微生物学文献的范围综述:方法和结果

Matthew L. Rubinstein M.S., MT(ASCP) , J. Scott Parrott Ph.D.
{"title":"微生物学文献的范围综述:方法和结果","authors":"Matthew L. Rubinstein M.S., MT(ASCP) ,&nbsp;J. Scott Parrott Ph.D.","doi":"10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2021.07.001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p><span>A scoping review is an approach to evidence synthesis. Its purpose is to provide an overview of the available research evidence without producing a summary answer to a discrete research question. Scoping reviews can be useful for answering expansive questions and identifying information relevant to a given research topic. The utility of scoping reviews is also to inform a systematic review, a knowledge synthesis process that aims to collect, and analyze all evidence that answers a specific research question. Scoping reviews are broadly depicted in the literature; however, the use of scoping review analysis techniques to rigorously prepare a </span>clinical microbiology<span> evidence base for comparison of multicomponent quality improvement interventions has not been explored. Recently, a pilot approach was published, and that approach is summarized here. It combined knowledge synthesis methods to (i) provide a meta-analytic route forward for a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) and (ii) inform the American Society for Microbiology's (ASM's) approach to the production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Further, a generalizable approach for other SRMA investigators who are similarly challenged by an evidence base that involves complex interventions was modeled by an ASM team re-exploring the impact of rapid diagnostics. While the approach is generalized, it is not intended to be prescriptive. The approach may frame or inform further conversation within the clinical microbiology community of practice and anyone reading the ASM CPGs. This article details a fundamental challenge to addressing “intervention complexity” in the clinical microbiology evidence base in the early stages of the CPG process.</span></p></div>","PeriodicalId":39211,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Microbiology Newsletter","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2021.07.001","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Scoping Reviews of the Microbiology Literature: Methods and Payoffs\",\"authors\":\"Matthew L. Rubinstein M.S., MT(ASCP) ,&nbsp;J. Scott Parrott Ph.D.\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2021.07.001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p><span>A scoping review is an approach to evidence synthesis. Its purpose is to provide an overview of the available research evidence without producing a summary answer to a discrete research question. Scoping reviews can be useful for answering expansive questions and identifying information relevant to a given research topic. The utility of scoping reviews is also to inform a systematic review, a knowledge synthesis process that aims to collect, and analyze all evidence that answers a specific research question. Scoping reviews are broadly depicted in the literature; however, the use of scoping review analysis techniques to rigorously prepare a </span>clinical microbiology<span> evidence base for comparison of multicomponent quality improvement interventions has not been explored. Recently, a pilot approach was published, and that approach is summarized here. It combined knowledge synthesis methods to (i) provide a meta-analytic route forward for a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) and (ii) inform the American Society for Microbiology's (ASM's) approach to the production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Further, a generalizable approach for other SRMA investigators who are similarly challenged by an evidence base that involves complex interventions was modeled by an ASM team re-exploring the impact of rapid diagnostics. While the approach is generalized, it is not intended to be prescriptive. The approach may frame or inform further conversation within the clinical microbiology community of practice and anyone reading the ASM CPGs. This article details a fundamental challenge to addressing “intervention complexity” in the clinical microbiology evidence base in the early stages of the CPG process.</span></p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39211,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Microbiology Newsletter\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.clinmicnews.2021.07.001\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Microbiology Newsletter\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196439921000441\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Microbiology Newsletter","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0196439921000441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

范围审查是证据合成的一种方法。它的目的是提供现有研究证据的概述,而不是对一个离散的研究问题给出总结的答案。范围审查对于回答广泛的问题和确定与给定研究主题相关的信息是有用的。范围评价的效用还在于为系统评价提供信息,这是一个知识综合过程,旨在收集和分析回答特定研究问题的所有证据。范围审查在文献中被广泛描述;然而,使用范围审查分析技术来严格准备临床微生物学证据基础,以比较多组分质量改善干预措施尚未进行探索。最近公布了一个试点方法,在此对该方法进行总结。它结合了知识综合方法(i)为系统评价和荟萃分析(SRMA)提供了一条元分析路线,(ii)为美国微生物学会(ASM)制定临床实践指南(cpg)提供了信息。此外,ASM团队重新探索快速诊断的影响,为其他SRMA研究人员提供了一种可推广的方法,这些研究人员同样受到涉及复杂干预措施的证据基础的挑战。虽然该方法是一般化的,但它并不打算成为规定性的。该方法可以在临床微生物学实践社区和任何阅读ASM CPGs的人之间建立或告知进一步的对话。本文详细介绍了在CPG过程的早期阶段解决临床微生物学证据基础中的“干预复杂性”的基本挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Scoping Reviews of the Microbiology Literature: Methods and Payoffs

A scoping review is an approach to evidence synthesis. Its purpose is to provide an overview of the available research evidence without producing a summary answer to a discrete research question. Scoping reviews can be useful for answering expansive questions and identifying information relevant to a given research topic. The utility of scoping reviews is also to inform a systematic review, a knowledge synthesis process that aims to collect, and analyze all evidence that answers a specific research question. Scoping reviews are broadly depicted in the literature; however, the use of scoping review analysis techniques to rigorously prepare a clinical microbiology evidence base for comparison of multicomponent quality improvement interventions has not been explored. Recently, a pilot approach was published, and that approach is summarized here. It combined knowledge synthesis methods to (i) provide a meta-analytic route forward for a systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) and (ii) inform the American Society for Microbiology's (ASM's) approach to the production of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Further, a generalizable approach for other SRMA investigators who are similarly challenged by an evidence base that involves complex interventions was modeled by an ASM team re-exploring the impact of rapid diagnostics. While the approach is generalized, it is not intended to be prescriptive. The approach may frame or inform further conversation within the clinical microbiology community of practice and anyone reading the ASM CPGs. This article details a fundamental challenge to addressing “intervention complexity” in the clinical microbiology evidence base in the early stages of the CPG process.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Microbiology Newsletter
Clinical Microbiology Newsletter Medicine-Infectious Diseases
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
53 days
期刊介绍: Highly respected for its ability to keep pace with advances in this fast moving field, Clinical Microbiology Newsletter has quickly become a “benchmark” for anyone in the lab. Twice a month the newsletter reports on changes that affect your work, ranging from articles on new diagnostic techniques, to surveys of how readers handle blood cultures, to editorials questioning common procedures and suggesting new ones.
期刊最新文献
Current scenario and future prospect of scabies treatment: A comprehensive review “Eye see worms on the down Loa”: A case study of microfilarial co-infection General perspectives on dengue fever Navigating the new norm: The FDA's final rule on laboratory developed tests (LDTs) and its impact on clinical laboratory operations Neisseria meningitidis pyelonephritis: A rare and unusual presentation of an established pathogen
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1