Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Abou-Setta AM
PROVIDER: S-EPMC5145149 | biostudies-literature | 2016
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review.
Abou-Setta Ahmed M AM Jeyaraman Maya MM Attia Abdelhamid A Al-Inany Hesham G HG Ferri Mauricio M Ansari Mohammed T MT Garritty Chantelle M CM Bond Kenneth K Norris Susan L SL
PloS one 20161208 12
<h4>Introduction</h4>Rapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR.<h4>Methods</h4>Review of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Me ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesOver the last two decades, the number of scoping reviews in core medical education journals has increased by 4200%. Despite this growth, research on scoping reviews provides limited information about their nature, including how they are conducted or why medical educators undertake this knowledge synthesis type. This gap makes it difficult to know where the field stands and may hamper attempts to improve the conduct, reporting and utility of scoping reviews. Thus, this review characterises the nature of medical education scoping reviews to identify areas for improvement and highlight future research opportunities.MethodThe authors searched PubMed for scoping reviews published between 1/1999 and 4/2020 in 14 medical education journals. The authors extracted and summarised key bibliometric data, the rationales given for conducting a scoping review, the research questions and key reporting elements as described in the PRISMA-ScR. Rationales and research questions were mapped to Arksey and O'Malley's reasons for conducting a scoping review.ResultsOne hundred and one scoping reviews were included. On average, 10.1 scoping reviews (SD = 13.1, median = 4) were published annually with the most reviews published in 2019 (n = 42). Authors described multiple reasons for undertaking scoping reviews; the most prevalent being to summarise and disseminate research findings (n = 77). In 11 reviews, the rationales for the scoping review and the research questions aligned. No review addressed all elements of the PRISMA-ScR, with few authors publishing a protocol (n = 2) or including stakeholders (n = 20). Authors identified shortcomings of scoping reviews, including lack of critical appraisal.ConclusionsScoping reviews are increasingly conducted in medical education and published by most core journals. Scoping reviews aim to map the depth and breadth of emerging topics; as such, they have the potential to play a critical role in the practice, policy and research of medical education. However, these results suggest improvements are needed for this role to be fully realised.
| S-EPMC8247025 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe number of umbrella reviews (URs) that compiled systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR-MAs) has increased dramatically over recent years. No formal guidance for assessing the certainty of evidence in URs of meta-analyses exists nowadays. URs of non-interventional studies help establish evidence linking exposure to certain health outcomes in a population. This study aims to identify and describe the methodological approaches for assessing the certainty of the evidence in published URs of non-interventions.MethodsWe searched from 3 databases including PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library from May 2010 to September 2021. We included URs that included SR-MAs of studies with non-interventions. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. We compared URs characteristics stratified by publication year, journal ranking, journal impact factor using Chi-square test.ResultsNinety-nine URs have been included. Most were SR-MAs of observational studies evaluating association of non-modifiable risk factors with some outcomes. Only half (56.6%) of the included URs assessed the certainty of the evidence. The most frequently used criteria is credibility assessment (80.4%), followed by GRADE approach (14.3%). URs published in journals with higher journal impact factor assessed certainty of evidence than URs published in lower impact group (77.1 versus 37.2% respectively, p < 0.05). However, criteria for credibility assessment used in four of the seven URs that were published in top ranking journals were slightly varied.ConclusionsHalf of URs of MAs of non-interventional studies have assessed the certainty of the evidence, in which criteria for credibility assessment was the commonly used method. Guidance and standards are required to ensure the methodological rigor and consistency of certainty of evidence assessment for URs.
| S-EPMC9176806 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:There is increasing recognition that it is good practice to involve stakeholders (meaning patients, the public, health professionals and others) in systematic reviews, but limited evidence about how best to do this. We aimed to document the evidence-base relating to stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews and to use this evidence to describe how stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. METHODS:We carried out a scoping review, following a published protocol. We searched multiple electronic databases (2010-2016), using a stepwise searching approach, supplemented with hand searching. Two authors independently screened and discussed the first 500 abstracts and, after clarifying selection criteria, screened a further 500. Agreement on screening decisions was 97%, so screening was done by one reviewer only. Pre-planned data extraction was completed, and the comprehensiveness of the description of methods of involvement judged. Additional data extraction was completed for papers judged to have most comprehensive descriptions. Three stakeholder representatives were co-authors for this systematic review. RESULTS:We included 291 papers in which stakeholders were involved in a systematic review. Thirty percent involved patients and/or carers. Thirty-two percent were from the USA, 26% from the UK and 10% from Canada. Ten percent (32 reviews) were judged to provide a comprehensive description of methods of involving stakeholders. Sixty-nine percent (22/32) personally invited people to be involved; 22% (7/32) advertised opportunities to the general population. Eighty-one percent (26/32) had between 1 and 20 face-to-face meetings, with 83% of these holding ??4 meetings. Meetings lasted 1 h to ½ day. Nineteen percent (6/32) used a Delphi method, most often involving three electronic rounds. Details of ethical approval were reported by 10/32. Expenses were reported to be paid to people involved in 8/32 systematic reviews. DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION:We identified a relatively large number (291) of papers reporting stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews, but the quality of reporting was generally very poor. Information from a subset of papers judged to provide the best descriptions of stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews provide examples of different ways in which stakeholders have been involved in systematic reviews. These examples arguably currently provide the best available information to inform and guide decisions around the planning of stakeholder involvement within future systematic reviews. This evidence has been used to develop online learning resources. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:The protocol for this systematic review was published on 21 April 2017. Publication reference: Pollock A, Campbell P, Struthers C, Synnot A, Nunn J, Hill S, Goodare H, Watts C, Morley R: Stakeholder involvement in systematic reviews: a protocol for a systematic review of methods, outcomes and effects. Research Involvement and Engagement 2017, 3:9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-017-0060-4 .
| S-EPMC6260873 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority.Study design and settingInterim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided.ResultsBased on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for systematic reviews is highlighted.ConclusionThe Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.
| S-EPMC7557165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCommunity Guide systematic economic reviews provide information on the cost, economic benefit, cost-benefit, and cost-effectiveness of public health interventions recommended by the Community Preventive Services Task Force on the basis of evidence of effectiveness. The number and variety of economic evaluation studies in public health have grown substantially over time, contributing to methodologic challenges that required updates to the methods for Community Guide systematic economic reviews. This paper describes these updated methods.MethodsThe 9-step Community Guide economic review process includes prioritization of topic, creation of a coordination team, conceptualization of review, literature search, screening studies for inclusion, abstraction of studies, analysis of results, translation of evidence to Community Preventive Services Task Force economic findings, and dissemination of findings and evidence gaps. The methods applied in each of these steps are reported in this paper.ResultsTwo published Community Guide reviews, tailored pharmacy-based interventions to improve adherence to medications for cardiovascular disease and permanent supportive housing with housing first to prevent homelessness, are used to illustrate the application of the updated methods. The Community Preventive Services Task Force reached a finding of cost-effectiveness for the first intervention and a finding of favorable cost-benefit for the second on the basis of results from the economic reviews.ConclusionsThe updated Community Guide economic systematic review methods provide transparency and improve the reliability of estimates that are used to derive a Community Preventive Services Task Force economic finding. This may in turn augment the utility of Community Guide economic reviews for communities making decisions about allocating limited resources to effective programs.
| S-EPMC11360950 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective:What roles do librarians and information professionals play in conducting systematic reviews? Librarians are increasingly called upon to be involved in systematic reviews, but no study has considered all the roles librarians can perform. This inventory of existing and emerging roles aids in defining librarians' systematic reviews services. Methods:For this scoping review, the authors conducted controlled vocabulary and text-word searches in the PubMed; Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts; and CINAHL databases. We separately searched for articles published in the Journal of the European Association for Health Information and Libraries, Evidence Based Library and Information Practice, the Journal of the Canadian Heath Libraries Association, and Hypothesis. We also text-word searched Medical Library Association annual meeting poster and paper abstracts. Results:We identified 18 different roles filled by librarians and other information professionals in conducting systematic reviews from 310 different articles, book chapters, and presented papers and posters. Some roles were well known such as searching, source selection, and teaching. Other less documented roles included planning, question formulation, and peer review. We summarize these different roles and provide an accompanying bibliography of references for in-depth descriptions of these roles. Conclusion:Librarians play central roles in systematic review teams, including roles that go beyond searching. This scoping review should encourage librarians who are fulfilling roles that are not captured here to document their roles in journal articles and poster and paper presentations.
| S-EPMC5764593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSensors and digital devices have revolutionized the measurement, collection, and storage of behavioral and physiological data, leading to the new term digital biomarkers.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate the scope of clinical evidence covered by systematic reviews (SRs) of randomized controlled trials involving digital biomarkers.MethodsThis scoping review was organized using the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. With the search limited to English publications, full-text SRs of digital biomarkers included randomized controlled trials that involved a human population and reported changes in participants' health status. PubMed and the Cochrane Library were searched with time frames limited to 2019 and 2020. The World Health Organization's classification systems for diseases (International Classification of Diseases, Eleventh Revision), health interventions (International Classification of Health Interventions), and bodily functions (International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health [ICF]) were used to classify populations, interventions, and outcomes, respectively.ResultsA total of 31 SRs met the inclusion criteria. The majority of SRs studied patients with circulatory system diseases (19/31, 61%) and respiratory system diseases (9/31, 29%). Most of the prevalent interventions focused on physical activity behavior (16/31, 52%) and conversion of cardiac rhythm (4/31, 13%). Looking after one's health (physical activity; 15/31, 48%), walking (12/31, 39%), heart rhythm functions (8/31, 26%), and mortality (7/31, 23%) were the most commonly reported outcomes. In total, 16 physiological and behavioral data groups were identified using the ICF tool, such as looking after one's health (physical activity; 14/31, 45%), walking (11/31, 36%), heart rhythm (7/31, 23%), and weight maintenance functions (7/31, 23%). Various digital devices were also studied to collect these data in the included reviews, such as smart glasses, smartwatches, smart bracelets, smart shoes, and smart socks for measuring heart functions, gait pattern functions, and temperature. A substantial number (24/31, 77%) of digital biomarkers were used as interventions. Moreover, wearables (22/31, 71%) were the most common types of digital devices. Position sensors (21/31, 68%) and heart rate sensors and pulse rate sensors (12/31, 39%) were the most prevalent types of sensors used to acquire behavioral and physiological data in the SRs.ConclusionsIn recent years, the clinical evidence concerning digital biomarkers has been systematically reviewed in a wide range of study populations, interventions, digital devices, and sensor technologies, with the dominance of physical activity and cardiac monitors. We used the World Health Organization's ICF tool for classifying behavioral and physiological data, which seemed to be an applicable tool to categorize the broad scope of digital biomarkers identified in this review. To understand the clinical value of digital biomarkers, the strength and quality of the evidence on their health consequences need to be systematically evaluated.
| S-EPMC9641516 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definition or definitive procedure has not been established. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of scoping reviews in the literature.MethodsA scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in four bibliographic databases and the gray literature to identify scoping review studies. Review selection and characterization were performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.ResultsThe search identified 344 scoping reviews published from 1999 to October 2012. The reviews varied in terms of purpose, methodology, and detail of reporting. Nearly three-quarter of reviews (74.1%) addressed a health topic. Study completion times varied from 2 weeks to 20 months, and 51% utilized a published methodological framework. Quality assessment of included studies was infrequently performed (22.38%).ConclusionsScoping reviews are a relatively new but increasingly common approach for mapping broad topics. Because of variability in their conduct, there is a need for their methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of evidence.
| S-EPMC4491356 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHistorically, Indigenous voices have been silent in health research, reflective of colonial academic institutions that privilege Western ways of knowing. However, Indigenous methodologies and methods with an emphasis on the active involvement of Indigenous peoples and centering Indigenous voices are gaining traction in health education and research. In this paper, we map each phase of our scoping review process and weave Indigenous research methodologies into Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework for conducting scoping reviews.MethodsGuided by an advisory circle consisting of Indigenous Knowledge Keepers and allied scholars, we utilized both Indigenous and Western methods to conduct a scoping review. As such, a circle of Knowledge Keepers provided guidance and informed our work, while our methods of searching and scoping the literature remained consistent with PRISMA-ScR guidelines. In keeping with an Indigenous methodology, the scoping review protocol was not registered allowing for an organic development of the research process.ResultsWe built upon Arksey and O'Malley's 5-stages and added an additional 3 steps for a combined 8-stage model to guide our research: (1) Exploration and Listening, (2) Doing the Groundwork, (3) Identifying and Refining the Research Question, (4) Identifying Relevant Studies, (5) Study Selection, (6) Mapping Data, (7) Collating, Summarizing and Synthesizing the Data, and lastly, (8) Sharing and Making Meaning. Engagement and listening, corresponding to Arksey and O'Malley (2005)'s optional "consultation stage," was embedded throughout, but with greater intensity in stages 1 and 8.ConclusionAn Indigenous approach to conducting a scoping review includes forming a team with a wide array of experience in both Indigenous and Western methodologies, meaningful Indigenous representation, and inclusion of Indigenous perspectives to shape the analysis and presentation of findings. Engaging Indigenous peoples throughout the entire research process, listening, and including Indigenous voices and perspectives is vital in reconciliation research, producing both credible and useable information for both Indigenous communities and academia. Our Indigenous methodology for conducting a scoping review can serve as a valuable framework for summarizing Indigenous health-related research.
| S-EPMC11247733 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Plain english summaryCochrane is the largest international producer of systematic reviews of clinical trial evidence. We looked for published evidence that reports where consumers (patients and the public) have been involved in Cochrane systematic reviews, and also in reviews published by other organisations.We found 36 studies that reported about consumer involvement either in individual systematic reviews, or in other organisations. The studies showed that consumers were involved in reviews in a range of different ways: coordinating and producing reviews, making reviews more accessible, and spreading the results of reviews ("knowledge transfer"). The most common role was commenting on reviews ("peer reviewing"). Consumers also had other general roles, for example in educating people about evidence or helping other consumers. There were some interesting examples of new ways of involving consumers. The studies showed that most consumers came from rich and English speaking countries. There was little evidence about how consumer involvement had changed the reviews ("impact"). The studies found that consumer involvement needed to be properly supported.In future we believe that more research should be done to understand what kind of consumer involvement has the best impact; that more review authors should report how consumers have been involved; and that consumers who help with reviews should come from more varied backgrounds.AbstractBackground Cochrane is the largest international producer of systematic reviews, and is committed to consumer involvement in the production and dissemination of its reviews. The review aims to systematically scope the evidence base for consumer involvement in organisations which commission, undertake or support systematic reviews; with an emphasis on Cochrane. Methods In June 2015 we searched six databases and other sources for studies of consumer involvement in organisations which commission, undertake or support systematic reviews, or in individual systematic review processes. All types of reports and evaluations were eligible. Included studies were combined in a narrative synthesis structured by the level of evaluation and the type of involvement. Results We identified 36 relevant studies. Eleven of these were evaluations at the level of a whole organisation; seven of these studied consumer involvement in Cochrane. Ten studies examined individual Cochrane review groups. Twelve studies reported on individual reviews; only two of these were Cochrane reviews. Finally, three studies were themselves syntheses of other studies. The included studies reported varying levels of consumer involvement across a wide range of activities related to review design and conduct. These included activities such as priority setting and outcome definition as well as review-specific roles such as acting as peer referees and producing plain language summaries. The level of satisfaction and awareness of impact was generally higher in studies focused on individual Cochrane review groups than in the organisation-wide studies. Conclusions There was evidence of highly variable levels and types of consumer involvement within and beyond Cochrane, but limited evidence for what makes the most effective methods and levels of involving consumers in review production. Where evidence of impact was found at the level of individual reviews and review groups it underlined the need for properly resourced and supported processes in order to derive the greatest benefit from the lived experiences of consumers who are willing to be involved. Where reviews do involve consumers, their contribution to the final result could be more clearly identified. More rigorous evaluations are needed to determine the best approach to achieving this. Trial registration Not applicable.
| S-EPMC5831869 | biostudies-literature