A systematic review that is ``rapid'' and ``living'': A specific answer to the COVID-19 pandemic

A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact in the global research production and has also increased research waste. Living evidence syntheses (LESs) seek to regularly update a body of evidence addressing a specific question. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the production and dissemination of LESs emerged as a cornerstone of the evidence infrastructure. This critical interpretive synthesis answers the questions: What constitutes an LES to support decision-making?; when should one be produced, updated, and discontinued?; and how should one be disseminated?

METHODS

Searches included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), Health Systems Evidence, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science up to 23 April 2024 and included articles that provide any insights on addressing the compass questions on LESs. Articles were selected and appraised, and their insights extracted. An interpretive and iterative coding process was used to identify relevant thematic categories and create a conceptual framework.

RESULTS

Among the 16,630 non-duplicate records identified, 208 publications proved eligible. Most were non-empirical articles, followed by actual LESs. Approximately one in three articles were published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework addresses six thematic categories: (1) what is an LES; (2) what methodological approaches facilitate LESs production; (3) when to produce an LES; (4) when to update an LES; (5) how to make available the findings of an LES; and (6) when to discontinue LES updates.

CONCLUSION

LESs can play a critical role in reducing research waste and ensuring alignment with advisory and decision-making processes. This critical interpretive synthesis provides relevant insights on how to better organize the global evidence architecture to support their production.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration: CRD42021241875.

A research agenda to advance the study of implementation mechanisms

BACKGROUND

Implementation science scholars have made significant progress identifying factors that enable or obstruct the implementation of evidence-based interventions, and testing strategies that may modify those factors. However, little research sheds light on how or why strategies work, in what contexts, and for whom. Studying implementation mechanisms-the processes responsible for change-is crucial for advancing the field of implementation science and enhancing its value in facilitating equitable policy and practice change. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality funded a conference series to achieve two aims: (1) develop a research agenda on implementation mechanisms, and (2) actively disseminate the research agenda to research, policy, and practice audiences. This article presents the resulting research agenda, including priorities and actions to encourage its execution.

METHOD

Building on prior concept mapping work, in a semi-structured, 3-day, in-person working meeting, 23 US-based researchers used a modified nominal group process to generate priorities and actions for addressing challenges to studying implementation mechanisms. During each of the three 120-min sessions, small groups responded to the prompt: "What actions need to be taken to move this research forward?" The groups brainstormed actions, which were then shared with the full group and discussed with the support of facilitators trained in structured group processes. Facilitators grouped critical and novel ideas into themes. Attendees voted on six themes they prioritized to discuss in a fourth, 120-min session, during which small groups operationalized prioritized actions. Subsequently, all ideas were collated, combined, and revised for clarity by a subset of the authorship team.

RESULTS

From this multistep process, 150 actions emerged across 10 priority areas, which together constitute the research agenda. Actions included discrete activities, projects, or products, and ways to shift how research is conducted to strengthen the study of implementation mechanisms.

CONCLUSIONS

This research agenda elevates actions to guide the selection, design, and evaluation of implementation mechanisms. By delineating recommended actions to address the challenges of studying implementation mechanisms, this research agenda facilitates expanding the field of implementation science, beyond studying what works to how and why strategies work, in what contexts, for whom, and with which interventions.

Improving the quality of evidence production in rehabilitation. Results of the 5th Cochrane Rehabilitation Methodological Meeting

The paper introduces the Special Sections of the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine dedicated to the 5th Methodological Meeting of Cochrane Rehabilitation. It introduces Cochrane Rehabilitation; its vision, mission and goals; discusses why the Methodological Meetings were created; and reports on their organisation and previous outcomes. The core content of this editorial is the 5th Methodological Meeting held in Milan in September 2023. The original title for this meeting was "The Rehabilitation Evidence Ecosystem: useful study designs." The focus of the Milan meeting was informed by the lessons learned by Cochrane Rehabilitation in the past few years, by the new rehabilitation definition for research purposes, by the collaboration with the World Health Organization (WHO), and by the REH-COVER (Rehabilitation COVID-19 Evidence-Based Response) action. During the Meeting, participants discussed the current methodological evidence on the following: RCTs in rehabilitation coming from meta-epidemiological studies; observational study designs - specifically the IDEAL Framework (Idea, Development, Exploration, Assessment, Long-term study) and its potential implementation in rehabilitation and the Target Trial Emulation framework: Single Case Experimental Designs; complex intervention studies: health services research studies, and studies using qualitative approaches. The Meeting culminated in the development of a first version of a "road map" to navigate the evidence production in rehabilitation according to the previous discussions. The Special Sections' papers present all topics discussed at the meeting, and a methodological paper about choosing the right research question, presenting final results and the "road map" for evidence production in rehabilitation.

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance.

METHODS

A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word.

RESULTS

Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR.

CONCLUSION

Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.

System dynamics modeling for cancer prevention and control: A systematic review

Cancer prevention and control requires consideration of complex interactions between multilevel factors. System dynamics modeling, which consists of diagramming and simulation approaches for understanding and managing such complexity, is being increasingly applied to cancer prevention and control, but the breadth, characteristics, and quality of these studies is not known. We searched PubMed, Scopus, APA PsycInfo, and eight peer-reviewed journals to identify cancer-related studies that used system dynamics modeling. A dual review process was used to determine eligibility. Included studies were assessed using quality criteria adapted from prior literature and mapped onto the cancer control continuum. Characteristics of studies and models were abstracted and qualitatively synthesized. 32 studies met our inclusion criteria. A mix of simulation and diagramming approaches were used to address diverse topics, including chemotherapy treatments (16%), interventions to reduce tobacco or e-cigarettes use (16%), and cancer risk from environmental contamination (13%). Models spanned all focus areas of the cancer control continuum, with treatment (44%), prevention (34%), and detection (31%) being the most common. The quality assessment of studies was low, particularly for simulation approaches. Diagramming-only studies more often used participatory approaches. Involvement of participants, description of model development processes, and proper calibration and validation of models showed the greatest room for improvement. System dynamics modeling can illustrate complex interactions and help identify potential interventions across the cancer control continuum. Prior efforts have been hampered by a lack of rigor and transparency regarding model development and testing. Supportive infrastructure for increasing awareness, accessibility, and further development of best practices of system dynamics for multidisciplinary cancer research is needed.

How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide

BACKGROUND

The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature.

METHODS

In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review.

RESULTS

We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start.

Are COVID-19 systematic reviews up to date and can we tell? A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 led to a rapid acceleration in the number of systematic reviews. Readers need to know how up to date evidence is when selecting reviews to inform decisions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate how easily the currency of COVID-19 systematic reviews published early in the pandemic could be determined and how up to date these reviews were at the time of publication.

METHODS

We searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to COVID-19 added to PubMed in July 2020 and January 2021, including any that were first published as preprints. We extracted data on the date of search, number of included studies, and date first published online. For the search date, we noted the format of the date and where in the review this was reported. A sample of non-COVID-19 systematic reviews from November 2020 served as a comparator.

RESULTS

We identified 246 systematic reviews on COVID-19. In the abstract of these reviews, just over half (57%) reported the search date (day/month/year or month/year) while 43% failed to report any date. When the full text was considered, the search date was missing from 6% of reviews. The median time from last search to publication online was 91 days (IQR 63-130). Time from search to publication was similar for the subset of 15 rapid or living reviews (92 days) but shorter for the 29 reviews published as preprints (37 days). The median number of studies or publications included per review was 23 (IQR 12-40). In the sample of 290 non-COVID SRs, around two-thirds (65%) reported the search date while a third (34%) did not include any date in the abstract. The median time from search to publication online was 253 days (IQR 153-381) and each review included a median of 12 studies (IQR 8-21).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the context of the pandemic and the need to easily ascertain the currency of systematic reviews, reporting of the search date information for COVID-19 reviews was inadequate. Adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the transparency and usefulness of systematic reviews to users.

Cochrane "evidence relevant to" rehabilitation of people with post COVID-19 condition. What it is and how it has been mapped to inform the development of the World Health Organization recommendations

Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a series of actions to provide the global rehabilitation community with the best available evidence to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. These initiatives constituted the REH-COVER (Rehabilitation COVID-19 evidence-based response) action. In March 2020, the first initiative started in agreement with the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EJPRM): the rapid systematic review of all papers relevant to COVID-19 rehabilitation to inform rehabilitation health professionals rapidly. Currently, we are facing the long-term consequences of COVID-19, initially called "long Covid" and now named post COVID-19 condition (PCC), which led to the request by the WHO Rehabilitation Programme for evidence synthesis to support the development of specific recommendations. Cochrane Rehabilitation provided the best available evidence from the REH-COVER rapid living systematic review results, a systematic scoping review on the models of care and a summary of "evidence relevant to" the rehabilitation for adults with PCC. Based on this evidence, expert groups developed the 16 recommendations for the rehabilitation of adults with PCC recently published in Chapter 24 of the WHO "Clinical management of COVID-19 living guideline." This paper aims to introduce the Special Section of EJPRM reporting the work performed by Cochrane Rehabilitation to produce a summary of the existing "evidence relevant to" the rehabilitation of adults with PCC. The paper reports the methodology (overview of systematic reviews with mapping) and introduces the concept of "evidence relevant to" rehabilitation.

Characteristics of Living Systematic Review for COVID-19

Purpose

The systematic review aims to analyze and summarize the characteristics of living systematic review (LSR) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).

Methods

Six databases including Medline, Excerpta Medica (Embase), Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database and China Science, and Technology Journal Database (VIP), were searched as the source of basic information and methodology of LSR. Descriptive analytical methods were used to analyze the included COVID-19 LSRs, and the study characteristics of COVID-19 LSRs were further assessed.

Results

Sixty-four COVID-19 LSRs were included. Eighty-nine point one percent of LSRs were published on Science Citation Index (SCI) journals, and 64.1% publication with an impact factor (IF) >5 and 17.2% with an IF >15 among SCI journals. The first unit of the published LSRs for COVID-19 came from 19 countries, with the largest contribution from the UK (17.2%, 11/64). Forty point six percent of LSRs for COVID-19 were related to therapeutics topic which was considered the most concerned perspective for LSRs for COVID-19. Seventy-six point six percent of LSRs focused on the general population, with less attention to children, pregnant women and the elderly. However, the LSR for COVID-19 was reported incomplete on “living” process, including 40.6% of studies without search frequency, 79.7% of studies without screening frequency, 20.3% of studies without update frequency, and 65.6% of studies without the timing or criteria of transitioning LSR out of living mode.

Conclusion

Although researchers in many countries have applied LSRs to COVID-19, most of the LSRs for COVID-19 were incomplete in reporting on the “living” process and less focused on special populations. This could reduce the confidence of health-care providers and policy makers in the results of COVID-19 LSR, thereby hindering the translation of evidence on COVID-19 LSR into clinical practice. It was necessary to explicitly enact preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) to improve the reporting quality of LSR and support ongoing efforts of therapeutics research for special patients with COVID-19.

The vital role of physiotherapy during COVID-19: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The current COVID-19 pandemic has changed the entire world population's physical and mental wellbeing irrespective of the person being infected or not. Flourishing numbers of new research recommends physiotherapy for the management of COVID-19 patients. However, there are cavities in the study in the recommendation of physiotherapy specific to the current pandemic.

OBJECTIVE

This review aimed to synthesize physiotherapy-related articles to COVID-19 and summarize their efficacious highlights.

METHODS

For the literature search PubMed, PEDro, DOAJ and The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were used. The keywords included "Physiotherapy", "COVID-19", and "Coronavirus". The Boolean search was applied as required. Selection criteria included studies that included physiotherapy intervention as a tool for recovery of COVID-19. Exclusion criteria included animal studies, non-COVID-19 studies and physiotherapy as an adjunct treatment. The study evaluated evidence of all full-text articles in English from December 2019 to August 2020.

RESULTS

Of the retrieved 577 articles, 390 articles were excluded at the title and abstract screening. 167 articles underwent full-text screening and further narrowed to 11 studies matching the expected criteria. 156 studies were excluded for various reasons.

CONCLUSION

The current study findings support that physiotherapy interventions facilitate recovery in COVID-19 patients and act as a protective barrier. Further results include a reduced length of stay in intensive care and reduced treatment cost since this outbreak has brought a significant economic burden to many countries.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field - third edition. Update as of June 30th, 2021

INTRODUCTION

This paper updates and summarizes the current evidence informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing the consequences of the disease and its treatment.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

Studies published from May 1st to June 30th, 2021 were selected, excluding descriptive studies and expert opinions. Papers were categorized according to study design, research question, COVID-19 phase, limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest, and type of rehabilitation service involved. From this edition, we improved the quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs).

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Twenty-five, out of 3699 papers, were included. They were three RCTs, 13 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies. Twenty studies reported data on symptom prevalence (N.=13) or disease natural history (N.=7); and five studies reported intervention effectiveness at the individual level. All study participants were COVID survivors and 48% of studies collected information on participants 6 months or longer after COVID-19 onset. The most frequent risks of bias for RCTs concerned weaknesses in allocation concealment, blinding of therapists, and lack of intention-to-treat analysis. Most analytical studies failed to identify or deal with confounders, describe or deal with dropouts or eventually perform an appropriate statistical analysis.

CONCLUSIONS

Most studies in this updated review targeted the prevalence of limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest in COVID-19 survivors. This is similar to past review findings; however, data in the new studies was collected at longer follow-up periods (up to one year after symptom onset) and in larger samples of participants. More RCTs and analytical observational studies are available, but the methodological quality of recently published studies is low. There is a need for good quality intervention efficacy and effectiveness studies to complement the rapidly expanding evidence from observational studies.