Laurie Long Kwan Ho, Ankie Tan Cheung, Carlo Chak Yiu Chan, Eliza Lai Yi Wong, Wilson Wai San Tam, Wai Tong Chien
Introduction
Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees have increasingly reported experiencing different forms of workplace discrimination/harassment. Workplace allyship may be positively associated with psychological health through creating inclusive organizational cultures or reducing discrimination/harassment. However, comprehensive literature reviews or evidence syntheses on the effects of workplace allyship in mental health protection/promotion for LGBT employees are limited.
Methods
This scoping review aimed to summarize available evidence regarding the effectiveness of workplace allies for LGBT employees in preventing/minimizing psychological distress and clarify the therapeutic components. This review included published research articles and grey literature identified through 11 electronic databases, a secondary search, and other sources.
Results
We identified 27 relevant articles. Most included studies used cross-sectional or qualitative research designs, and evidence from countries beyond the United States was limited. Three essential/effective components of workplace allies/allyship were identified that could create supportive/safe workplace relationships/climates: (a) knowledge, (b) empathy, and (c) action.
Conclusions
Further longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to increase the quality of evidence on the effects and change processes induced by workplace allyship. Qualitative studies are also recommended to understand the health needs and mechanism of actions of workplace allyships in different LGBT communities.
{"title":"Empowering workplace allies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees to prevent and minimize psychological distress: A scoping review","authors":"Laurie Long Kwan Ho, Ankie Tan Cheung, Carlo Chak Yiu Chan, Eliza Lai Yi Wong, Wilson Wai San Tam, Wai Tong Chien","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12018","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees have increasingly reported experiencing different forms of workplace discrimination/harassment. Workplace allyship may be positively associated with psychological health through creating inclusive organizational cultures or reducing discrimination/harassment. However, comprehensive literature reviews or evidence syntheses on the effects of workplace allyship in mental health protection/promotion for LGBT employees are limited.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This scoping review aimed to summarize available evidence regarding the effectiveness of workplace allies for LGBT employees in preventing/minimizing psychological distress and clarify the therapeutic components. This review included published research articles and grey literature identified through 11 electronic databases, a secondary search, and other sources.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 27 relevant articles. Most included studies used cross-sectional or qualitative research designs, and evidence from countries beyond the United States was limited. Three essential/effective components of workplace allies/allyship were identified that could create supportive/safe workplace relationships/climates: (a) knowledge, (b) empathy, and (c) action.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Further longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to increase the quality of evidence on the effects and change processes induced by workplace allyship. Qualitative studies are also recommended to understand the health needs and mechanism of actions of workplace allyships in different LGBT communities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50153662","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}
Tyler Pitre, Sarah Kirsh, Tanvir Jassal, Mason Anderson, Adelia Padoan, Alexander Xiang, Jasmine Mah, Dena Zeraatkar
Background
Blinding—the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized—is an important consideration for assessing the risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings.
Objective
To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results.
Methods
We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, JBI EBP, and Web of Science, from inception to May 2022, for studies comparing the results of trials with and without blinding. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search results for eligible studies and extracted data. We pooled the results of studies comparing trials with and without blinding of patients, healthcare providers/investigators, and outcome assessors/adjudicators using frequentist random-effects meta-analyses. We coded study results such that a ratio of odds ratio < 1 and difference in standardized mean difference < 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments.
Results
We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers and trials without blinding of patients may slightly overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. We found moderate certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers may overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. We found moderate certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators probably overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments.
Conclusion
Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that blinding may influence trial results in select situations—although the findings are of low certainty and the magnitude of effect is modest. In the absence of high-certainty evidence suggesting that trials with and without blinding produce similar results, investigators should be cautious about interpreting the results of
背景盲法是评估随机试验偏倚风险的一个重要考虑因素。然而，越来越多的证据表明，在没有盲法的试验是否会产生有偏见的结果方面，结果并不一致。目的对有盲法和无盲法试验是否产生不同结果的证据进行系统回顾和荟萃分析。方法从开始到2022年5月，我们在MEDLINE、EMBASE、Cochrane Reviews、JBI EBP和Web of Science上搜索了比较有盲法和无盲法试验结果的研究。成对的评审员，独立和重复工作，评审合格研究的搜索结果和提取的数据。我们使用频率随机效应荟萃分析汇总了对患者、医疗保健提供者/研究人员和结果评估者/裁决者进行盲法和非盲法试验比较的研究结果。我们对研究结果进行了编码，使得比值比 <； 1和标准化平均差的差异 <； 0表明没有盲法的试验高估了治疗的有益效果。结果我们确定了47项符合条件的研究。对于二分法的结果，我们发现了低确定性的证据，即没有对患者和医疗保健提供者进行盲法试验和没有对患者进行盲法的试验可能会略微高估治疗的有益效果。我们发现了适度的确定性证据，即没有对结果评估者进行盲法的试验高估了治疗的有益效果。对于持续的结果，我们发现了低确定性的证据，即没有对患者和医疗保健提供者进行盲法的试验可能高估了治疗的有益效果。我们发现了适度的确定性证据，即没有对结果评估者/裁决者进行盲法的试验可能高估了治疗的有益效果。结论我们的系统综述和荟萃分析表明，在某些情况下，盲法可能会影响试验结果——尽管研究结果的确定性很低，影响程度也不大。在缺乏高确定性证据表明有盲法和无盲法的试验产生相似结果的情况下，研究人员应谨慎解释无盲法试验的结果。
{"title":"The impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Tyler Pitre, Sarah Kirsh, Tanvir Jassal, Mason Anderson, Adelia Padoan, Alexander Xiang, Jasmine Mah, Dena Zeraatkar","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12015","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Blinding—the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized—is an important consideration for assessing the risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, JBI EBP, and Web of Science, from inception to May 2022, for studies comparing the results of trials with and without blinding. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search results for eligible studies and extracted data. We pooled the results of studies comparing trials with and without blinding of patients, healthcare providers/investigators, and outcome assessors/adjudicators using frequentist random-effects meta-analyses. We coded study results such that a ratio of odds ratio < 1 and difference in standardized mean difference < 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers and trials without blinding of patients may slightly overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. We found moderate certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers may overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. We found moderate certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators probably overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that blinding may influence trial results in select situations—although the findings are of low certainty and the magnitude of effect is modest. In the absence of high-certainty evidence suggesting that trials with and without blinding produce similar results, investigators should be cautious about interpreting the results of","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50138880","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}
Robust and innovative methods are the lynchpin of Cochrane and remain the basis of its reputation as the home of high-quality systematic reviews. As methodology evolves to respond to the evidence needs of our stakeholders, it is crucial for Cochrane to be able to offer timely and clear advice to those working on our reviews.
Cochrane's Methods Support Unit (MSU) was established in 2019 [1] to provide methodological and statistical support to authors and editors working on Cochrane protocols and reviews. A key challenge in the first 2 years of the Unit was the introduction of our new tool [2] to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but we have dealt with a multiplicity of different issues since being established. By March 2023, the Unit has dealt with over 1200 referrals relating to protocols, systematic reviews, updates of reviews, and statistical and methodological queries relating to reviews. Our work has ranged from full methodological and statistical reviews of research incorporating network meta-analyses to individual queries about the use of an intracluster correlation coefficient to adjust data from an individual study.
It quickly became apparent that similar queries were often raised and we noticed common problems when working on reviews. Our monthly web clinic series was set up to allow authors and editors to raise questions and then later to provide guidance on a specific topic in addition [3]. However, we also felt that there is a need for accessible help with these issues which would be instantly available.
Professor Doug Altman was a leader and pioneer in Cochrane and in the field of medical statistics [4]. One of Professor Altman's legacies was the Statistics Notes series in The BMJ, which provided clear advice on statistical concepts to medical researchers. Inspired by this work, former and current MSU managers (Dr Kerry Dwan and Rachel Richardson) are launching this series to provide easily accessible advice to the evidence synthesis community on the common methodological and statistical issues that we have observed within Cochrane. The hope is to make this as interactive and easy to understand as possible. In addition, the series will collaborate with Cochrane Training [5] to complement the articles in the series with visual learning, such as short videos or quick e-learning checks, to help those who learn better by doing or watching rather than reading.
There are various sources of advice on methodological and statistical issues already available to reviewers, including the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention [6] and resources from specialized Cochrane Methods Groups. This series will complement existing sources by responding to the day-to-day difficulties encountered by reviewers when implementing systematic review methods. The MSU is in a unique position to provide advi
{"title":"Launching “methods and statistics tutorials”: A collection of resources for systematic reviewers","authors":"Kerry Dwan, Rachel Richardson","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12017","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Robust and innovative methods are the lynchpin of Cochrane and remain the basis of its reputation as the home of high-quality systematic reviews. As methodology evolves to respond to the evidence needs of our stakeholders, it is crucial for Cochrane to be able to offer timely and clear advice to those working on our reviews.</p><p>Cochrane's Methods Support Unit (MSU) was established in 2019 [<span>1</span>] to provide methodological and statistical support to authors and editors working on Cochrane protocols and reviews. A key challenge in the first 2 years of the Unit was the introduction of our new tool [<span>2</span>] to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but we have dealt with a multiplicity of different issues since being established. By March 2023, the Unit has dealt with over 1200 referrals relating to protocols, systematic reviews, updates of reviews, and statistical and methodological queries relating to reviews. Our work has ranged from full methodological and statistical reviews of research incorporating network meta-analyses to individual queries about the use of an intracluster correlation coefficient to adjust data from an individual study.</p><p>It quickly became apparent that similar queries were often raised and we noticed common problems when working on reviews. Our monthly web clinic series was set up to allow authors and editors to raise questions and then later to provide guidance on a specific topic in addition [<span>3</span>]. However, we also felt that there is a need for accessible help with these issues which would be instantly available.</p><p>Professor Doug Altman was a leader and pioneer in Cochrane and in the field of medical statistics [<span>4</span>]. One of Professor Altman's legacies was the Statistics Notes series in <i>The BMJ</i>, which provided clear advice on statistical concepts to medical researchers. Inspired by this work, former and current MSU managers (Dr Kerry Dwan and Rachel Richardson) are launching this series to provide easily accessible advice to the evidence synthesis community on the common methodological and statistical issues that we have observed within Cochrane. The hope is to make this as interactive and easy to understand as possible. In addition, the series will collaborate with Cochrane Training [<span>5</span>] to complement the articles in the series with visual learning, such as short videos or quick e-learning checks, to help those who learn better by doing or watching rather than reading.</p><p>There are various sources of advice on methodological and statistical issues already available to reviewers, including the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention [<span>6</span>] and resources from specialized Cochrane Methods Groups. This series will complement existing sources by responding to the day-to-day difficulties encountered by reviewers when implementing systematic review methods. The MSU is in a unique position to provide advi","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50137033","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}
Jennifer R. Evans, Iris Gordon, Augusto Azuara-Blanco, Michael Bowen, Tasanee Braithwaite, Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi, Stephen Gichuhi, Ruth E. Hogg, Tianjing Li, Virginia Minogue, Roses Parker, Fiona J. Rowe, Anupa Shah, Gianni Virgili, Jacqueline Ramke, John G. Lawrenson, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Priority Setting Group Authorship
Introduction
Systematic reviews are important to inform decision-making for evidence-based health care and patient choice. Deciding which reviews should be prioritized is a key issue for decision-makers and researchers. Cochrane Eyes and Vision conducted a priority setting exercise for systematic reviews in eye health care.
Methods
We established a steering group including practitioners, patient organizations, and researchers. To identify potential systematic review questions, we searched global policy reports, research prioritization exercises, guidelines, systematic review databases, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). We grouped questions into separate condition lists and conducted a two-round online modified Delphi survey, including a ranking request. Participants in the survey were recruited through social media and the networks of the steering group.
Results
In Round 1, 343 people ranked one or more of the condition lists. Participants were eye care practitioners (69%), researchers (37%), patients or carers (24%), research providers/funders (5%), or noneye health care practitioners (4%) and from all World Health Organization regions. Two hundred twenty-six people expressed interest in completing Round 2 and 160 of these (71%) completed the Round 2 survey. Reviews on cataract and refractive error, reviews relevant to children, and reviews on rehabilitation were considered to have an important impact on the magnitude of disease and equity. Narrative comments emphasized the need for reviews on access to eye health care, particularly for underserved groups, including people with intellectual disabilities.
Conclusion
A global group of stakeholders prioritized questions on the effective and equitable delivery of services for eye health care. When considering the impact of systematic reviews in terms of reducing the burden of eye conditions, equity is clearly an important criterion to consider in priority-setting exercises.
引言系统综述对于循证医疗保健和患者选择的决策很重要。对于决策者和研究人员来说，决定哪些审查应该被优先考虑是一个关键问题。Cochrane Eyes and Vision进行了一项眼科保健系统评估的优先级设置练习。方法我们成立了一个包括从业者、患者组织和研究人员的指导小组。为了确定潜在的系统审查问题，我们搜索了全球政策报告、研究优先顺序练习、指南、系统审查数据库和Cochrane图书馆（CENTRAL）。我们将问题分组到单独的条件列表中，并进行了两轮在线修改的Delphi调查，包括排名请求。调查参与者是通过社交媒体和指导小组的网络招募的。结果在第一轮中，343人在一个或多个条件列表中排名。参与者是来自世界卫生组织所有地区的眼科护理从业者（69%）、研究人员（37%）、患者或护理人员（24%）、研究提供者/资助者（5%）或非眼科保健从业者（4%）。226人表示有兴趣完成第二轮调查，其中160人（71%）完成了第二轮的调查。对白内障和屈光不正的审查、与儿童相关的审查以及对康复的审查被认为对疾病的严重程度和公平性有重要影响。叙述性评论强调，有必要对获得眼部保健的情况进行审查，特别是对服务不足的群体，包括智障人士。结论一个全球利益攸关方小组优先考虑了有效和公平提供眼科保健服务的问题。在考虑系统审查在减轻眼部疾病负担方面的影响时，公平显然是制定优先事项时需要考虑的一个重要标准。
{"title":"Identifying important questions for Cochrane systematic reviews in Eyes and Vision: Report of a priority setting exercise","authors":"Jennifer R. Evans, Iris Gordon, Augusto Azuara-Blanco, Michael Bowen, Tasanee Braithwaite, Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi, Stephen Gichuhi, Ruth E. Hogg, Tianjing Li, Virginia Minogue, Roses Parker, Fiona J. Rowe, Anupa Shah, Gianni Virgili, Jacqueline Ramke, John G. Lawrenson, Cochrane Eyes and Vision Priority Setting Group Authorship","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12014","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Systematic reviews are important to inform decision-making for evidence-based health care and patient choice. Deciding which reviews should be prioritized is a key issue for decision-makers and researchers. Cochrane Eyes and Vision conducted a priority setting exercise for systematic reviews in eye health care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We established a steering group including practitioners, patient organizations, and researchers. To identify potential systematic review questions, we searched global policy reports, research prioritization exercises, guidelines, systematic review databases, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). We grouped questions into separate condition lists and conducted a two-round online modified Delphi survey, including a ranking request. Participants in the survey were recruited through social media and the networks of the steering group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In Round 1, 343 people ranked one or more of the condition lists. Participants were eye care practitioners (69%), researchers (37%), patients or carers (24%), research providers/funders (5%), or noneye health care practitioners (4%) and from all World Health Organization regions. Two hundred twenty-six people expressed interest in completing Round 2 and 160 of these (71%) completed the Round 2 survey. Reviews on cataract and refractive error, reviews relevant to children, and reviews on rehabilitation were considered to have an important impact on the magnitude of disease and equity. Narrative comments emphasized the need for reviews on access to eye health care, particularly for underserved groups, including people with intellectual disabilities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A global group of stakeholders prioritized questions on the effective and equitable delivery of services for eye health care. When considering the impact of systematic reviews in terms of reducing the burden of eye conditions, equity is clearly an important criterion to consider in priority-setting exercises.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50143107","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}
Roses Parker, Jennifer Petkovic, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Andrea Darzi, Omar Dewidar, Joanne Khabsa, Elizabeth Kristjansson, Tamara Lotfi, Olivia Magwood, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Kevin Pottie, Alison Riddle, Ammar Saad, Eve Tomlinson, Peter Tugwell, Vivian Welch
Introduction
Health equity is a moral and ethical imperative for clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and all who use health research. Both Cochrane and the Campbell Collaboration have focused on health equity for many years.
Methods
The new Equity Group will continue and expand this work by designing a program of projects aiming to (1) promote equity in the evidence base, (2) ensure equitable processes for stakeholder engagement, (3) produce high-priority, equity-focused evidence syntheses, (4) build capacity for equity design, analysis, and reporting, and (5) promote equity in implementation tools.
Results
We will build on our current network of collaborators and create a group structure striving to recruit across the PROGRESS-Plus characteristics.
Conclusion
We invite readers to join our cause and contribute wherever they are able. Together, we can help Cochrane achieve its social responsibility of improving health equity at a planetary level.
{"title":"The equity group: Supporting Cochrane's social responsibility of improving health equity","authors":"Roses Parker, Jennifer Petkovic, Jordi Pardo Pardo, Andrea Darzi, Omar Dewidar, Joanne Khabsa, Elizabeth Kristjansson, Tamara Lotfi, Olivia Magwood, Lawrence Mbuagbaw, Kevin Pottie, Alison Riddle, Ammar Saad, Eve Tomlinson, Peter Tugwell, Vivian Welch","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12012","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Health equity is a moral and ethical imperative for clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and all who use health research. Both Cochrane and the Campbell Collaboration have focused on health equity for many years.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The new Equity Group will continue and expand this work by designing a program of projects aiming to (1) promote equity in the evidence base, (2) ensure equitable processes for stakeholder engagement, (3) produce high-priority, equity-focused evidence syntheses, (4) build capacity for equity design, analysis, and reporting, and (5) promote equity in implementation tools.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We will build on our current network of collaborators and create a group structure striving to recruit across the PROGRESS-Plus characteristics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We invite readers to join our cause and contribute wherever they are able. Together, we can help Cochrane achieve its social responsibility of improving health equity at a planetary level.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50142543","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}
To identify all scientific papers that used internal industry documents in the pharmaceutical sector and analyze what and how the scientific literature learned about corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector through these internal documents.
Design
Scoping review.
Methods
Using different series of keywords, we searched six databases, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and PAIS, for peer-reviewed journal articles analyzing pharmaceutical corporations' internal documents. We completed the scoping review using a purposive snowball sampling method to extract relevant case studies and peer-reviewed journal articles from relevant articles' reference lists when our search keywords failed to capture them. To analyze the content of the literature and better categorize the types of corporate strategies at play in the pharmaceutical sector, we used categories of ghost-management previously developed in the literature.
Results
We identified 37 peer-reviewed papers in the final results. All the articles included in the final results are published in English. Almost all articles obtained most of their internal document data through legal proceedings. All 37 articles unveil dynamic ghost-management strategies that pharmaceutical corporations employ to safeguard their corporate interest. The strategies identified relate to scientific capture (n = 28), professional capture (n = 16), regulatory capture (n = 6), media capture (n = 3), market capture (n = 4), technological capture (n = 2), civil society capture (n = 4), and others (n = 2).
Conclusion
The scientific literature using internal documents confirmed widespread corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector. While the academic literature used internal documents related to only a handful of products, our research results, based on ghost-management categories, demonstrate the extent of corporate influence in every interstice of pharmaceutical markets, particularly in clinical research and clinical practice. It also allows us to better refine the conceptual categories of ghost-management to better map corporate influence and conflict of interest.
{"title":"What did the scientific literature learn from internal company documents in the pharmaceutical industry? A scoping review","authors":"Marc-André Gagnon, Miaoran Dong","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12011","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To identify all scientific papers that used internal industry documents in the pharmaceutical sector and analyze what and how the scientific literature learned about corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector through these internal documents.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Scoping review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using different series of keywords, we searched six databases, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and PAIS, for peer-reviewed journal articles analyzing pharmaceutical corporations' internal documents. We completed the scoping review using a purposive snowball sampling method to extract relevant case studies and peer-reviewed journal articles from relevant articles' reference lists when our search keywords failed to capture them. To analyze the content of the literature and better categorize the types of corporate strategies at play in the pharmaceutical sector, we used categories of ghost-management previously developed in the literature.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 37 peer-reviewed papers in the final results. All the articles included in the final results are published in English. Almost all articles obtained most of their internal document data through legal proceedings. All 37 articles unveil dynamic ghost-management strategies that pharmaceutical corporations employ to safeguard their corporate interest. The strategies identified relate to scientific capture (<i>n</i> = 28), professional capture (<i>n</i> = 16), regulatory capture (<i>n</i> = 6), media capture (<i>n</i> = 3), market capture (<i>n</i> = 4), technological capture (<i>n</i> = 2), civil society capture (<i>n</i> = 4), and others (<i>n</i> = 2).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The scientific literature using internal documents confirmed widespread corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector. While the academic literature used internal documents related to only a handful of products, our research results, based on ghost-management categories, demonstrate the extent of corporate influence in every interstice of pharmaceutical markets, particularly in clinical research and clinical practice. It also allows us to better refine the conceptual categories of ghost-management to better map corporate influence and conflict of interest.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50145224","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}
Given the large numbers of children with cancer in Egypt, the limited resources, and inferior survival outcomes, there is a need to better target resources to improve outcomes efficiently based on evidence. Nevertheless, there is a gap in knowledge about childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in Egypt. This commentary presents a “context-specific” conceptual framework of evidence synthesis to improve childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in a resource-limited setting in Egypt, using real-world data and addressing the implementation gaps.
Methods
Real-world data is defined as data relating to health status and/or the delivery of health services routinely collected from various sources outside the contexts of randomized controlled trials that can be used to conduct prospective/retrospective observational research studies.
Results
To better address this context-specific clinical problem, the conceptual framework of evidence synthesis proposes to generate three types of evidence using hybrid research methods; (1) Real-world evidence (obtained from observational studies based on routinely collected data from local context); (2) systematic evidence from the literature (systematic review); and (3) qualitative evidence based on experts' opinions in the local setting (interview study). Generating evidence from the three pillars altogether makes for a stronger approach to better research and tackle the local problem in this specific resource-limited context, and address the implementation gaps.
Conclusions
This framework serves as a methodological roadmap to generate relevant evidence in similar resource-limited contexts in low- and middle-income countries, where there is a paucity of published studies in the literature about childhood cancer survival outcomes and resource use.
{"title":"A context-specific conceptual framework of evidence synthesis to improve childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in Egypt: Using real-world data and addressing the implementation gaps","authors":"Ranin Soliman","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12010","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Given the large numbers of children with cancer in Egypt, the limited resources, and inferior survival outcomes, there is a need to better target resources to improve outcomes efficiently based on evidence. Nevertheless, there is a gap in knowledge about childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in Egypt. This commentary presents a “context-specific” conceptual framework of evidence synthesis to improve childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in a resource-limited setting in Egypt, using real-world data and addressing the implementation gaps.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Real-world data is defined as data relating to health status and/or the delivery of health services routinely collected from various sources outside the contexts of randomized controlled trials that can be used to conduct prospective/retrospective observational research studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To better address this context-specific clinical problem, the conceptual framework of evidence synthesis proposes to generate three types of evidence using hybrid research methods; (1) Real-world evidence (obtained from observational studies based on routinely collected data from local context); (2) systematic evidence from the literature (systematic review); and (3) qualitative evidence based on experts' opinions in the local setting (interview study). Generating evidence from the three pillars altogether makes for a stronger approach to better research and tackle the local problem in this specific resource-limited context, and address the implementation gaps.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This framework serves as a methodological roadmap to generate relevant evidence in similar resource-limited contexts in low- and middle-income countries, where there is a paucity of published studies in the literature about childhood cancer survival outcomes and resource use.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50151538","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}
Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez, Susan Baxter, Karen R. Steingart, Andrea C. Tricco, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, David Kaunelis, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Javier Zamora
Background
Rapid reviews (RRs) have been used to provide timely evidence for policymakers, health providers, and the public in several healthcare scenarios, most recently during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Despite the essential role of diagnosis in clinical management, data about how to perform RRs of diagnostic tests are scarce. We aimed to explore the views and perceptions of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence about the value of methods used to accelerate the review process.
Methods
We performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence. We carried out the interviews in English between July and December 2021. Initial reading and coding of the transcripts were performed using NVIVO qualitative data analysis software.
Results
Of a total of 23 invited experts, 16 (70%) responded. We interviewed all 16 participants representing key roles in evidence synthesis. We identified 14 recurring themes including the review question, characteristics of the review team, and use of automation, as the topics with the highest number of quotes. Some participants considered several methodological “shortcuts” to be ineffective or risky, such as automating quality appraisal, using only one reviewer for diagnostic data extraction and only performing descriptive analysis. The introduction of limits might depend on whether the test being assessed is a new test, the availability of alternative tests, the needs of providers and patients, and the availability of high-quality systematic reviews.
Conclusions
Our findings suggest that organizational strategies (e.g., defining the review question, availability of a highly experienced team) may have a role in conducting RRs of diagnostic tests. Several methodological shortcuts were considered inadequate for accelerating the review process, though they need to be assessed in well-designed studies. Improved reporting of RRs would support evidence-based decision-making and help users of RRs understand their limitations.
{"title":"How to develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests according to experts: A qualitative exploration of researcher views","authors":"Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez, Susan Baxter, Karen R. Steingart, Andrea C. Tricco, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, David Kaunelis, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Javier Zamora","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12006","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Rapid reviews (RRs) have been used to provide timely evidence for policymakers, health providers, and the public in several healthcare scenarios, most recently during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Despite the essential role of diagnosis in clinical management, data about how to perform RRs of diagnostic tests are scarce. We aimed to explore the views and perceptions of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence about the value of methods used to accelerate the review process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence. We carried out the interviews in English between July and December 2021. Initial reading and coding of the transcripts were performed using NVIVO qualitative data analysis software.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of a total of 23 invited experts, 16 (70%) responded. We interviewed all 16 participants representing key roles in evidence synthesis. We identified 14 recurring themes including the review question, characteristics of the review team, and use of automation, as the topics with the highest number of quotes. Some participants considered several methodological “shortcuts” to be ineffective or risky, such as automating quality appraisal, using only one reviewer for diagnostic data extraction and only performing descriptive analysis. The introduction of limits might depend on whether the test being assessed is a new test, the availability of alternative tests, the needs of providers and patients, and the availability of high-quality systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our findings suggest that organizational strategies (e.g., defining the review question, availability of a highly experienced team) may have a role in conducting RRs of diagnostic tests. Several methodological shortcuts were considered inadequate for accelerating the review process, though they need to be assessed in well-designed studies. Improved reporting of RRs would support evidence-based decision-making and help users of RRs understand their limitations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50130952","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}
Phi-Yen Nguyen, Joanne E. McKenzie, Daniel G. Hamilton, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Fiona M. Fidler, Neal R. Haddaway, Julian P. T. Higgins, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara J. Maxwell, Steve McDonald, Shinichi Nakagawa, David Nunan, Vivian A. Welch, Matthew J. Page
Background
Replication is essential to the scientific method. It is unclear what systematic reviewers think about the replication of systematic reviews (SRs). Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on (a) the definition and importance of SR replication; (b) incentives and barriers to conducting SR replication; and (c) a checklist to guide when to replicate an SR.
Methods
We searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on data sharing in SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (n = 4669) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.
Results
The response rate was 9% (n = 409). Most participants considered “replication of SRs” as redoing an SR (68%) or reanalyzing originally collected data (61%), using the same or similar methods. Participants also considered updating an SR, either one's own (42%) or others (43%), equivalent to replication. Most participants agreed that replication of SRs is important (89%). Although 54% of participants reported having conducted a replication of a SR, only 22% have published a replication within 5 years. Those who published a replication (n = 89) often found their replication supported (47%) or expanded the generalizability of the original review (51%). The most common perceived barriers to replicating SRs were difficulty publishing (75%), less prestige (65%), fewer citations (56%), and less impact on career advancement (55%) compared to conducting an original SR. A checklist to assess the need for replication was deemed useful (79%) and easy to apply in practice (69%) by participants.
Conclusion
Reviewers have various perceptions of what constitutes a replication of SRs. Reviewers see replication as important and valuable but perceive several barriers to conducting replications. Institutional support should be better communicated to reviewers to address these perceptions.
{"title":"Systematic reviewers' perspectives on replication of systematic reviews: A survey","authors":"Phi-Yen Nguyen, Joanne E. McKenzie, Daniel G. Hamilton, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Fiona M. Fidler, Neal R. Haddaway, Julian P. T. Higgins, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara J. Maxwell, Steve McDonald, Shinichi Nakagawa, David Nunan, Vivian A. Welch, Matthew J. Page","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12009","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Replication is essential to the scientific method. It is unclear what systematic reviewers think about the replication of systematic reviews (SRs). Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on (a) the definition and importance of SR replication; (b) incentives and barriers to conducting SR replication; and (c) a checklist to guide when to replicate an SR.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on data sharing in SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (<i>n</i> = 4669) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The response rate was 9% (<i>n</i> = 409). Most participants considered “replication of SRs” as redoing an SR (68%) or reanalyzing originally collected data (61%), using the same or similar methods. Participants also considered updating an SR, either one's own (42%) or others (43%), equivalent to replication. Most participants agreed that replication of SRs is important (89%). Although 54% of participants reported having conducted a replication of a SR, only 22% have published a replication within 5 years. Those who published a replication (<i>n</i> = 89) often found their replication supported (47%) or expanded the generalizability of the original review (51%). The most common perceived barriers to replicating SRs were difficulty publishing (75%), less prestige (65%), fewer citations (56%), and less impact on career advancement (55%) compared to conducting an original SR. A checklist to assess the need for replication was deemed useful (79%) and easy to apply in practice (69%) by participants.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Reviewers have various perceptions of what constitutes a replication of SRs. Reviewers see replication as important and valuable but perceive several barriers to conducting replications. Institutional support should be better communicated to reviewers to address these perceptions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12009","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50127111","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}
Phi-Yen Nguyen, Joanne E. McKenzie, Daniel G. Hamilton, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Fiona M. Fidler, Neal R. Haddaway, Julian P. T. Higgins, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara J. Maxwell, Steve McDonald, Shinichi Nakagawa, David Nunan, Vivian A. Welch, Matthew J. Page
Background
There are many benefits of sharing data, analytic code, and other materials, yet these items are infrequently shared among systematic reviews (SRs). It is unclear which factors influence authors' decisions to share data, code, or materials when publishing their SRs. Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on the importance of sharing review materials and factors that might influence such practices.
Methods
We searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on the replication of SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (n = 4671) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.
Results
The response rate was 9% (n = 417). Most participants supported routine sharing of search strategies (84%) but fewer for analytic code (43%) or files documenting data preparation (38%). Most participants agreed that normative practices within the discipline were an important facilitator (78%). Major perceived barriers were lack of time (62%) and suitable sharing platforms (31%). Few participants were required by funders (19%) or institutions (17%) to share data, and only 12% of participants reported receiving training on data sharing. Commonly perceived consequences of data sharing were lost opportunities for future publications (50%), misuse of data (48%), and issues with intellectual property (40%). In their most recent reviews, participants who did not share data cited the lack of journal requirements (56%) or noted the review did not include any statistical analysis that required sharing (29%).
Conclusion
Certain types of review materials were considered unnecessary for sharing, despite their importance to the review's transparency and reproducibility. Structural barriers and concerns about negative consequences hinder data sharing among systematic reviewers. Normalization and institutional incentives are essential to promote data-sharing practices in evidence-synthesis research.
{"title":"Systematic reviewers' perspectives on sharing review data, analytic code, and other materials: A survey","authors":"Phi-Yen Nguyen, Joanne E. McKenzie, Daniel G. Hamilton, David Moher, Peter Tugwell, Fiona M. Fidler, Neal R. Haddaway, Julian P. T. Higgins, Raju Kanukula, Sathya Karunananthan, Lara J. Maxwell, Steve McDonald, Shinichi Nakagawa, David Nunan, Vivian A. Welch, Matthew J. Page","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12008","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12008","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There are many benefits of sharing data, analytic code, and other materials, yet these items are infrequently shared among systematic reviews (SRs). It is unclear which factors influence authors' decisions to share data, code, or materials when publishing their SRs. Therefore, we aimed to explore systematic reviewers' perspectives on the importance of sharing review materials and factors that might influence such practices.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed for SRs published from January to April 2021, from which we randomly allocated 50% to this survey and 50% to another survey on the replication of SRs. We sent an electronic survey to authors of these SRs (<i>n</i> = 4671) using Qualtrics. Quantitative responses were summarized using frequency analysis. Free-text answers were coded using an inductive approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The response rate was 9% (<i>n</i> = 417). Most participants supported routine sharing of search strategies (84%) but fewer for analytic code (43%) or files documenting data preparation (38%). Most participants agreed that normative practices within the discipline were an important facilitator (78%). Major perceived barriers were lack of time (62%) and suitable sharing platforms (31%). Few participants were required by funders (19%) or institutions (17%) to share data, and only 12% of participants reported receiving training on data sharing. Commonly perceived consequences of data sharing were lost opportunities for future publications (50%), misuse of data (48%), and issues with intellectual property (40%). In their most recent reviews, participants who did not share data cited the lack of journal requirements (56%) or noted the review did not include any statistical analysis that required sharing (29%).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Certain types of review materials were considered unnecessary for sharing, despite their importance to the review's transparency and reproducibility. Structural barriers and concerns about negative consequences hinder data sharing among systematic reviewers. Normalization and institutional incentives are essential to promote data-sharing practices in evidence-synthesis research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12008","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50127110","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