Dataset Information

Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Systematic reviews of research evidence have become an expected basis for decisions about practice guidelines and policy decisions in the health and welfare sectors. Review authors define inclusion criteria to help them determine which studies to search for and include in their reviews. However, these studies may still vary in the extent to which they reflect the context of interest in the review question. While most review authors would agree that systematic reviews should be relevant and useful for decision makers, there appears to be few well known, if any, established methods for supporting review authors to assess the transferability of review findings to the context of interest in the review. With this systematic mapping and content analysis, we aim to identify whether there exists checklists to support review authors in considering transferability early in the systematic review process. The secondary aim was to develop a comprehensive list of factors that influence transferability as discussed in existing checklists.

Methods

We conducted a systematic mapping of checklists and performed a content analysis of the checklist criteria included in the identified checklists. In June 2016, we conducted a systematic search of eight databases to identify checklists to assess transferability of findings from primary or secondary research, without limitations related to publication type, status, language, or date. We also conducted a gray literature search and searched the EQUATOR repository of checklists for any relevant document. We used search terms such as modified versions of the terms "transferability," "applicability," "generalizability," etc. and "checklist," "guideline," "tool," "criteria," etc. We did not include papers that discussed transferability at a theoretical level or checklists to assess the transferability of guidelines to local contexts.

Results

Our search resulted in 11,752 titles which were screened independently by two review authors. The 101 articles which were considered potentially relevant were subsequently read by two authors, independently in full text and assessed for inclusion. We identified 31 relevant checklists. Six of these examined transferability of economic evaluations, and 25 examined transferability of primary or secondary research findings in health (n?=?23) or social welfare (n?=?2). The content analysis is based on the 25 health and social welfare checklists. We identified seven themes under which we grouped categories of checklist criteria: population, intervention, implementation context (immediate), comparison intervention, outcomes, environmental context, and researcher conduct.

Conclusions

We identified a variety of checklists intended to support end users (researchers, review authors, practitioners, etc.) to assess transferability or related concepts. While four of these checklists are intended for use in systematic reviews of effectiveness, we found no checklists for qualitative evidence syntheses or for the field of social welfare practice or policy. Furthermore, none of the identified checklists for review authors included guidance to on how to assess transferability, or present assessments in a systematic review. The results of the content analysis can serve as the basis for developing a comprehensive list of factors to be used in an approach to support review authors in systematically and transparently considering transferability from the beginning of the review process.

SUBMITTER: Munthe-Kaas H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6330740 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.

Munthe-Kaas Heather H Nøkleby Heid H Nguyen Lien L

Systematic reviews 20190114 1

<h4>Background</h4>Systematic reviews of research evidence have become an expected basis for decisions about practice guidelines and policy decisions in the health and welfare sectors. Review authors define inclusion criteria to help them determine which studies to search for and include in their reviews. However, these studies may still vary in the extent to which they reflect the context of interest in the review question. While most review authors would agree that systematic reviews should be ...[more]

PMID: 30642403

Similar Datasets

Project description:Scientific information about biodiversity distribution is indispensable for nature conservation and sustainable management of natural resources. For several groups of animals and plants, such data are available, but for fungi, especially in tropical regions like West Africa, they are mostly missing. Here, information for West African countries about species diversity of fungi and fungus-like organisms (other organisms traditionally studied by mycologists) is compiled from literature and analysed in its historical context for the first time. More than 16,000 records of fungi representing 4843 species and infraspecific taxa were found in 860 publications relating to West Africa. Records from the Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF) database (2395 species), and that of the former International Mycological Institute fungal reference collection (IMI) (2526 species) were also considered. The compilation based on literature is more comprehensive than the GBIF and IMI data, although they include 914 and 679 species names, respectively, which are not present in the checklist based on literature. According to data available in literature, knowledge on fungal richness ranges from 19 species (Guinea Bissau) to 1595 (Sierra Leone). In estimating existing species diversity, richness estimators and the Hawksworth 6:1 fungus to plant species ratio were used. Based on the Hawksworth ratio, known fungal diversity in West Africa represents 11.4% of the expected diversity. For six West African countries, however, known fungal species diversity is less than 2%. Incomplete knowledge of fungal diversity is also evident by species accumulation curves not reaching saturation, by 45.3% of the fungal species in the checklist being cited only once for West Africa, and by 66.5% of the fungal species in the checklist reported only for a single country. The documentation of different systematic groups of fungi is very heterogeneous because historically investigations have been sporadic. Recent opportunistic sampling activities in Benin showed that it is not difficult to find specimens representing new country records. Investigation of fungi in West Africa started just over two centuries ago and it is still in an early pioneer phase. To promote proper exploration, the present checklist is provided as a tool to facilitate fungal identification in this region and to aid conceptualisation and justification of future research projects. Documentation of fungal diversity is urgently needed because natural habitats are being lost on a large scale through altered land use and climate change.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The increase in the number of predatory journals puts scholarly communication at risk. In order to guard against publication in predatory journals, authors may use checklists to help detect predatory journals. We believe there are a large number of such checklists yet it is uncertain whether these checklists contain similar content. We conducted a systematic review to identify checklists that help to detect potential predatory journals and examined and compared their content and measurement properties. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Web of Science and Library, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts (January 2012 to November 2018); university library websites (January 2019); and YouTube (January 2019). We identified sources with original checklists used to detect potential predatory journals published in English, French or Portuguese. Checklists were defined as having instructions in point form, bullet form, tabular format or listed items. We excluded checklists or guidance on recognizing "legitimate" or "trustworthy" journals. To assess risk of bias, we adapted five questions from A Checklist for Checklists tool a priori as no formal assessment tool exists for the type of review conducted. RESULTS:Of 1528 records screened, 93 met our inclusion criteria. The majority of included checklists to identify predatory journals were in English (n?=?90, 97%), could be completed in fewer than five minutes (n?=?68, 73%), included a mean of 11 items (range?=?3 to 64) which were not weighted (n?=?91, 98%), did not include qualitative guidance (n?=?78, 84%), or quantitative guidance (n?=?91, 98%), were not evidence-based (n?=?90, 97%) and covered a mean of four of six thematic categories. Only three met our criteria for being evidence-based, i.e. scored three or more "yes" answers (low risk of bias) on the risk of bias tool. CONCLUSION:There is a plethora of published checklists that may overwhelm authors looking to efficiently guard against publishing in predatory journals. The continued development of such checklists may be confusing and of limited benefit. The similarity in checklists could lead to the creation of one evidence-based tool serving authors from all disciplines.

Dataset Information

Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Systematic mapping of checklists for assessing transferability.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets