Dataset Information

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:A growing body of primary study and systematic review literature evaluates interventions and phenomena in applied and health psychology. Reviews of reviews (i.e., meta-reviews) systematically synthesise and utilise this vast and often overwhelming literature; yet, currently there are few practical guidelines for meta-review authors to follow. OBJECTIVE:The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the best practice guidelines for all research synthesis and to detail additional specific considerations and methodological details for the best practice of conducting a rigorous meta-review. METHODS:This article provides readers with six systematic and practical steps along with accompanying examples to address with rigor the unique challenges that arise when authors familiar with systematic review methods begin a meta-review: (a) detailing a clear scope, (b) identifying synthesis literature through strategic searches, (c) considering datedness of the literature, (d) addressing overlap among included reviews, (e) choosing and applying review quality tools, and (f) appropriate options for handling the synthesis and reporting of the vast amount of data collected in a meta-review. CONCLUSIONS:We have curated best practice recommendations and practical tips for conducting a meta-review. We anticipate that assessments of meta-review quality will ultimately formalise best-method guidelines.

SUBMITTER: Hennessy EA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6819213 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews.

Hennessy Emily A EA Johnson Blair T BT Keenan Ciara C

Applied psychology. Health and well-being 20190709 3

<h4>Background</h4>A growing body of primary study and systematic review literature evaluates interventions and phenomena in applied and health psychology. Reviews of reviews (i.e., meta-reviews) systematically synthesise and utilise this vast and often overwhelming literature; yet, currently there are few practical guidelines for meta-review authors to follow.<h4>Objective</h4>The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the best practice guidelines for all research synthesis and to det ...[more]

PMID: 31290288

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundObjective structured clinical examinations (OSCEs) have been used for many years within healthcare programmes as a measure of students' and clinicians' clinical performance. OSCEs are a form of simulation and are often summative but may be formative. This educational approach requires robust design based on sound pedagogy to assure practice and assessment of holistic nursing care. As part of a project testing seven OSCE best practice guidelines (BPGs) across three sites, the BPGs were applied to an existing simulation activity. The aim of this study was to determine the applicability and value of the OSCE BPGs in an existing formative simulation.MethodsA mixed methods approach was used to address the research question: in what ways do OSCE BPGs align with simulations. The BPGs were aligned and compared with all aspects of an existing simulation activity offered to first-year nursing students at a large city-based university, prior to their first clinical placement in an Australian healthcare setting. Survey questions, comprised of Likert scales and free-text responses, used at other sites were slightly modified for reference to simulation. Students' opinions about the refined simulation activity were collected via electronic survey immediately following the simulation and from focus groups. Template analysis, using the BPGs as existing or a priori thematic codes, enabled interpretation and illumination of the data from both sources.ResultsFew changes were made to the existing simulation plan and format. Students' responses from surveys (n = 367) and four focus groups indicated that all seven BPGs were applicable for simulations in guiding their learning, particularly in the affective domain, and assisting their perceived needs in preparing for upcoming clinical practice.DiscussionSimilarities were found in the intent of simulation and OSCEs informed by the BPGs to enable feedback to students about holistic practice across affective, cognitive and psychomotor domains. The similarities in this study are consistent with findings from exploring the applicability of the BPGs for OSCEs in other nursing education settings, contexts, universities and jurisdictions. The BPGs also aligned with other frameworks and standards often used to develop and deliver simulations.ConclusionsFindings from this study provide further evidence of the applicability of the seven OSCE BPGs to inform the development and delivery of, in this context, simulation activities for nurses. The manner in which simulation is offered to large cohorts requires further consideration to meet students' needs in rehearsing the registered nurse role.

Project description:ObjectiveSystematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including these trials. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews that included C-RCTs against criteria developed from existing guidance.MethodsCriteria were developed, based on methodological literature and personal experience supervising review production and quality. Criteria were grouped into four themes: identifying, reporting, assessing risk of bias, and analysing C-RCTs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (2nd December 2013), and the 50 most recent reviews that included C-RCTs were retrieved. Each review was then assessed using the criteria.ResultsThe 50 reviews we identified were published by 26 Cochrane Review Groups between June 2013 and November 2013. For identifying C-RCTs, only 56% identified that C-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review in the eligibility criteria. For reporting C-RCTs, only eight (24%) of the 33 reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment for their included C-RCTs. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five C-RCT-specific risk-of-bias criteria. For analysing C-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only nine (33%) provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted C-RCTs, only 13 (38%) excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting practices in Cochrane reviews incorporating C-RCTs could be greatly improved, particularly with regard to analyses. Criteria developed as part of the current study could be used by review authors or editors to identify errors and improve the quality of published systematic reviews incorporating C-RCTs.

Dataset Information

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews.

Publications

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets