Methods for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis

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.

EQUATOR Network Mapping Review for Dysphagia Research

PURPOSE

The EQUATOR Network is an international initiative aimed at improving published health research through use of reporting guidelines. We conducted a review to determine the extent to which EQUATOR Network guidelines contain recommendations relevant for dysphagia research in human subjects.

METHOD

We downloaded all 542 EQUATOR Network guidelines on November 8, 2022. Each guideline was reviewed by two independent raters and judged for relevance to dysphagia and related fields (e.g., otolaryngology, gastroenterology). Dysphagia-relevant guidelines pertaining to quantitative human subjects research were further inspected to identify reporting guidance regarding (a) general research elements (e.g., data collection, statistical methods), (b) participant characteristics (e.g., demographics, accrual, randomization), (c) screening and clinical/noninstrumental assessments, (d) videofluoroscopic examinations, (e) flexible endoscopic examinations, (f) other instrumentation in swallowing research, (g) dysphagia treatment, (h) patient-/care provider-reported outcome measures, and (i) any other narrowly specified focus relevant for research on swallowing. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Of 542 guidelines, 156 addressed quantitative research in human subjects relevant to dysphagia. Of these, 104 addressed general research elements and 108 addressed participant characteristics. Only 14 guidelines partially addressed the other topics of interest, and none addressed elements relevant to reporting videofluoroscopic or endoscopic assessments of swallowing.

CONCLUSIONS

We were unable to find guidelines with specific relevance to reporting key methods in dysphagia research. This lack of guidance illustrates a gap that hinders the critical appraisal of research quality in the field of dysphagia. Our review highlights the need to develop dysphagia-specific tools for critical appraisal and guidance regarding adequate research reporting.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.25014017.

PROTOCOL: Abortion and mental health outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of research on mental health outcomes of abortion. Does abortion increase the risk of adverse mental health outcomes? That is the central question for this review. Our review aims to inform policy and practice by locating, critically appraising, and synthesizing empirical evidence on associations between abortion and subsequent mental health outcomes. Given the controversies surrounding this topic and the complex social, political, legal, and ideological contexts in which research and reviews on abortion are conducted, it is especially important to conduct this systematic review and meta-analysis with comprehensive, rigorous, unbiased, and transparent methods. We will include a variety of study designs to enhance understanding of studies' methodological strengths and weaknesses and to identify potential explanations for conflicting results. We will follow open science principles, providing access to our methods, measures, and results, and making data available for re-analysis.

Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later

OBJECTIVE

To describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes.

RESULTS

The key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.

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.