Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Rapid review (RR) could accelerate the traditional systematic review (SR) process by simplifying or omitting steps using various shortcuts. With the increasing popularity of RR, numerous shortcuts had emerged, but there was no consensus on how to choose the most appropriate ones. This study conducted a literature search in PubMed from inception to December 21, 2023, using terms such as "rapid review" "rapid assessment" "rapid systematic review" and "rapid evaluation". We also scanned the reference lists and performed citation tracking of included impact studies to obtain more included studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of all RR approaches, shortcuts and studies assessing their effectiveness at each stage of RRs. Based on the current evidence, we provided recommendations on utilizing certain shortcuts in RRs. Ultimately, we identified 185 studies focusing on summarizing RR approaches and shortcuts, or evaluating their impact. There was relatively sufficient evidence to support the use of the following shortcuts in RRs: limiting studies to those published in English-language; conducting abbreviated database searches (e.g., only searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL); omitting retrieval of grey literature; restricting the search timeframe to the recent 20 years for medical intervention and the recent 15 years for reviewing diagnostic test accuracy; conducting a single screening by an experienced screener. To some extent, the above shortcuts were also applicable to SRs. This study provided a reference for future RR researchers in selecting shortcuts, and it also presented a potential research topic for methodologists.

What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies

Rapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision-maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full-text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies.

Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software

BACKGROUND

Data extraction (DE) is a challenging step in systematic reviews (SRs). Complex SRs can involve multiple interventions and/or outcomes and encompass multiple research questions. Attempts have been made to clarify DE aspects focusing on the subsequent meta-analysis; there are, however, no guidelines for DE in complex SRs. Comparing datasets extracted independently by pairs of reviewers to detect discrepancies is also cumbersome, especially when the number of extracted variables and/or studies is colossal. This work aims to provide a set of practical steps to help SR teams design and build DE tools and compare extracted data for complex SRs.

METHODS

We provided a 10-step guideline, from determining data items and structure to data comparison, to help identify discrepancies and solve data disagreements between reviewers. The steps were organised into three phases: planning and building the database and data manipulation. Each step was described and illustrated with examples, and relevant references were provided for further guidance. A demonstration example was presented to illustrate the application of Epi Info and R in the database building and data manipulation phases. The proposed guideline was also summarised and compared with previous DE guidelines.

RESULTS

The steps of this guideline are described generally without focusing on a particular software application or meta-analysis technique. We emphasised determining the organisational data structure and highlighted its role in the subsequent steps of database building. In addition to the minimal programming skills needed, creating relational databases and data validation features of Epi info can be utilised to build DE tools for complex SRs. However, two R libraries are needed to facilitate data comparison and solve discrepancies.

CONCLUSIONS

We hope adopting this guideline can help review teams construct DE tools that suit their complex review projects. Although Epi Info depends on proprietary software for data storage, it can still be a potential alternative to other commercial DE software for completing complex reviews.

Systematic reviewers used various approaches to data extraction and expressed several research needs: a survey

OBJECTIVE

Data extraction is a prerequisite for analyzing, summarizing, and interpreting evidence in systematic reviews. Yet guidance is limited, and little is known about current approaches. We surveyed systematic reviewers on their current approaches to data extraction, opinions on methods, and research needs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We developed a 29-question online survey and distributed it through relevant organizations, social media, and personal networks in 2022. Closed questions were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and open questions were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

162 reviewers participated. Use of adapted (65%) or newly developed extraction forms (62%) was common. Generic forms were rarely used (14%). Spreadsheet software was the most popular extraction tool (83%). Piloting was reported by 74% of respondents and included a variety of approaches. Independent and duplicate extraction was considered the most appropriate approach to data collection (64%). About half of respondents agreed that blank forms and/or raw data should be published. Suggested research gaps were the effects of different methods on error rates (60%) and the use of data extraction support tools (46%).

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviewers used varying approaches to pilot data extraction. Methods to reduce errors and use of support tools such as (semi-)automation tools are top research gaps.

Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Article 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines

OBJECTIVES

Producing living guidelines requires making important decisions about methods for evidence identification, appraisal, and integration to allow the living mode to function. Clarifying what these decisions are and the trade-offs between options is necessary. This article provides living guideline developers with a framework to enable them to choose the most suitable model for their living guideline topic, question, or context.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We developed this guidance through an iterative process informed by interviews, feedback, and a consensus process with an international group of living guideline developers.

RESULTS

Several key decisions need to be made both before commencing and throughout the continual process of living guideline development and maintenance. These include deciding what approach is taken to the systematic review process; decisions about methods to be applied for the evidence appraisal process, including the use of unpublished data; and selection of "triggers" to incorporate new studies into living guideline recommendations. In each case, there are multiple options and trade-offs.

CONCLUSION

We identify trade-offs and important decisions to be considered throughout the living guideline development process. The most appropriate, and most sustainable, mode of development and updating will be dependent on the choices made in each of these areas.

Effectiveness of interventions for dry eye: a protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Dry eye is a leading cause of ocular morbidity and economic and societal burden for patients and healthcare systems. There are several treatment options available for dry eye and high-quality systematic reviews synthesise the evidence for their effectiveness and potential harms.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search the Cochrane Eyes and Vision US satellite (CEV@US) database of eyes and vision systematic reviews for systematic reviews on interventions for dry eye. CEV@US conducted an initial search of PubMed and Embase to populate the CEV@US database of eyes and vision systematic reviews in 2007, which was updated most recently in August 2021. We will search the database for systematic reviews published since 1 January 2016 because systematic reviews more than 5 years are unlikely to be up to date. We will consider Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews eligible for inclusion. Two authors will independently screen articles. We will include studies that evaluate interventions for dry eye and/or meibomian gland dysfunction with no restriction on types of participants or review language. We will select reliable systematic reviews (ie, those meeting pre-established methodological criteria) for inclusion, assessed by one investigator and verified by a second investigator. We will extract ratings of the certainty of evidence from within each review. We will report the degree of overlap for systematic reviews that answer similar questions and include overlapping primary studies. We will present results of the overview in alignment with guidelines in the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Online Chapter 5: Overviews of Reviews), the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement, and an overview of reviews quality and transparency checklist. The anticipated start and completion dates for this overview are 1 May 2021 and 30 April 2022, respectively.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This overview will not require the approval of an Ethics Committee because it will use published studies. We will publish results in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021279880.

Prevalence and incidence of dry eye in the USA: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Dry eye is a multifactorial chronic condition characterised by tear film insufficiency and instability, and ocular symptoms including foreign body sensation, itching, irritation, soreness and visual disturbance. The prevalence and incidence of dry eye are major determinants of the magnitude of economic and societal costs of the disease. This protocol proposes a systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence and incidence of dry eye in the USA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Working with an information specialist, we will develop search strategies for Ovid Medline and Embase for population-based cross-sectional and cohort studies involving US-based populations that report the prevalence and/or incidence of dry eye. We will include studies involving persons of all ages from 1 January 2010 to the current date with no language restrictions. We will also hand-search references of included studies, dry eye epidemiology-related systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines and literature provided by agencies and organisations. Two investigators will independently screen the titles and abstracts, and then full-text reports to determine eligibility. One investigator will extract study data and perform risk of bias assessments using tools designed specifically for prevalence and incidence studies. A second investigator will verify all extracted study data and risk of bias assessments. We will assess heterogeneity, qualitatively and quantitatively. When appropriate, we will meta-analyse prevalence and incidence estimates.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require approval by an ethics committee because it will use published studies. We will publish our results in a peer-reviewed journal and present at relevant conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021256934.

Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

BACKGROUND

Previous research on data extraction methods in systematic reviews has focused on single aspects of the process. We aimed to provide a deeper insight into these methods by analysing a current sample of reviews.

METHODS

We included systematic reviews of health interventions in humans published in English. We analysed 75 Cochrane reviews from May and June 2020 and a random sample of non-Cochrane reviews published in the same period and retrieved from Medline. We linked reviews with protocols and study registrations. We collected information on preparing, piloting, and performing data extraction and on use of software to assist review conduct (automation tools). Data were extracted by one author, with 20% extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed descriptively.

RESULTS

Of the 152 included reviews, 77 reported use of a standardized extraction form (51%); 42 provided information on the type of form used (28%); 24 on piloting (16%); 58 on what data was collected (38%); 133 on the extraction method (88%); 107 on resolving disagreements (70%); 103 on methods to obtain additional data or information (68%); 52 on procedures to avoid data errors (34%); and 47 on methods to deal with multiple study reports (31%). Items were more frequently reported in Cochrane than non-Cochrane reviews. The data extraction form used was published in 10 reviews (7%). Use of software was rarely reported except for statistical analysis software and use of RevMan and GRADEpro GDT in Cochrane reviews. Covidence was the most frequent automation tool used: 18 reviews used it for study selection (12%) and 9 for data extraction (6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of data extraction methods in systematic reviews is limited, especially in non-Cochrane reviews. This includes core items of data extraction such as methods used to manage disagreements. Few reviews currently use software to assist data extraction and review conduct. Our results can serve as a baseline to assess the uptake of such tools in future analyses.

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.