Should we adopt the case report format to report challenges in complicated evidence synthesis? A proposal and illustration of a case report of a complex search strategy for humanitarian interventions

Chris Cooper, Zahra Premji, Cem Yavuz, Mark Engelbert
{"title":"Should we adopt the case report format to report challenges in complicated evidence synthesis? A proposal and illustration of a case report of a complex search strategy for humanitarian interventions","authors":"Chris Cooper,&nbsp;Zahra Premji,&nbsp;Cem Yavuz,&nbsp;Mark Engelbert","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70021","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Case reports represent a form of evidence in medicine which detail an unusual or novel clinical case in a short, published report, disseminated for the attention of clinical staff. This form of report is not common outside of clinical practice. We question if the adoption of the ‘case report’ might also be useful in evidence synthesis. This where the case represents a challenge in undertaking evidence synthesis and the report details not only the resolution but also shows the working to resolve the challenge. Our rationale is that methodological responses to problems arising in complicated evidence synthesis often go unreported. The risk is that lessons learned in developing evidence synthesis are lost if not recorded. This represents a form of research waste. We suggest that the adoption of the case report format might represent the opportunity to highlight not only a challenge (the case) but a worked example of a possible solution (the report). These case reports would represent a resting place for the case, with notes left behind for future researchers to follow. We provide an example of a case report: a complicated search strategy developed to inform an evidence gap map on the effects of interventions in humanitarian settings on food security outcomes in low and middle-income countries and specific high-income countries. Our report details the solution that we developed (the search strategy). We also illustrate how we conceptualised the search, and the approaches that we tested but rejected, and the ideas that we pursued.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"3 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70021","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.70021","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Case reports represent a form of evidence in medicine which detail an unusual or novel clinical case in a short, published report, disseminated for the attention of clinical staff. This form of report is not common outside of clinical practice. We question if the adoption of the ‘case report’ might also be useful in evidence synthesis. This where the case represents a challenge in undertaking evidence synthesis and the report details not only the resolution but also shows the working to resolve the challenge. Our rationale is that methodological responses to problems arising in complicated evidence synthesis often go unreported. The risk is that lessons learned in developing evidence synthesis are lost if not recorded. This represents a form of research waste. We suggest that the adoption of the case report format might represent the opportunity to highlight not only a challenge (the case) but a worked example of a possible solution (the report). These case reports would represent a resting place for the case, with notes left behind for future researchers to follow. We provide an example of a case report: a complicated search strategy developed to inform an evidence gap map on the effects of interventions in humanitarian settings on food security outcomes in low and middle-income countries and specific high-income countries. Our report details the solution that we developed (the search strategy). We also illustrate how we conceptualised the search, and the approaches that we tested but rejected, and the ideas that we pursued.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
我们是否应该采用案例报告的形式来报告复杂证据合成中的挑战?人道主义干预的复杂搜索策略的案例报告的建议和说明
病例报告是医学证据的一种形式,它将不寻常或新颖的临床病例详细记录在一份简短的、已发表的报告中,传播给临床工作人员以引起注意。这种形式的报告在临床实践之外并不常见。我们质疑采用“案件报告”是否也可能对证据合成有用。在这种情况下,案件代表了进行证据综合的挑战,报告不仅详细说明了解决方案,还展示了解决挑战的工作。我们的理由是,在复杂的证据合成中出现的问题的方法学反应往往没有报告。风险在于,如果不加以记录,在发展证据综合过程中吸取的经验教训就会丢失。这是研究浪费的一种形式。我们建议,采用案例报告格式可能意味着有机会不仅突出挑战(案例),而且突出可能解决方案的工作示例(报告)。这些病例报告代表了病例的安息之地,留下了笔记供未来的研究人员参考。我们提供了一个案例报告的例子:制定了一个复杂的搜索策略,为证据缺口图提供信息,说明人道主义背景下的干预措施对中低收入国家和特定高收入国家粮食安全结果的影响。我们的报告详细介绍了我们开发的解决方案(搜索策略)。我们还说明了我们如何概念化搜索,以及我们测试但拒绝的方法,以及我们追求的想法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Associations of Social and Demographic Factors on the Outcomes of Ocular Melanoma and Other Adult Ocular Neoplasms in the United States: A Systematic Review. Using Large Language Models to Address Contextual Questions in Systematic Reviews. Correction to “Health Equity in Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial—Part 1 Getting Started With Health Equity in Your Review”, “Health Equity in Systematic Reviews: A Tutorial—Part 2 Implementing Health Equity Throughout Your Methods”, “Meta-Analysis Using Time-to-Event Data: A Tutorial” and “Split Body Trials in Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: A Tutorial” Sensitivity and Precision of Search Strategies Built Using a Text-Mining Word Frequency Tool (PubReMiner) Compared to Current Best Practice for Building Search Strategies: A Study Within a Review (SWAR) Ninety-Seven Percent of Trials Investigating Robotic Interventions in Physiotherapy Contained Abstract Spin: A Meta-Research Review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1