The Web-based “Right Review” tool asks reviewers simple questions to suggest methods from 41 Knowledge Synthesis methods

An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool

OBJECTIVES

The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group.

RESULTS

Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs.

CONCLUSION

The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025.

Tools to assess the risk of bias of evidence syntheses: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this scoping review is to identify and examine risk of bias tools, critical appraisal tools, and/or assessment of methodological quality tools (including their items and domains) developed to assess all types of evidence syntheses.

INTRODUCTION

Evidence synthesis is often the basis for policies, procedures, decisions, and evidence-based practice. It is imperative that evidence syntheses are of good quality, reproducible, and reliable. Despite methodological advancements, there remains a substantial risk that bias is present in the conduct of an evidence synthesis project, hindering the validity and reliability of the findings. One way to assess bias is through formal tools and assessments for assessing the risk of bias and/or methodological quality.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Published and unpublished papers presenting a risk of bias, critical appraisal, or methodological quality assessment tool for assessing an evidence synthesis will be included. Individual umbrella reviews proposing a de novo tool or modified tool will be excluded from the review, as will texts that do not present a tool.

METHODS

A 3-step search strategy will be conducted to locate both published and unpublished documents. An initial search of PubMed was developed with a librarian, which identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Compendex will follow. Websites and databases, including Google, Cochrane, and JBI, will be searched for difficult-to-locate and unpublished literature. Documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by 2 researchers, and the data will be presented narratively and in tables.

REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework osf.io/mjcfy.

Use of Infrared Thermography in Medical Diagnosis, Screening, and Disease Monitoring: A Scoping Review

Thermography provides non-invasive, radiation-free diagnostic imaging. Despite the extensive literature on medical thermography, a comprehensive overview of current applications is lacking. Hence, the aim of this scoping review is to identify the medical applications of passive infrared thermography and to catalogue the technical and environmental modalities. The diagnostic performance of thermography and the existence of specific reference data are evaluated, and research gaps and future tasks identified. The entire review process followed the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) approach and the results are reported according to PRISMA-ScR guidelines. The scoping review protocol is registered at the Open Science Framework (OSF). PubMed, CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, OpenGrey, OSF, and PROSPERO were searched using pretested search strategies based on the Population, Concept, Context (PCC) approach. According to the eligibility criteria, references were screened by two researchers independently. Seventy-two research articles were identified describing screening, diagnostic, or monitoring studies investigating the potential of thermography in a total of 17,314 participants within 38 different health conditions across 13 therapeutic areas. The use of several camera models from various manufacturers is described. These and other facts and figures are compiled and presented in a detailed, descriptive tabular and visual format. Thermography offers promising diagnostic capabilities, alone or in addition to conventional methods.

Methods for determination of optimal positive end-expiratory pressure: a protocol for a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Titrated application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) is an important part of any mechanical ventilation strategy. However, the method by which the optimal PEEP is determined and titrated varies widely. Methods for determining optimal PEEP have been assessed using a variety of different study designs and patient populations. We will conduct a scoping review to systematically identify all methods for determining optimal PEEP, and to identify the patient populations, outcomes measured and study designs used for each method. The goal will be to identify gaps in the optimal PEEP literature and identify areas where there may be an opportunity to further systematically synthesise and meta-analyse existing literature.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Using scoping review methodology, we will generate a comprehensive search strategy based on inclusion and exclusion criteria generated using the population, concept, context framework. Five different databases will be searched (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, Web of Science and Scopus). Three investigators will independently screen titles and abstracts, and two investigators will independently complete full-text review and data extraction. Included citations will be categorised in terms of PEEP method, study design, patient population and outcomes measured. The methods for PEEP titration will be described in detail, including strengths and limitations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Given this is a synthesis of existing literature, ethics approval is not required. The results will be disseminated to stakeholders via presentation at local, regional and national levels, as well as publication in a high-impact critical care journal. There is also the potential to impact local clinical care protocols and inform broader clinical practice guidelines undertaken by societies.

Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence and gap maps are evidence synthesis methodologies that address broad research questions, aiming to describe a bigger picture rather than address a specific question about intervention effectiveness. They are being increasingly used to support a range of purposes including guiding research priorities and decision making. There is however a confusing array of terminology used to describe these different approaches. In this commentary, we aim to describe where there are differences in terminology and where this equates to differences in meaning. We demonstrate the different theoretical routes that underpin these differences. We suggest ways in which the approaches of scoping and mapping reviews may differ in order to guide consistency in reporting and method. We propose that mapping and scoping reviews and evidence and gap maps have similarities that unite them as a group but also have unique differences. Understanding these similarities and differences is important for informing the development of methods used to undertake and report these types of evidence synthesis.

Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis.

INTRODUCTION

Evidence synthesis is a constantly evolving field. There is now a plethora of evidence synthesis approaches used across many different disciplines. Historically, there have been numerous attempts to organize the types and methods of evidence synthesis in the form of classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies. This scoping review will seek to identify all the available classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies; how they were developed; their characteristics; and the types of evidence syntheses included within them.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

This scoping review will include discussion papers, commentaries, books, editorials, manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations that describe multiple approaches to evidence synthesis in any discipline.

METHODS

The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative will support this scoping review. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents utilizing a three-step search strategy. An exploratory search of MEDLINE has identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL with Full Text, ERIC, Scopus, Compendex, and JSTOR will be conducted. The websites of relevant evidence synthesis organizations will be searched. Identified documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers, and the data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively.

DETAILS OF THIS REVIEW PROJECT ARE AVAILABLE AT

Open Science Framework https://osf.io/qwc27.

Types and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews in health care: a methodological study with published examples

OBJECTIVES

To provide a descriptive insight into the different types of research questions/objectives and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews, supplemented by representative examples from the health care literature.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched in methodological articles for information on types and methodologies used in overviews and we explored the typology of reviews to identify similar types in literature of overviews. We categorized the types of overviews based on the research question/objective and the methodological approach used. Indicative examples for each category were selected from a sample of 2,121 overviews that were retrieved between 2000 and 2022 from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Based on type of research question, overviews were classified as overviews of reviews of interventions, associations, prediction, diagnostic accuracy, prevalence/incidence, experiences/views, economic evaluation, and measurement properties. Based on the methodological approach, we identified a variety of methods (systematic, living, rapid, scoping, evidence mapping, framework, and methodological) used in overviews.

CONCLUSION

The proposed classification and examples provide an essential starting point for future theory-building research on typologies and study designs of overviews of reviews. It is important for methodologists to make vigorous effort to create consensus-based methodological and reporting guidelines to cover these diverse types and key methodological challenges.

The role of scoping reviews in reducing research waste

OBJECTIVES

Scoping reviews and evidence map methodologies are increasingly being used by researchers. The objective of this article is to examine how scoping reviews can reduce research waste.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article summarizes the key issues facing the research community regarding research waste and how scoping reviews can make an important contribution to the reduction of research waste in both primary and secondary research.

RESULTS

The problem of research waste is an enduring challenge for global health, leading to a waste of human and financial resources and producing research outputs that do not provide answers to the most pressing research questions. Research waste occurs within primary research but also in secondary research such as evidence syntheses. The focus of scoping reviews on characterizing the nature of existing evidence on a topic and including all types of evidence, potentially reduces research waste in five ways: (1) identifying key research gaps on a topic, (2) determining appropriate outcome measures, (3) mapping existing methodological approaches, (4) developing a consistent understanding of terms and concepts used in existing evidence, and (5) ensuring scoping reviews do not exacerbate the issue of research waste.

CONCLUSION

To ensure that scoping reviews do not themselves end up contributing to research waste, it is important to register the scoping review and to ensure that international reporting standards and methodological guidance are followed.