Half of Cochrane reviews were published more than 2 years after the protocol

Building a sharable literature collection to advance the science and practice of implementation facilitation

Background

Implementation science seeks to produce generalizable knowledge on strategies that promote the adoption and sustained use of evidence-based innovations. Literature reviews on specific implementation strategies can help us understand how they are conceptualized and applied, synthesize findings, and identify knowledge gaps. Although rigorous literature reviews can advance scientific knowledge and facilitate theory development, they are time-consuming and costly to produce. Improving the efficiency of literature review processes and reducing redundancy of effort is especially important for this rapidly developing field. We sought to amass relevant literature on one increasingly used evidence-based strategy, implementation facilitation (IF), as a publicly available resource.

Methods

We conducted a rigorous systematic search of PubMed, CINAHL, and Web of Science citation databases for peer-reviewed, English-language articles with "facilitation" and a combination of other terms published from January 1996 to December 2021. We searched bibliographies of articles published from 1996 to 2015 and identified articles during the full text review that reported on the same study. Two authors screened 3,168 abstracts. After establishing inter-rater reliability, they individually conducted full-text review of 786 relevant articles. A multidisciplinary team of investigators provided recommendations for preparing and disseminating the literature collection.

Findings

The literature collection is comprised of 510 articles. It includes 277 empirical studies of IF and 77 other articles, including conceptual/theoretical articles, literature reviews, debate papers and descriptions of large-scale clinical initiatives. Over half of the articles were published between 2017 and 2021. The collection is publicly available as an Excel file and as an xml file that can be imported into reference management software.

Conclusion

We created a publicly accessible collection of literature about the application of IF to implement evidence-based innovations in healthcare. The comprehensiveness of this collection has the potential to maximize efficiency and minimize redundancy in scientific inquiry about this strategy. Scientists and practitioners can use the collection to more rapidly identify developments in the application of IF and to investigate a wide range of compelling questions on its use within and across different healthcare disciplines/settings, countries, and payer systems. We offer several examples of how this collection has already been used.

Comparative analysis of Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews over three decades

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews are viewed as the best study design to guide clinical decision-making as they are the least biased publications assuming they are well-conducted and include well-designed studies. Cochrane was initiated in 1993 with an aim of conducting high-quality systematic reviews. We aimed to examine the publication rates of non-Cochrane systematic reviews (henceforth referred to simply as "systematic reviews") and Cochrane reviews produced throughout Cochrane's existence and characterize changes throughout the period.

METHODS

This observational study collected data on systematic reviews published between 1993 and 2022 in PubMed. Identified Cochrane reviews were linked to data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews via their Digital Object Identifier. Systematic reviews and Cochrane reviews were analyzed separately. Two authors screened a random sample of records to validate the overall sample, providing a precision of 98%.

RESULTS

We identified 231,602 (94%) systematic reviews and 15,038 (6%) Cochrane reviews. Publication of systematic reviews has continuously increased with a median yearly increase rate of 26%, while publication of Cochrane reviews has decreased since 2015. From 1993 to 2002, Cochrane reviews constituted 35% of all systematic reviews in PubMed compared with 3.5% in 2013-2022. Systematic reviews consistently had fewer authors than Cochrane reviews, but the number of authors increased over time for both. Chinese first authors conducted 15% and 4% of systematic reviews published from 2013-2022 and 2003-2012, respectively. Most Cochrane reviews had first authors from the UK (36%). The native English-speaking countries the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia produced a large share of systematic reviews (42%) and Cochrane reviews (62%). The largest publishers of systematic reviews in the last 10 years were gold open access journals.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication of systematic reviews is increasing rapidly, while fewer Cochrane reviews have been published through the last decade. Native English-speaking countries produced a large proportion of both types of systematic reviews. Gold open access journals and Chinese first authors dominated the publication of systematic reviews for the past 10 years. More research is warranted examining why fewer Cochrane reviews are being published. Additionally, examining these systematic reviews for research waste metrics may provide a clearer picture of their utility.

Discrepancies in breast cancer guideline recommendations despite similar Cochrane systematic review conclusions

AIM

This study aims to describe the citation patterns of Cochrane systematic reviews (CSR) in guidelines for managing breast cancer.

METHODS

We searched for systematic reviews on breast cancer in The Cochrane Library from the date of inception to November 15, 2023, and identified guidelines that cited them. We described how systematic reviews were cited by the guidelines in each database and each year. Additionally, we presented the relationships between the conclusions of the systematic reviews and guideline recommendations and compared the consistency of the recommendations on the same topic across different guidelines.

RESULTS

A total of 64 systematic reviews and 228 guidelines were included in this study. The average number of the 64 systematic reviews cited by the guidelines was 5.91. We found that the guideline recommendations were irrelevant or inconsistent with the conclusions of the systematic reviews in 56 (38.36%) cited entries. We grouped recommendations on the same topic across different guidelines into one group, of which only 5 groups (15.15%) had completely consistent recommendations, and the other 28 groups (84.85%) had inconsistent recommendations.

CONCLUSION

The average number of citations for CSR on breast cancer in the guidelines was 5.91. There were also situations in which the guideline recommendations were inconsistent with the conclusions of the included systematic reviews, and recommendations on the same topic across different guidelines were inconsistent.

PROTOCOL: Assessment of publication time in Campbell systematic reviews: A cross-sectional survey

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. This study has three main objectives: (1) To examine the time duration from title registration to publication of the protocol for a Campbell systematic review and publication of the completed Campbell systematic review; (2) To describe publication times in accordance with the characteristics of the reviews, which include year of publication, type of review, number of authors, number of collaborative institutions, the time gap between the date the search was conducted and review publication, and the length and complexity of the included review (including the number of pages, the number of tables and figures, the number of studies included in the review, the number and type of analyses undertaken, and the number of references); (3) To describe the differences in publication times between Campbell Review Groups.

Living Health Technology Assessment: Issues, Challenges and Opportunities

Health technology assessments (HTAs) are typically performed as one-off evaluations and can potentially become out-of-date due to the availability of new data, new comparators, or other factors. Recently, living approaches have been applied to systematic reviews and network meta-analyses to enable evidence syntheses to be updated more easily. In this paper, we provide a definition for 'Living HTA' where such a living approach could be applied to the entire HTA process. Living HTA could involve performing regular or scheduled updates using a traditional manual approach, or indeed in a semi-automated manner leveraging recent technological innovations that automate parts of the HTA process. The practical implementation of living HTA using both approaches (i.e., manual approach and using semi-automation) is described along with the likely issues and challenges with planning and implementing a living HTA process. The time, resources and additional considerations outlined may prohibit living HTA from becoming the norm for every evaluation; however, scenarios where living HTA would be particularly beneficial are discussed.

The effect of machine learning tools for evidence synthesis on resource use and time-to-completion: protocol for a retrospective pilot study

BACKGROUND

Machine learning (ML) tools exist that can reduce or replace human activities in repetitive or complex tasks. Yet, ML is underutilized within evidence synthesis, despite the steadily growing rate of primary study publication and the need to periodically update reviews to reflect new evidence. Underutilization may be partially explained by a paucity of evidence on how ML tools can reduce resource use and time-to-completion of reviews.

METHODS

This protocol describes how we will answer two research questions using a retrospective study design: Is there a difference in resources used to produce reviews using recommended ML versus not using ML, and is there a difference in time-to-completion? We will also compare recommended ML use to non-recommended ML use that merely adds ML use to existing procedures. We will retrospectively include all reviews conducted at our institute from 1 August 2020, corresponding to the commission of the first review in our institute that used ML.

CONCLUSION

The results of this study will allow us to quantitatively estimate the effect of ML adoption on resource use and time-to-completion, providing our organization and others with better information to make high-level organizational decisions about ML.

Challenges, limitations, and solutions for orthodontists during the coronavirus pandemic: A review

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontic patients worldwide missed appointments during the early months of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. A significant problem with this virus is its high transmission power. Asymptomatic patients can transmit the virus. The aim of this review is to examine orthodontic emergencies and the necessary strategies and measures for emergency and nonemergency treatment during the coronavirus pandemic.

METHODS

The following databases were comprehensively searched: PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Google Scholar. Up-to-date data released by major health organizations such as the World Health Organization and major orthodontic associations involved in the pandemic were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Few studies were conducted on managing orthodontic offices or clinics during the pandemic, and most are not of high quality. Appropriate communication is the most important issue in managing orthodontic patients, particularly virtual counseling. Many orthodontic emergencies can be managed in this way by patients themselves. Most studies recommend using the filtering facepiece 2 masks, equivalent to N95 masks for non-COVID-19 patients undergoing aerosol-generating procedures and all suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients in orthodontic visits.

CONCLUSIONS

At this time, there are no definitive clinical protocols supported by robust evidence for orthodontic practice during the COVID-19 pandemic. Orthodontists should not rush to return to routine orthodontic work and should follow state guidelines. Nonemergency orthodontic visits should be suspended during the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 pandemic in high-risk areas. Resuming orthodontic procedures during the pandemic requires paying special attention to screening, performing maximum efforts to reduce aerosol generation, using appropriate personal protective equipment, having proper ventilation, and fully adhering to sterilization and disinfection principles.

Relevance and paucity of evidence: a dental perspective on personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic

The global COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has highlighted the importance of personal protective equipment (PPE) for health and social care personnel. This is a really important issue for dentistry, where we place great emphasis on infection control and universal precautions, given the nature of care provided. Cochrane have recently updated their review of PPE for preventing highly infectious diseases due to exposure to contaminated body fluids in healthcare staff. It examined evidence on which type of full body PPE and which method of donning (putting on) or doffing (removing) are most effective, while having the least risk of contamination or infection for healthcare workers, as well as which training methods increase compliance with PPE protocols. The objective of this paper is to raise awareness of the above review of PPE, its findings and their relevance to dentistry as outlined in the Cochrane Oral Health website.The available evidence comes from healthcare generally, mostly involving simulation exercises, and is of low or very low certainty. None of the evidence specifically comes from dentistry.The findings in relation to the nature of PPE, methods of donning and doffing, and the importance of training are all of practical relevance to dentistry. Research is critically important to provide evidence for future decision making in support of patients and staff.