jernelöv S, Riemann D. Dealing with sleep problems during home confinement due to the COVID-19 outbreak: practical recommendations from a task force of the European CBT-I Academy. J Sleep Res. 2020 Apr 4. doi:10.1111/jsr.13052. [Epub ahead of print] PubMed PMID: 32246787.

The US Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, has also released some guidance on “Staying Active While Social Distancing”, as has the American College of Sports Medicine. Their “Exercise is Medicine^” initiative has created the Rx for Health series which is available in multiple languages and now includes handouts on: Being Active During the Coronavirus Pandemic and Keeping Children Active During the Coronavirus Pandemic that are intended to be distributed to patients by healthcare providers.

Stay safe, active, and be well everyone – and if you need any research help, just Ask Us!

Regardless:

• Of your physical location – whether you are working from home or on-site at MSK,
• Of what device you are working on – whether you have been issued an MSK laptop or are working on your personal computer,
• If you have set-up VPN, PingID, and ez2Factor or not,
• If you are a clinician or non-clinician,
• If you have worked remotely from home before or not,
• If you need a journal article or book chapter on a specific topic,
  
  …your information and research needs can be met via the MSK Library’s homepage!

Note:  Not all MSK Library’s resources have been converted to electronic formats although our collection development policies favor electronic versions of resources (when available and not cost-prohibitive) – for both books and journals.

Paired with its super-efficient Document Delivery Service (which allows the library to take advantage of both the print and electronic collections of other libraries), the MSK Library is well-positioned to offer a comprehensive digital library experience for the entire MSK community.

Here’s what you need to do if you are NOT on the MSK campus and are NOT using VPN from offsite:

To gain access to the MSK Library’s electronic resources remotely, all you need to do is go to the MSK Library’s homepage at https://library.mskcc.org/ (you can even just Google “MSK Library” to reach it) and then click “Remote Access” located at the top right of your screen.

Enter the requested information and start using resources by launching them from the MSK Library website.

If you have any issues finding or accessing resources, please be sure to Ask Us.

The publication of systematic reviews has been on the rise over the last decade, a trend which has greatly supported evidence based practice. As with most things, however, too much of a good thing likely has a downside. In recent years, multiple authors have brought attention to the fact that the “production of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses has reached epidemic proportions” and that their publication may be in need of some “realignment” – see, for example, this article by John Ioannidis:

Ioannidis JP. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016 Sep;94(3):485-514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210. PMID: 27620683; PMCID: PMC5020151. 

One consequence of all of this has been that many journal publishers are making their manuscript submission requirements and minimum standards for consideration of systematic reviews and meta-analyses a bit more stringent. Below are some examples of requirements authors may come across in a journal’s authors’ instructions for manuscript submission.

It’s now pretty common for journals to not only require the inclusion of a PRISMA Flow diagram, but also the submission of a completed PRISMA checklist.

• For example, from JAMA Oncology’s instructions for authors:
  
  

  “A PRISMA-style flow diagram showing this information should also be included as an online-only supplement. In addition, a completed PRISMA checklist should be submitted for the items completed that apply to systematic reviews (the checklist items that apply to meta-analyses do not need to be completed for systematic reviews without meta-analysis). The checklist will be used during review but will not be published.”

Item no. 5 on the PRISMA checklist asks for information about the existence of a protocol and its registration. Some journals, particularly ones based in Europe, have now actually made prospective registration of the systematic review on PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews, or a similar database, compulsory for acceptance and publication (whereas it generally used to be suggested but optional for most journals).

• From the British Journal of Psychiatry’s instructions for authors:
  
  

  “We require authors to register the protocol for systematic reviews on an accessible, searchable site such as PROSPERO and include the registration number in the abstract. If the review has not been registered, we are unable to consider your submission.”

Even more strict, there are publishers that have started being explicit about the minimum number of papers that should be included in the submitted synthesis in order for them to give it their attention and consideration.

• From the journal Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery‘s instructions for authors:
  
  

  “Systematic Reviews & Meta-Analyses: Systematic reviews or meta-analyses that include ≤10 papers will be rejected without review. Manuscripts that review more than 10 papers but have uncertain conclusions (e.g., fatal heterogeneity of data, conclusions state that data are limited and better studies need to be done) will likely be rejected.”

The take-away: Knowing these journal-specific requirements in advance is useful for planning the systematic review or meta-analysis project. Researchers should consider target journal candidates and review their instructions for authors early on in the process.

For more information, be sure to check out the MSK Library’s Systematic Review Service LibGuide or Ask Us.