Evidence syntheses were rapidly produced during the 2022 mpox outbreak despite a lack of studies. The aim of this methodological study was to assess the quality and utility of the evidence syntheses produced during the first 6 months of the outbreak compared to those published before it.
Methods
Human mpox evidence syntheses available before December 31, 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, EuropePMC, SSRN, and arXiv. Study characteristics, utility, methodological, and reporting quality (AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA) were contrasted between syntheses produced before the 2022 outbreak (historical) and during the first 6 months (new). Results were synthesized narratively.
Results
Twenty-six evidence syntheses were included; two historical systematic reviews (SRs) and 24 new SRs, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, and mislabelled syntheses. Median time from search to publication/preprint post date was 68 and 6 weeks for historical and new syntheses, respectively. Among the new syntheses, 8% (2/24) did not include evidence from the 2022 outbreak, 33% (8/24) included only new evidence and 58% (14/24) included both new and historical evidence. Only 29% of new syntheses contrasted findings between new and historical evidence. Methodological quality was critically low for 100% of historical syntheses and 92% of new syntheses and the remainder (8%) were low. Reporting quality was poor with a median of 10.5 (range 10–11) and 11.5 (range 4–21) of 27 items reported sufficiently by historical and new syntheses, respectively.
Conclusions
Evidence syntheses take time to produce and during an emergent outbreak they are often outdated at the time of publication and suffer from poor adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines. Overlapping content and few new studies resulted in minimal added value to the mpox literature. Strategies to reduce duplication and mechanisms to produce and disseminate continuously updated living evidence syntheses need to be explored to support decision-makers responding to an emergency.
{"title":"Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency","authors":"Kusala Pussegoda, Izza Israr, Austyn Baumeister, Tricia Corrin, Melanie Sterian, Mavra Qamar, Anmol Samra, Lisa Waddell","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70005","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Evidence syntheses were rapidly produced during the 2022 mpox outbreak despite a lack of studies. The aim of this methodological study was to assess the quality and utility of the evidence syntheses produced during the first 6 months of the outbreak compared to those published before it.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Human mpox evidence syntheses available before December 31, 2022 were retrieved from PubMed, Scopus, EuropePMC, SSRN, and arXiv. Study characteristics, utility, methodological, and reporting quality (AMSTAR-2 and PRISMA) were contrasted between syntheses produced before the 2022 outbreak (historical) and during the first 6 months (new). Results were synthesized narratively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Twenty-six evidence syntheses were included; two historical systematic reviews (SRs) and 24 new SRs, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, and mislabelled syntheses. Median time from search to publication/preprint post date was 68 and 6 weeks for historical and new syntheses, respectively. Among the new syntheses, 8% (2/24) did not include evidence from the 2022 outbreak, 33% (8/24) included only new evidence and 58% (14/24) included both new and historical evidence. Only 29% of new syntheses contrasted findings between new and historical evidence. Methodological quality was critically low for 100% of historical syntheses and 92% of new syntheses and the remainder (8%) were low. Reporting quality was poor with a median of 10.5 (range 10–11) and 11.5 (range 4–21) of 27 items reported sufficiently by historical and new syntheses, respectively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Evidence syntheses take time to produce and during an emergent outbreak they are often outdated at the time of publication and suffer from poor adherence to methodological and reporting guidelines. Overlapping content and few new studies resulted in minimal added value to the mpox literature. Strategies to reduce duplication and mechanisms to produce and disseminate continuously updated living evidence syntheses need to be explored to support decision-makers responding to an emergency.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-11-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70005","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142642314","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Elie A. Akl, Joanne Khabsa, Jennifer Petkovic, Olivia Magwood, Lyubov Lytvyn, Ashley Motilall, Pauline Campbell, Alex Todhunter-Brown, Holger J. Schünemann, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell, Thomas W. Concannon
Background
Given the colonial connotations of the term “stakeholder”, its continued use may be perceived as disrespectful to Indigenous Peoples. While several groups have introduced alternative terms, each has its own limitations. The objective of this article is to introduce “interest-holders” as an alternative term to “stakeholders” and describe the discussions underpinning the adoption of the new term by the MuSE Consortium.
Methods
The MuSE Consortium is an international network of over 160 individuals with interest and expertise in different aspects relevant to engagement in research. Members of MuSE explored alternative terms and considered their respective merits and limitations. The deliberations considered the literature on the topic and the results of two consultations with the wider MuSE membership on the alternative terms.
Results
We define “interest-holders” as groups with legitimate interests in the health issue under consideration. The interests arise and draw their legitimacy from the fact that people from these groups are responsible for or affected by health-related decisions that can be informed by research evidence.
Conclusion
As groups other than the MuSE Consortium have started to adopt “interest-holders,” we hope its use will reduce confusion related to the multitude of terms used and convey the intended meaning without any negative connotations.
{"title":"“Interest-holders”: A new term to replace “stakeholders” in the context of health research and policy","authors":"Elie A. Akl, Joanne Khabsa, Jennifer Petkovic, Olivia Magwood, Lyubov Lytvyn, Ashley Motilall, Pauline Campbell, Alex Todhunter-Brown, Holger J. Schünemann, Vivian Welch, Peter Tugwell, Thomas W. Concannon","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70007","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Given the colonial connotations of the term “stakeholder”, its continued use may be perceived as disrespectful to Indigenous Peoples. While several groups have introduced alternative terms, each has its own limitations. The objective of this article is to introduce “interest-holders” as an alternative term to “stakeholders” and describe the discussions underpinning the adoption of the new term by the MuSE Consortium.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The MuSE Consortium is an international network of over 160 individuals with interest and expertise in different aspects relevant to engagement in research. Members of MuSE explored alternative terms and considered their respective merits and limitations. The deliberations considered the literature on the topic and the results of two consultations with the wider MuSE membership on the alternative terms.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We define “interest-holders” as groups with legitimate interests in the health issue under consideration. The interests arise and draw their legitimacy from the fact that people from these groups are responsible for or affected by health-related decisions that can be informed by research evidence.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As groups other than the MuSE Consortium have started to adopt “interest-holders,” we hope its use will reduce confusion related to the multitude of terms used and convey the intended meaning without any negative connotations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70007","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142555419","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ana Beatriz Pizarro, Santiago Castiello-de Obeso, Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Robin Vernooij, Elpida Vounzoulaki, Chris Champion
<p>The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network (ECPN) is a diverse global network of emerging volunteer health professionals committed to advancing evidence-based healthcare worldwide [<span>1</span>]. Established in September 2019 by Robin Vernooij and Chris Champion, the ECPN was inspired by similar early career researcher groups in scientific associations. Cochrane received many inquiries from young researchers eager to engage with the activities, highlighting a growing demand for such a network.</p><p>Cochrane's contributors come from varied backgrounds and cultures, including researchers, health sciences students, language translators, and other volunteers, all united in their commitment to supporting global healthcare initiatives [<span>2</span>]. In line with Cochrane's mission to highlight the contributions of the next generation, Cochrane launched the “30 Under 30” initiative, inviting 30 young researchers with diverse professional backgrounds such as nurses, doctors, dentists, physiotherapists, biologists, psychologists, and journalists to join the series and tell their Cochrane Story. To build on the success of this initiative, Vernooij proposed formalizing this group into a network, which was well received as the idea aligned perfectly with the Cochrane membership strategy. Consequently, all participants in the “30 Under 30” series were invited to become the first members of the ECPN [<span>2</span>]. The ECPN was due to be launched in Santiago, Chile at the 2019 Cochrane Colloquium, themed “Embracing Diversity,” but due to the cancellation of the event, it was ultimately launched online later in 2019.</p><p>The ECPN now plays a crucial role in promoting professional development, international networking, collaboration, and leadership within the Cochrane community, ensuring that the voices of early career professionals (ECP) are heard, and their potential maximized [<span>1</span>]. The objective of this commentary is to provide a comprehensive overview of the ECPN in Cochrane, with the aim of raising awareness and enhancing the visibility of the network within the Cochrane and scientific community.</p><p>The ECPN is focused on expanding our international network and fostering closer collaboration with other groups, such as the Campbell Collaboration, the Joanna Briggs Institute, Sense about Science, and the Cochrane US mentoring program [<span>3</span>]. We actively explore new ways to involve individuals at the early stages of their careers in research, including students, and young professionals in our research and projects, ensuring their perspectives are integrated into our work. Additionally, we are working on innovative approaches to knowledge translation, aiming to make Cochrane reviews more accessible and impactful. The network consists of a steering group, led by a Chair, that supports the early career professionals' community. We currently have 15 active members, and over the 5 years since the network's founding, a tota
{"title":"Empowering the future of evidence-based healthcare: The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network","authors":"Ana Beatriz Pizarro, Santiago Castiello-de Obeso, Ahmad Sofi-Mahmudi, Robin Vernooij, Elpida Vounzoulaki, Chris Champion","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70006","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The Cochrane Early Career Professionals Network (ECPN) is a diverse global network of emerging volunteer health professionals committed to advancing evidence-based healthcare worldwide [<span>1</span>]. Established in September 2019 by Robin Vernooij and Chris Champion, the ECPN was inspired by similar early career researcher groups in scientific associations. Cochrane received many inquiries from young researchers eager to engage with the activities, highlighting a growing demand for such a network.</p><p>Cochrane's contributors come from varied backgrounds and cultures, including researchers, health sciences students, language translators, and other volunteers, all united in their commitment to supporting global healthcare initiatives [<span>2</span>]. In line with Cochrane's mission to highlight the contributions of the next generation, Cochrane launched the “30 Under 30” initiative, inviting 30 young researchers with diverse professional backgrounds such as nurses, doctors, dentists, physiotherapists, biologists, psychologists, and journalists to join the series and tell their Cochrane Story. To build on the success of this initiative, Vernooij proposed formalizing this group into a network, which was well received as the idea aligned perfectly with the Cochrane membership strategy. Consequently, all participants in the “30 Under 30” series were invited to become the first members of the ECPN [<span>2</span>]. The ECPN was due to be launched in Santiago, Chile at the 2019 Cochrane Colloquium, themed “Embracing Diversity,” but due to the cancellation of the event, it was ultimately launched online later in 2019.</p><p>The ECPN now plays a crucial role in promoting professional development, international networking, collaboration, and leadership within the Cochrane community, ensuring that the voices of early career professionals (ECP) are heard, and their potential maximized [<span>1</span>]. The objective of this commentary is to provide a comprehensive overview of the ECPN in Cochrane, with the aim of raising awareness and enhancing the visibility of the network within the Cochrane and scientific community.</p><p>The ECPN is focused on expanding our international network and fostering closer collaboration with other groups, such as the Campbell Collaboration, the Joanna Briggs Institute, Sense about Science, and the Cochrane US mentoring program [<span>3</span>]. We actively explore new ways to involve individuals at the early stages of their careers in research, including students, and young professionals in our research and projects, ensuring their perspectives are integrated into our work. Additionally, we are working on innovative approaches to knowledge translation, aiming to make Cochrane reviews more accessible and impactful. The network consists of a steering group, led by a Chair, that supports the early career professionals' community. We currently have 15 active members, and over the 5 years since the network's founding, a tota","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142524903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Helen Burchett, Claire Stansfield, Wendy Macdowall, Michelle Richardson, Samantha Dick, Kelly Dickson, Preethy D'Souza, Claire Khouja, Irene Kwan, Gary Raine, Amanda Sowden, Katy Sutcliffe, James Thomas
Background
Interactive evidence maps typically visualise characteristics of research evidence, and gaps in evidence, in a particular field.
Aims, Materials & Methods
Here we present an example of an evidence map on digital drug and alcohol interventions in which the research evidence is supplemented with information about interventions in use (or available for use) in England. We used systematic review methods to identify systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness and an online survey to identify interventions in England.
Results
Eighteen reviews and 40 interventions were included in the online map.
Discussion & Conclusion
To our knowledge, this is the first map to juxtapose research and practice in this way. By extending evidence maps to include data on service provision, it becomes easier to see whether research and practice are aligned and where gaps in either evidence or practice (or both) exist.
{"title":"Advancing interactive evidence maps: Visualising service commissioning options alongside research","authors":"Helen Burchett, Claire Stansfield, Wendy Macdowall, Michelle Richardson, Samantha Dick, Kelly Dickson, Preethy D'Souza, Claire Khouja, Irene Kwan, Gary Raine, Amanda Sowden, Katy Sutcliffe, James Thomas","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70003","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70003","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Interactive evidence maps typically visualise characteristics of research evidence, and gaps in evidence, in a particular field.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aims, Materials & Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Here we present an example of an evidence map on digital drug and alcohol interventions in which the research evidence is supplemented with information about interventions in use (or available for use) in England. We used systematic review methods to identify systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness and an online survey to identify interventions in England.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eighteen reviews and 40 interventions were included in the online map.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion & Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To our knowledge, this is the first map to juxtapose research and practice in this way. By extending evidence maps to include data on service provision, it becomes easier to see whether research and practice are aligned and where gaps in either evidence or practice (or both) exist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70003","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142438895","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Irene Battel, Chiara Arienti, William Levack, Carlotte Kiekens, Stefano Negrini
<div> <section> <h3> Introduction</h3> <p>In 2022, Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence-synthesis rehabilitation studies.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Objective</h3> <div> <ul> <li><span>1. </span> <p>To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition.</p> </li> <li><span>2. </span> <p>To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition.</p> </li> </ul> </div> </section> <section> <h3> Methods</h3> <p>We analysed a sample of 124 randomly selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped according to the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements with a third author when needed. We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Results</h3> <p>Eight (6.5%) of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation interventions. Three (2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the “Intervention-General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention-Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review.</p> </section> <section> <h3> Discussion</h3> <p>This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation reviews but not always consistently or clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported, given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not f
{"title":"The new rehabilitation definition for research purposes could improve rehabilitation description in Cochrane Systematic Reviews","authors":"Irene Battel, Chiara Arienti, William Levack, Carlotte Kiekens, Stefano Negrini","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70000","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70000","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In 2022, Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a new definition of rehabilitation for research purposes with 80 global stakeholders, aiming to support and improve the production and reporting of primary and evidence-synthesis rehabilitation studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <div>\u0000 \u0000 <ul>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>1. </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To compare how Cochrane Systematic Review (CSR) authors describe rehabilitation interventions against criteria derived from the new rehabilitation definition.</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 \u0000 <li><span>2. </span>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess limitations or gaps in the rehabilitation definition.</p>\u0000 </li>\u0000 </ul>\u0000 </div>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We analysed a sample of 124 randomly selected CSRs tagged in the Cochrane Rehabilitation database. We converted the Cochrane Rehabilitation definition for research purposes into a set of 13 criteria grouped according to the four PICO elements and searched for the corresponding key elements in each CSR. We verified if and where in the review these elements were present. Two reviewers rated each CSR, resolving disagreements with a third author when needed. We analysed the findings using descriptive statistics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Eight (6.5%) of 124 CSRs met all rehabilitation definition criteria. These were CSRs that investigated the effects of complex rehabilitation interventions. Three (2.4%) CSRs did not meet any PICO elements. Overall, the “Intervention-General” element and disability criterion had the highest prevalence of absent and unclear reporting, while the “Intervention-Specific” and “Outcome” elements were most frequently reported, albeit not in the “Description of the intervention” section of the review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study showed that the key elements of the new rehabilitation definition are almost always reported in publications identified as rehabilitation reviews but not always consistently or clearly. The disability criterion was frequently unreported, given that the main aim of rehabilitation is reducing disability. Also, the main elements of rehabilitation were frequently not reported. We did not f","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70000","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142174276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mariana A. Burgos, Diego Ivaldi, Gisela Oltra, Camila M. Escobar Liquitay, Luis Garegnani
Objectives
To assess the publication rate and time from registration to publication of systematic intervention reviews registered in PROSPERO originated from South American countries in 2020.
Study Design and Setting
Cross-sectional study. We searched PROSPERO for protocols of systematic reviews of interventions with affiliation in South America during 2020. We randomly extracted 10% and searched databases to identify their publication status.
Results
We identified 1361 intervention systematic reviews with South American affiliation registered in PROSPERO during 2020. We assessed a random sample of 10% (n = 135). The publishing rate in indexed journals was 36.9% (n = 41). The median time to publication was 1.6 years (IQR 0.9–2.1).
Conclusion
The publication rate of South American PROSPERO registers is low. These findings emphasize the need for further efforts to improve publication rates and increase the visibility of South American research in the global scientific community.
{"title":"Meta-epidemiological study on the publication rate of South American countries' systematic reviews of interventions registered in PROSPERO","authors":"Mariana A. Burgos, Diego Ivaldi, Gisela Oltra, Camila M. Escobar Liquitay, Luis Garegnani","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70002","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess the publication rate and time from registration to publication of systematic intervention reviews registered in PROSPERO originated from South American countries in 2020.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Study Design and Setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cross-sectional study. We searched PROSPERO for protocols of systematic reviews of interventions with affiliation in South America during 2020. We randomly extracted 10% and searched databases to identify their publication status.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 1361 intervention systematic reviews with South American affiliation registered in PROSPERO during 2020. We assessed a random sample of 10% (<i>n</i> = 135). The publishing rate in indexed journals was 36.9% (<i>n</i> = 41). The median time to publication was 1.6 years (IQR 0.9–2.1).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The publication rate of South American PROSPERO registers is low. These findings emphasize the need for further efforts to improve publication rates and increase the visibility of South American research in the global scientific community.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142170023","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Historically, peer reviewing has focused on the importance of research questions/hypotheses, appropriateness of research methods, risk of bias, and quality of writing. Until recently, the issues related to trustworthiness—including but not limited to plagiarism and fraud—have been largely neglected because of lack of awareness and lack of adequate tools/training. We set out to identify all relevant papers that have tackled the issue of trustworthiness assessment to identify key domains that have been suggested as an integral part of any such assessment.
Methods
We searched the literature for publications of tools, checklists, or methods used or proposed for the assessment of trustworthiness of randomized trials. Data items (questions) were extracted from the included publications and transcribed on Excel including the assessment domain. Both authors then independently recategorised each data item in five domains (governance, plausibility, plagiarism, reporting, and statistics).
Results
From the 41 publications we extracted a total of 284 questions and framed 77 summary questions grouped in five domains: governance (13 questions), plausibility (17 questions), plagiarism (4 questions), reporting (29 questions), and statistics (14 questions).
Conclusion
The proposed menu of domains and questions should encourage peer reviewers, editors, systematic reviewers and developers of guidelines to engage in a more formal trustworthiness assessment. Methodologists should aim to identify the domains and questions that should be considered mandatory, those that are optional depending on the resources available, and those that could be discarded because of lack of discriminatory power.
{"title":"Trustworthiness assessment of published clinical trials: Literature review of domains and questions","authors":"Zarko Alfirevic, Jo Weeks","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12099","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Historically, peer reviewing has focused on the importance of research questions/hypotheses, appropriateness of research methods, risk of bias, and quality of writing. Until recently, the issues related to trustworthiness—including but not limited to plagiarism and fraud—have been largely neglected because of lack of awareness and lack of adequate tools/training. We set out to identify all relevant papers that have tackled the issue of trustworthiness assessment to identify key domains that have been suggested as an integral part of any such assessment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched the literature for publications of tools, checklists, or methods used or proposed for the assessment of trustworthiness of randomized trials. Data items (questions) were extracted from the included publications and transcribed on Excel including the assessment domain. Both authors then independently recategorised each data item in five domains (governance, plausibility, plagiarism, reporting, and statistics).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>From the 41 publications we extracted a total of 284 questions and framed 77 summary questions grouped in five domains: governance (13 questions), plausibility (17 questions), plagiarism (4 questions), reporting (29 questions), and statistics (14 questions).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The proposed menu of domains and questions should encourage peer reviewers, editors, systematic reviewers and developers of guidelines to engage in a more formal trustworthiness assessment. Methodologists should aim to identify the domains and questions that should be considered mandatory, those that are optional depending on the resources available, and those that could be discarded because of lack of discriminatory power<b>.</b></p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12099","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142013626","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Tilly Fox, Beverley J. Hunt, Robert A. S. Ariens, Greg J. Towers, Robert Lever, Paul Garner, Rebecca Kuehn
Introduction
Some research studies aim to elucidate pathophysiology by examining blood or tissue markers in relation to clinical findings. In COVID-19, this has led specialists to promote treatment options based on single studies without systematic appraisal and critical summaries of the data. As we could not identify any published tools for this purpose, we developed a pilot risk of bias tool by consensus, and report here on our approach.
Methods
Using an expert consultative consensus process, a panel of five topic experts were guided through a set of iterative steps to develop questions intended to elicit information about the study methods and reporting in clinical laboratory studies. The team piloted the tool in three clinical laboratory studies, and then applied it formally as a component in assessing a hypothesis about mechanisms in the post-COVID-19 condition as part of a Cochrane review.
Results
The pilot tool assessed study quality and bias across three domains applicable to comparative and single-arm clinical laboratory studies: collection and handling of samples, experimental methods, and reporting of the results. In the Cochrane review, the tool identified substantive risk of bias in the included clinical laboratory studies.
Conclusion
The plethora of COVID-19 research has highlighted the need for formal methods to systematically appraise clinical laboratory studies related to disease pathology. This tool provides a systematic approach to appraise the validity of these studies. Our process may guide others in the development of appraisal tools in areas where they are needed. Given the relationship between clinical laboratory studies and the development of medical treatments, further development of this risk of bias tool is important for evidence-based healthcare and research.
{"title":"Systematic reviews of clinical laboratory studies: Pilot risk of bias tool developed by consensus","authors":"Tilly Fox, Beverley J. Hunt, Robert A. S. Ariens, Greg J. Towers, Robert Lever, Paul Garner, Rebecca Kuehn","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12098","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Some research studies aim to elucidate pathophysiology by examining blood or tissue markers in relation to clinical findings. In COVID-19, this has led specialists to promote treatment options based on single studies without systematic appraisal and critical summaries of the data. As we could not identify any published tools for this purpose, we developed a pilot risk of bias tool by consensus, and report here on our approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using an expert consultative consensus process, a panel of five topic experts were guided through a set of iterative steps to develop questions intended to elicit information about the study methods and reporting in clinical laboratory studies. The team piloted the tool in three clinical laboratory studies, and then applied it formally as a component in assessing a hypothesis about mechanisms in the post-COVID-19 condition as part of a Cochrane review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The pilot tool assessed study quality and bias across three domains applicable to comparative and single-arm clinical laboratory studies: collection and handling of samples, experimental methods, and reporting of the results. In the Cochrane review, the tool identified substantive risk of bias in the included clinical laboratory studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The plethora of COVID-19 research has highlighted the need for formal methods to systematically appraise clinical laboratory studies related to disease pathology. This tool provides a systematic approach to appraise the validity of these studies. Our process may guide others in the development of appraisal tools in areas where they are needed. Given the relationship between clinical laboratory studies and the development of medical treatments, further development of this risk of bias tool is important for evidence-based healthcare and research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12098","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141967894","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Mary Fredlund, Morwenna Rogers, Noreen Orr, Dylan Kneale, Kate Allen, Jo Thompson Coon
Introduction
Clarity on the characteristics of methods used to produce evidence and gap maps (EGMs) will highlight areas where method development is needed to ensure these increasingly produced tools are made following best practice to assure their quality and utility. This paper aims to describe the range, nature and variability of key methodological characteristics of studies publishing EGMs.
Methods
We followed a protocol, written a-prior and informed by PRISMA and MECCIR guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews. We searched nine data bases, from 2010, for studies across any discipline that included details of their methods used to produce an EGM. Search results were screened by two reviewers independently and the subsequent data was extracted and managed according to predefined criteria. We mapped these together with the year of publication and the area of research as the two primary dimensions. We followed established methods for mapping the evidence, including the process of developing the map framework and the filters for our interactive map. We sought input and involvement from stakeholders during this process.
Results
We found 145 studies from nine distinct research areas, with health research accounting for 67%. There were 11 map designs found, of these bubble plots were the most common design, before 2019, since then it has been a matrix map design. Stakeholders were involved in 47.7% of studies, 48.35% of studies stated finding gaps was an aim of their work, 42% reported publishing or registering a protocol and only 9.39% of studies mentioned a plan to update their evidence maps/EGMs.
Discussion/Conclusion
Key areas of methodological development relate to: the involvement of stakeholders, the conceptualization of gaps and the practices for updating maps. The issues of ambiguity in terminology, the flexibility of visualizations of the data and the lack of reporting detail were other aspects that needs further consideration in studies producing an EGM.
{"title":"What are the methodological characteristics of evidence and gap maps? A systematic review and evidence and gap map","authors":"Mary Fredlund, Morwenna Rogers, Noreen Orr, Dylan Kneale, Kate Allen, Jo Thompson Coon","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12096","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Clarity on the characteristics of methods used to produce evidence and gap maps (EGMs) will highlight areas where method development is needed to ensure these increasingly produced tools are made following best practice to assure their quality and utility. This paper aims to describe the range, nature and variability of key methodological characteristics of studies publishing EGMs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We followed a protocol, written a-prior and informed by PRISMA and MECCIR guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews. We searched nine data bases, from 2010, for studies across any discipline that included details of their methods used to produce an EGM. Search results were screened by two reviewers independently and the subsequent data was extracted and managed according to predefined criteria. We mapped these together with the year of publication and the area of research as the two primary dimensions. We followed established methods for mapping the evidence, including the process of developing the map framework and the filters for our interactive map. We sought input and involvement from stakeholders during this process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found 145 studies from nine distinct research areas, with health research accounting for 67%. There were 11 map designs found, of these bubble plots were the most common design, before 2019, since then it has been a matrix map design. Stakeholders were involved in 47.7% of studies, 48.35% of studies stated finding gaps was an aim of their work, 42% reported publishing or registering a protocol and only 9.39% of studies mentioned a plan to update their evidence maps/EGMs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion/Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Key areas of methodological development relate to: the involvement of stakeholders, the conceptualization of gaps and the practices for updating maps. The issues of ambiguity in terminology, the flexibility of visualizations of the data and the lack of reporting detail were other aspects that needs further consideration in studies producing an EGM.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12096","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141967325","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Heather M. R. Ames, Emma F. France, Sara Cooper, Mayara S. Bianchim, Simon Lewin, Bey-Marrié Schmidt, Isabelle Uny, Jane Noyes
Background
Well-conducted qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) can provide invaluable insights into complex phenomena. However, the development of an in-depth understanding depends on the analysis of rich, thick data from the included primary qualitative studies. Sampling may be needed if there are too many eligible studies. Data richness and thickness are among several criteria that can be taken into consideration when sampling studies for inclusion. However, existing tools do not address explicitly the assessment of both data richness and thickness in the context of QES.
Methods
To address this gap, we have developed, piloted, and conducted initial user testing of a richness and thickness assessment tool. The tool has been in development since 2014. Three pilot versions from three review teams have been used in six Cochrane reviews. Key members from the original three review teams subsequently came together to create a consensus-based definitive version 1 of the tool. Four review authors piloted the version 1 tool, which has been subject to initial user testing. The version 1 assessment tool consists of two components: assessing the thickness of contextual data and assessing the richness of conceptual data. The accompanying guidance emphasizes the importance of assessing data that addresses the review question.
Results
The paper provides guidance on how to apply the tool, emphasizing the importance of reaching a consensus among review authors and fostering a shared understanding of what constitutes rich and thick data in the context of the review. The potential challenges related to the time and resource constraints of this additional review process are acknowledged.
Conclusion
Version 1 of the tool represents a significant development in QES methodology, filling a critical gap and enhancing the transparency and rigor of the sampling process. The authors invite feedback from the research community to further test, refine and improve this tool based on wider user experiences.
{"title":"Assessing qualitative data richness and thickness: Development of an evidence-based tool for use in qualitative evidence synthesis","authors":"Heather M. R. Ames, Emma F. France, Sara Cooper, Mayara S. Bianchim, Simon Lewin, Bey-Marrié Schmidt, Isabelle Uny, Jane Noyes","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12059","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Well-conducted qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) can provide invaluable insights into complex phenomena. However, the development of an in-depth understanding depends on the analysis of rich, thick data from the included primary qualitative studies. Sampling may be needed if there are too many eligible studies. Data richness and thickness are among several criteria that can be taken into consideration when sampling studies for inclusion. However, existing tools do not address explicitly the assessment of both data richness and thickness in the context of QES.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To address this gap, we have developed, piloted, and conducted initial user testing of a richness and thickness assessment tool. The tool has been in development since 2014. Three pilot versions from three review teams have been used in six Cochrane reviews. Key members from the original three review teams subsequently came together to create a consensus-based definitive version 1 of the tool. Four review authors piloted the version 1 tool, which has been subject to initial user testing. The version 1 assessment tool consists of two components: assessing the thickness of contextual data and assessing the richness of conceptual data. The accompanying guidance emphasizes the importance of assessing data that addresses the review question.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The paper provides guidance on how to apply the tool, emphasizing the importance of reaching a consensus among review authors and fostering a shared understanding of what constitutes rich and thick data in the context of the review. The potential challenges related to the time and resource constraints of this additional review process are acknowledged.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Version 1 of the tool represents a significant development in QES methodology, filling a critical gap and enhancing the transparency and rigor of the sampling process. The authors invite feedback from the research community to further test, refine and improve this tool based on wider user experiences.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12059","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141488991","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号