Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in overviews of reviews: a methodological study

Barriers and facilitators to enrollment in pediatric clinical trials: an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Recruiting a sufficient number of patients is often a challenge for conducting clinical trials. Published data reveal that only 10% of eligible patients according to inclusion and exclusion criteria are enrolled in clinical trials. Consequentially, identifying barriers and facilitators may improve enrollment. These factors may differ in the pediatric population, for example, due to the involvement of parents in the decision-making process. We aimed to conduct an overview of systematic reviews to summarize the barriers and facilitators influencing the enrollment of pediatric participants in clinical trials.

METHODS

A systematic literature search in PubMed and Epistemonikos of published systematic reviews focusing on barriers and facilitators influencing the enrollment of pediatric patients in clinical trials was conducted. Study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment were performed by two authors independently. The methodological quality was judged using a critical appraisal tool. Finally, data were narratively synthesized.

RESULTS

Of 283 identified systematic reviews, four met the inclusion criteria and were included in the overview. Parents belonging to an ethnic minority or having low socioeconomic status were identified as barriers to enrollment whereas higher parental education and higher age served as facilitators. Additionally, existing expectations, previous treatment experiences and preferences, study duration, type of control group, and the child's attitude toward study participation could favor or hinder participation. Furthermore, physicians' opinions of study-related treatments may also influence the enrollment process.

CONCLUSION

This overview provides a summary of barriers and facilitators to the enrollment of pediatric patients in clinical trials. Taking into account this information may enhance the enrollment of this hard-to-reach population.

The optimal approach for retrieving systematic reviews was achieved when searching MEDLINE and Epistemonikos in addition to reference checking: a methodological validation study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) are used to inform clinical practice guidelines and healthcare decision making by synthesising the results of primary studies. Efficiently retrieving as many relevant SRs as possible is challenging with a minimum number of databases, as there is currently no guidance on how to do this optimally. In a previous study, we determined which individual databases contain the most SRs, and which combination of databases retrieved the most SRs. In this study, we aimed to validate those previous results by using a different, larger, and more recent set of SRs.

METHODS

We obtained a set of 100 Overviews of Reviews that included a total of 2276 SRs. SR inclusion was assessed in MEDLINE, Embase, and Epistemonikos. The mean inclusion rates (% of included SRs) and corresponding 95% confidence intervals were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking. Features of SRs not identified by the best database combination were reviewed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Inclusion rates of SRs were similar in all three databases (mean inclusion rates in % with 95% confidence intervals: 94.3 [93.9-94.8] for MEDLINE, 94.4 [94.0-94.9] for Embase, and 94.4 [93.9-94.9] for Epistemonikos). Adding reference checking to MEDLINE increased the inclusion rate to 95.5 [95.1-96.0]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (98.1 [97.7-98.5]). Among the 44/2276 SRs not identified by this combination, 34 were published in journals from China, four were other journal publications, three were health agency reports, two were dissertations, and one was a preprint. When discounting the journal publications from China, the SR inclusion rate in the recommended combination (MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and reference checking) was even higher than in the previous study (99.6 vs. 99.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

A combination of databases and reference checking was the best approach to searching for biomedical SRs. MEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by checking the references of the included studies, was the most efficient and produced the highest recall. However, our results point to the presence of geographical bias, because some publications in journals from China were not identified.

STUDY REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/R5EAS (Open Science Framework).

Associations of Maternal Nutritional Status and Supplementation with Fetal, Newborn, and Infant Outcomes in Low-Income and Middle-Income Settings: An Overview of Reviews

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Despite advances in maternal nutritional knowledge, the effect of maternal diet, micronutrient status and undernutrition, and the effect of maternal supplementation on fetal, neonatal and infant outcomes still have gaps in the literature. This overview of reviews is intended to assess the available information on these issues and identify the main maternal nutritional factors associated with offspring outcomes in low- and middle-income countries as possible targets for public health interventions.

METHODS

The literature search was performed in Medline (PubMed) and Cochrane Library datasets in June 2024. Pre-specified outcomes in offspring were pooled using standard meta-analytical methods.

RESULTS

We found consistent evidence on the impact of maternal undernutrition indicated by low body mass index (BMI), mid-upper arm circumference (MUAC), and stature, but not of individual micronutrient status, on intrauterine-growth retardation, preterm birth, low birth weight, and small for gestational age, with research showing a possible effect of maternal undernutrition in later child nutritional status. Studies on micronutrient supplementation showed possible beneficial effects of iron, vitamin D, and multiple micronutrients on birthweight and/or decreasing small for gestational age, as well as a possible effect of calcium on preterm birth reduction. Interventions showing more consistent beneficial outcomes were balanced protein-energy and lipid base supplements, which demonstrated improved weight in newborns from supplemented mothers and a decreased risk of adverse neonatal outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Further research is needed to identify the benefits and risks of maternal individual micronutrient supplementation on neonatal and further child outcomes.

Use and impact of clinical pathways across various healthcare settings: A protocol for an umbrella review of global evidence

AIM

The proposed umbrella review aims to assess the use and impact of clinical pathways on professional practice, patient outcomes, length of hospital stay, hospital costs, patient satisfaction, and hospital staff satisfaction through a synthesis of existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

METHODS

Following PRIOR guidelines, a systematic search will be conducted in MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Library to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses, from inception till March 2024. Two reviewers will independently screen titles and abstracts, with a third resolving any disagreements. Full-text articles considered potentially relevant will be assessed for eligibility by the same process. The data extraction form will cover information about the review methods, characteristics of the included primary studies, the types of interventions evaluated, and the reported outcomes. This standardized data extraction form will be piloted by the review team on five to ten articles to ensure all relevant information is recorded. The quality of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses will be evaluated using AMSTAR 2. PROSPERO registration number is CRD42024529371.

RESULTS

The study will present a narrative synthesis of the findings, addressing the clinical and methodological heterogeneity and assessing the impact of clinical pathways on various healthcare outcomes.

CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS

This umbrella review will provide evidence-based insights into the effectiveness, challenges, and best practices of clinical pathways, guiding healthcare decision-making and identifying areas for future research. Results will be disseminated widely to inform policy and improve healthcare service delivery.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution, as this paper is a protocol of an umbrella review.

Guidance on how to efficiently find, choose, and use available systematic reviews was developed

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this paper is to provide clinicians and authors of clinical guidelines or patient information with practical guidance on searching and choosing systematic reviews(s) (SR[s]) and, where adequate, on making use of SR(s).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

At the German conference of the Evidence-Based Medicine Network (EbM Network) a workshop on the topic was held to identify the most important areas where guidance for practice appears necessary. After the workshop, we established working groups. These included SR users with different backgrounds (eg, information specialists, epidemiologists) and working areas. Each working group developed and consented a draft guidance based on their expert knowledge and experiences. The results were presented to the entire group and finalized in an iterative process.

RESULTS

We developed a practical guidance that answers questions that usually arise when choosing and using SR(s). (1) How to efficiently find high-quality SRs? (2) How to choose the most appropriate SR? (3) What to do if no SR of sufficient quality could be identified? In addition, we developed an algorithm that links these steps and accounts for their interaction. The resulting guidance is primarily directed at clinicians and developers of clinical practice guidelines or patient information resources.

CONCLUSION

We suggest practical guidance for making the best use of SRs when answering a specific research question. The guidance may contribute to the efficient use of existing SRs. Potential benefits when using existing SRs should be always weighted against potential limitations.

Maternal modifiable factors and risk of congenital heart defects: systematic review and causality assessment

OBJECTIVE

Primary prevention strategies are critical to reduce the global burden of congenital heart defects (CHDs); this requires robust knowledge of causal agents. We aimed to review associations between CHDs and maternal advanced age, obesity, diabetes, hypertension, smoking and alcohol consumption and assess the causal nature of the associations.

DESIGN

Systematic review of reviews with application of a Bradford Hill criteria score-based causal assessment system.

DATA SOURCES

We searched PubMed, Embase and Episteminokos (January 1990-April 2023).

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Systematic reviews of original epidemiological studies reporting association (relative risk) between one or more of the above maternal factors and CHDs overall (any type) in subsequent offspring.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers selected eligible reviews, assessed the risk of bias and assigned the strength of evidence for causality.

RESULTS

There was strong evidence of a causal relationship between CHDs and maternal obesity (prepregnancy and early pregnancy) and pre-existing diabetes (six of seven Bradford Hill criteria met). For pre-existing hypertension (strength and biological gradient not met), and advanced age (strength, consistency and biological gradient not met), causal evidence was moderate. Evidence for the causal contribution of gestational diabetes, gestational hypertension, smoking and alcohol consumption was weak (strength, consistency, temporality and biological gradient not met).

CONCLUSIONS

CHDs can be reduced with stronger action to reduce maternal obesity and pre-existing diabetes prevalence. Investigating environmental exposures that have received limited attention, such as air pollutants and chemical exposures, is important to further inform prevention.

Prevalence and predictors of self-medication with antibiotics in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Antibiotic self-medication is a global public health concern contributing to antibiotic resistance. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to assess the prevalence of antibiotic self-medication and its associated factors in Ethiopia.

METHODS

A comprehensive search of electronic databases was conducted from MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Google Scholar and Web of Science to identify relevant studies published between 2000 and 2024. Adult households, undergraduate university students and health care professionals who had taken antibiotics without a prescription in the household setting were included in this review. The primary outcome of this review is antibiotic self- medication. The random-effects model was used to estimate pooled prevalence rates. The outcome measure was analyzed with STATA version 17 software.

RESULTS

A total of nine studies were included in the Meta-analysis, comprising a sample size of 5908 participants. The pooled prevalence of antibiotic self-medication among Ethiopians was found to be 46.14 with 95% Confidence Interval [35.71, 56.57]. The most frequently used classes of self-medicated antibiotics were penicillins, followed by tetracyclines. Community pharmacies were the source of information that individuals utilized. The most common reported reasons for antibiotic self-medication include previous experience of treating a similar illness, to save cost, lack of time and avoiding waiting time for medical services. Participants having less than high school educational level was the most commonly reported factor associated with self-medication antibiotics.

CONCLUSION

Antibiotic self-medication is a prevalent practice in Ethiopia. This underscores the need for targeted interventions such as educating people about the risks associated with using antibiotics without medical guidance, which results in a reduction in antibiotic resistance.

Systems for rating bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of air pollution exposure and reproductive and children's health: a methodological survey

BACKGROUND

Translating findings from systematic reviews assessing associations between environmental exposures and reproductive and children's health into policy recommendations requires valid and transparent evidence grading.

METHODS

We aimed to evaluate systems for grading bodies of evidence used in systematic reviews of environmental exposures and reproductive/ children's health outcomes, by conducting a methodological survey of air pollution research, comprising a comprehensive search for and assessment of all relevant systematic reviews. To evaluate the frameworks used for rating the internal validity of primary studies and for grading bodies of evidence (multiple studies), we considered whether and how specific criteria or domains were operationalized to address reproductive/children's environmental health, e.g., whether the timing of exposure assessment was evaluated with regard to vulnerable developmental stages.

RESULTS

Eighteen out of 177 (9.8%) systematic reviews used formal systems for rating the body of evidence; 15 distinct internal validity assessment tools for primary studies, and nine different grading systems for bodies of evidence were used, with multiple modifications applied to the cited approaches. The Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) framework, neither developed specifically for this field, were the most commonly used approaches for rating individual studies and bodies of evidence, respectively. Overall, the identified approaches were highly heterogeneous in both their comprehensiveness and their applicability to reproductive/children's environmental health research.

CONCLUSION

Establishing the wider use of more appropriate evidence grading methods is instrumental both for strengthening systematic review methodologies, and for the effective development and implementation of environmental public health policies, particularly for protecting pregnant persons and children.

The measurement properties and feasibility of FRAIL scale in older adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Frailty is a prevalent condition amongst older adults, significantly affecting their quality of life. The FRAIL tool has been purposefully designed for clinical application by assisting healthcare professionals in identifying and managing frailty-related issues in older adults, making it a preferred choice for assessing frailty across diverse older populations. This review aimed to synthesize the measurement properties and feasibility of FRAIL. Guided by COSMIN guidelines, seven databases were searched from inception to 31 Mar 2023. The measurement properties were extracted for quality appraisal of the populations in the studied samples. Where possible, random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression were used for quantitative synthesis. Eighteen articles containing 273 tests were drawn from 14 different populations. We found that populations testing for criterion validity had high-quality ratings, while construct validity ratings varied based on health status and geographical region. Test-retest reliability had sufficient quality ratings, while scale agreement had sufficient ratings in only four out of 14 populations tested. Responsiveness ratings were insufficient in seven out of eight populations, with inconsistent ratings in one population. Our analysis of missing data across three articles showed a 16.3% rate, indicating good feasibility of the FRAIL. FRAIL is a feasible tool for assessing frailty of older adults in community settings, with good criterion validity and test-retest reliability. However, more research is needed on construct validity and responsiveness.

Comparison of Reporting and Transparency in Published Protocols and Publications in Umbrella Reviews: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Inconsistencies between a protocol and its umbrella review (UR) may mislead readers about the importance of findings or lead to false-positive results. Furthermore, not documenting and explaining inconsistencies in the UR could reduce its transparency. To our knowledge, no study has examined the methodological consistency of the protocols with their URs and assessed the transparency of the URs when generating evidence.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to investigate the inconsistency of protocols with their URs in the methodology and assess the transparency of the URs.

METHODS

We searched medical-related electronic databases from their inception to January 1, 2022. We investigated inconsistencies between protocols and their publications and transparencies in the search strategy, inclusion criteria, methods of screening and data extraction, quality assessment, and statistical analysis.

RESULTS

We included 31 protocols and 35 publications. For the search strategy, 39 inconsistencies between the protocols and their publications were found in 26 of the 35 (74%) URs, and 16 of these inconsistencies were indicated and explained. There were 84 inconsistencies between the protocols and their URs regarding the inclusion criteria in 31 of the 35 (89%) URs, and 29 of the inconsistencies were indicated and explained. Deviations from their protocols were found in 12 of the 32 (38%) URs reporting the methods of screening, 14 of the 30 (47%) URs reporting the methods of data extraction, and 11 of the 32 (34%) URs reporting the methods for quality assessment. Of the 35 URs, 6 (17%) were inconsistent with their protocols in terms of the tools for quality assessment; one-half (3/6, 50%) of them indicated and explained the deviations. As for the statistical analysis, 31 of the 35 (89%) URs generated 61 inconsistencies between the publications and their protocols, and 16 inconsistencies were indicated and explained.

CONCLUSIONS

There was a high prevalence of inconsistencies between protocols and publications of URs, and more than one-half of the inconsistencies were not indicated and explained in the publications. Therefore, how to promote the transparency of URs will be a major part of future work.

Prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants and congenital heart defects: An umbrella review

BACKGROUND

Prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants has been linked to congenital heart defects (CHD), but findings of existing systematic reviews have been mixed.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the epidemiological evidence on associations between prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants and CHD subtypes, based on a systematic overview of reviews ("umbrella review").

METHODS

We conducted a systematic search for reviews assessing associations between prenatal exposure to criteria air pollutants and CHD. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool. The certainty of the systematic review findings was graded using the Navigation Guide methodology.

RESULTS

We identified eleven systematic reviews, including eight with meta-analyses, assessing in total 35 primary studies of prenatal exposure to criteria air pollutants and various CHD subtypes. The certainty of the findings of four meta-analyses indicating an increased risk for coarctation of the aorta associated with nitrogen dioxide exposure was rated as moderate. The certainty of findings indicating positive, inverse, or null associations for other pollutant-subtype combinations was rated as very low to low, based on low precision and high statistical heterogeneity of summary odds ratios (SOR), substantial inconsistencies between review findings, and methodological limitations of the systematic reviews.

DISCUSSION

The inconsistent findings and high statistical heterogeneity of many SOR of the included systematic reviews may partly be traced to differences in methodological approaches, and the risk of bias across included reviews (e.g., inclusion criteria, systematic search strategies, synthesis methods) and primary studies (e.g., exposure assessment, diagnostic criteria). Adherence to appropriate systematic review guidelines for environmental health research, as well as rigorous evaluation of risk of bias in primary studies, are essential for future risk assessments and policy-making. Still, our findings suggest that prenatal exposure to ambient air pollutants may increase risks for at least some CHD subtypes.

Evaluation of implant stability and increase in bone height in indirect sinus lift done with the osseodensification and osteotome technique: A systematic review and meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Whether the use of osseodensification burs for indirect sinus lift improves primary implant stability and bone height as compared with the osteotome technique to overcome the challenges of the pneumatization of the maxillary sinus and vertical bone loss after extraction in the edentulous posterior maxilla is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the difference in primary implant stability and increase in bone height in indirect sinus lift using osseodensification and the osteotome technique.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Two independent reviewers searched the MEDLINE/PubMed, EBSCO, and Cochrane Library databases and the Google Scholar Search engine for randomized clinical trials, nonrandomized clinical trials, and cross-sectional studies published from 2000 to 2022 to identify relevant studies evaluating the primary implant stability and increase in bone height in indirect sinus lift using osseodensification and the osteotome technique. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the cumulative data on primary implant stability and increase in bone height.

RESULTS

A total of 8521 titles were obtained by electronic database search, of which 75 were duplicates. A total of 8446 abstracts were screened, and 8411 that were not relevant to the topic were excluded. Thirty-five articles were eligible for full-text assessment. After the screening of full-text articles as per the selection criteria, 26 studies were excluded. For qualitative synthesis, 9 studies were included. For quantitative synthesis, 5 studies were included. For an increase in bone height, no statistically significant difference was observed (I² = 89%, P=.15, pooled mean difference=0.30 [-0.11, 0.70], CI=95%). For primary implant stability, the osseodensification group showed higher values than the osteotome group (I² = 20%, P<.001, pooled mean difference=10.61 [7.14, 14.08], CI=95%).

CONCLUSIONS

The evidence obtained from quantitative analysis of the studies determined that the osseodensification group showed higher primary implant stability than the osteotome group (P<.05). However, for mean increase in bone height, there was no statistically significant difference between the groups.

Overviews of reviews in the cardiovascular field underreported critical methodological and transparency characteristics: a methodological study based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to evaluate the epidemiology, reporting characteristics, and adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement of overviews of reviews (overviews) of interventions in the cardiovascular field.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

MEDLINE, Scopus, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from January 1, 2000, to October 15, 2020. An updated search was performed in MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Google Scholar up to August 25, 2022. Overviews of interventions published in English and primarily considering populations, interventions, and outcomes pertinent to the cardiovascular field were eligible. Study selection, data extraction, and PRIOR adherence assessment were performed by two authors independently.

RESULTS

We analyzed 96 overviews. Almost half (43/96 [45%]) were published between 2020 and 2022 and contained a median of 15 systematic reviews (SRs) (interquartile range, 9-28). The commonest title terminology was "overview of (systematic) reviews" (38/96 [40%]). Methods for handling SR overlap were reported in 24/96 (25%), methods for assessing primary study overlap in 18/96 (19%), handling of discrepant data in 11/96 (11%), and methods for methodological quality or risk of bias assessment of the primary studies within SRs in 23/96 (24%). Authors included data sharing statements in 28/96 (29%), complete funding disclosure in 43/96 (45%), protocol registration in 43/96 (45%), and conflict of interest statement in 82/96 (85%) overviews.

CONCLUSION

Insufficient reporting was identified in methodological characteristics unique in overviews' conduct and most transparency markers. Adoption of PRIOR from the research community could ameliorate overviews' reporting.

An umbrella review of systematic reviews on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer prevention and management, and patient needs

The relocation and reconstruction of health care resources and systems during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have affected cancer care. An umbrella review was undertaken to summarize the findings from systematic reviews on impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer treatment modification, delays, and cancellations; delays or cancellations in screening and diagnosis; psychosocial well-being, financial distress, and use of telemedicine as well as on other aspects of cancer care. Bibliographic databases were searched for relevant systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis published before November 29th, 2022. Abstract, full- text screening, and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers. AMSTAR-2 was used for critical appraisal of included systematic reviews. Fifty-one systematic reviews were included in our analysis. Most reviews were based on observational studies judged to be at medium and high risk of bias. Only two reviews had high or moderate scores based on AMSTAR-2. Findings suggest treatment modifications in cancer care during the pandemic versus the pre-pandemic period were based on low level of evidence. Different degrees of delays and cancellations in cancer treatment, screening, and diagnosis were observed, with low- and- middle- income countries and countries that implemented lockdowns being disproportionally affected. A shift from in-person appointments to telemedicine use was observed, but utility of telemedicine, challenges in implementation and cost-effectiveness in cancer care were little explored. Evidence was consistent in suggesting psychosocial well-being of patients with cancer deteriorated, and cancer patients experienced financial distress, albeit results were in general not compared to pre-pandemic levels. Impact of cancer care disruption during the pandemic on cancer prognosis was little explored. In conclusion, substantial but heterogenous impact of COVID-19 pandemic on cancer care has been observed.

Use of existing systematic reviews for the development of evidence-based vaccination recommendations: Guidance from the SYSVAC expert panel

National immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs) develop immunization-related recommendations and assist policy-makers in making evidence informed decisions. Systematic reviews (SRs) that summarize the available evidence on a specific topic are a valuable source of evidence in the development of such recommendations. However, conducting SRs requires significant human, time, and financial resources, which many NITAGs lack. Given that SRs already exist for many immunization-related topics, and to prevent duplication and overlap of reviews, a more practical approach may be for NITAGs to use existing SRs. Nevertheless, it can be challenging to identify relevant SRs, to select one SR from among multiple SRs, or to critically assess and effectively use them. To support NITAGs, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, Robert Koch Institute and collaborators developed the SYSVAC project, which consists of an online registry of systematic reviews on immunization-related topics and an e-learning course, that supports the use of them (both freely accessible at https://www.nitag-resource.org/sysvac-systematic-reviews). Drawing from the e-learning course and recommendations from an expert panel, this paper outlines methods for using existing systematic reviews when making immunization-related recommendations. With specific examples and reference to the SYSVAC registry and other resources, it offers guidance on locating existing systematic reviews; assessing their relevance to a research question, up-to-dateness, and methodological quality and/or risk of bias; and considering the transferability and applicability of their findings to other populations or settings.

Choosing which in-hospital laboratory tests to target for intervention: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Some laboratory testing practices may be of low value, leading to wasted resources and potential patient harm. Our scoping review investigated factors and processes that developers report using to inform decisions about what tests to target for practice improvement.

METHODS

We searched Medline on May 30th, 2019 and June 28th, 2021 and included guidelines, recommendation statements, or empirical studies related to test ordering practices. Studies were included if they were conducted in a tertiary care setting, reported making a choice about a specific test requiring intervention, and reported at least one factor informing that choice. We extracted descriptive details, tests chosen, processes used to make the choice, and factors guiding test choice.

RESULTS

From 114 eligible studies, we identified 30 factors related to test choice including clinical value, cost, prevalence of test, quality of test, and actionability of test results. We identified nine different processes used to inform decisions regarding where to spend intervention resources.

CONCLUSIONS

Intervention developers face difficult choices when deciding where to put scarce resources intended to improve test utilization. Factors and processes identified here can be used to inform a framework to help intervention developers make choices relevant to improving testing practices.

Rapid evidence synthesis to enable innovation and adoption in health and social care

BACKGROUND

The rapid identification and adoption of effective innovations in healthcare is a known challenge. The strongest evidence base for innovations can be provided by evidence synthesis, but this is frequently a lengthy process and even rapid versions of this can be time-consuming and complex. In the UK, the Accelerated Access Review and Academic Health Science Network (AHSN) have provided the impetus to develop a consistently rapid process to support the identification and adoption of high-value innovations in the English NHS.

METHODS

The Greater Manchester Applied Research Collaboration (ARC-GM) developed a framework for a rapid evidence synthesis (RES) approach, which is highly integrated within the innovation process of the Greater Manchester AHSN and the associated healthcare and research ecosystem. The RES uses evidence synthesis approaches and draws on the GRADE Evidence to Decision framework to provide rapid assessments of the existing evidence and its relevance to specific decision problems. We implemented this in a real-time context of decision-making around adoption of innovative health technologies.

RESULTS

Key stakeholders in the Greater Manchester decision-making process for healthcare innovations have found that our approach is both timely and flexible; it is valued for its combination of rigour and speed. Our RES approach rapidly and systematically identifies, appraises and contextualises relevant evidence, which can then be transparently incorporated into decisions about the wider adoption of innovations. The RES also identifies limitations in existing evidence for innovations and this can inform subsequent evaluations. There is substantial interest from other ARCs and AHSNs in implementing a similar process. We are currently exploring methods to make completed RES publicly available. We are also exploring methods to evaluate the impact of using RES as more implementation decisions are made.

CONCLUSIONS

The RES framework we have implemented combines transparency and consistency with flexibility and rapidity. It therefore maximises utility in a real-time decision-making context for healthcare innovations.

Effectiveness of school-based child sexual abuse intervention among school children in the new millennium era: Systematic review and meta-analyses

Introduction

School-based child sexual abuse intervention programs were developed to educate the school children to protect them from sexual abuse. The programs were evaluated to make sure the interventions were effective in reducing child sexual abuse cases (CSA). This review aimed to determine the effectiveness of the school-based child sexual abuse intervention programs in the new millennium era (2000-2021) in improving the knowledge, skills, and attitude of school children under 18 years old toward child sexual abuse.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted through MEDLINE (PubMed), EBSCO, and SCOPUS databases to collect full English articles related to school-based CSA intervention programs published from 2000 to 2021.

Results

A total of 29 studies from randomized control trial and quasi-experimental from several countries was analyzed. Comparisons within group of pre-post intervention for knowledge, skills, and attitude were measured by standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI of -1.06 (95% CI: -1.29, -0.84), -0.91 (95% CI: -1.2, -0.61), and -0.51 (95% CI: -3.61, 0.58), respectively. Meanwhile for between intervention and control group comparisons, the SMD of knowledge was 0.9 (95% CI: 0.63, 1.18), skills was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.07, 0.71), and attitude was 1.76 (95% CI: 0.46, 3.07).

Conclusion

The programs were found to be effective in improving the knowledge, skills, and attitude of the students from pre-intervention to post-intervention and between the intervention and control groups.Systematic Review Registration: www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42022312383, identifier: CRD42022312383.

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same question: protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

INTRODUCTION

An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (1) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (2) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency and comprehensiveness, and (3) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called discordant reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors' Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors' assessment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs.

Challenges and strategies for promoting health equity in virtual care: findings and policy directions from a scoping review of reviews

OBJECTIVE

We sought to understand and synthesize review-level evidence on the challenges associated with accessibility of virtual care among underserved population groups and to identify strategies that can improve access to, uptake of, and engagement with virtual care for these populations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A scoping review of reviews was conducted (protocol available at doi: 10.2196/22847). A total of 14 028 records were retrieved from MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Scopus, and Epistemonikos databases. Data were abstracted, and challenges and strategies were identified and summarized for each underserved population group and across population groups.

RESULTS

A total of 37 reviews were included. Commonly occurring challenges and strategies were grouped into 6 key thematic areas based on similarities across communities: (1) the person's orientation toward health-related needs, (2) the person's orientation toward health-related technology, (3) the person's digital literacy, (4) technology design, (5) health system structure and organization, and (6) social and structural determinants of access to technology-enabled care. We suggest 4 important directions for policy development: (1) investment in digital health literacy education and training, (2) inclusive digital health technology design, (3) incentivizing inclusive digital health care, and (4) investment in affordable and accessible infrastructure.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

Challenges associated with accessibility of virtual care among underserved population groups can occur at the individual, technological, health system, and social/structural determinant levels. Although the policy approaches suggested by our review are likely to be difficult to achieve in a given policy context, they are essential to a more equitable future for virtual care.

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of COVID-19 Vaccination Acceptance

INTRODUCTION

Vaccination is an essential intervention to curb the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This review aimed to estimate the pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance worldwide.

METHODS

A systematic search of the MEDLINE (PubMed) database using "COVID-19," "vaccine" and "acceptance" to obtain original research articles published between 2020 and July 2021. Only studies with full text and that were published in English were included. The Joanna Briggs Institute meta-analysis was used to assess the data quality. The meta-analysis was performed using generic inverse variance with a random-effects model using the Review Manager software.

RESULTS

A total of 172 studies across 50 countries worldwide were included. Subgroup analyses were performed with regard to vaccine acceptance, regions, population, gender, vaccine effectiveness, and survey time. The pooled proportion of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance was 61% (95% CI: 59, 64). It was higher in Southeast Asia, among healthcare workers, in males, for vaccines with 95% effectiveness, and during the first survey.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 vaccine acceptance needs to be increased to achieve herd immunity to protect the population from the disease. It is crucial to enhance public awareness of COVID-19 vaccination and improve access to vaccines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2021, identifier CRD42021268645.

Conducting umbrella reviews

In this article, Lazaros Belbasis and colleagues explain the rationale for umbrella reviews and the key steps involved in conducting an umbrella review, using a working example.

Do manual therapies have a specific autonomic effect? An overview of systematic reviews

Background

The impact of manual therapy interventions on the autonomic nervous system have been largely assessed, but with heterogeneous findings regarding the direction of these effects. We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to describe if there is a specific autonomic effect elicited by manual therapy interventions, its relation with the type of technique used and the body region where the intervention was applied.

Methods

We conducted an overview according to a publicly registered protocol. We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE, EPISTEMONIKOS and SCOPUS, from their inception to march 2021. We included systematic reviews for which the primary aim of the intervention was to assess the autonomic effect elicited by a manual therapy intervention in either healthy or symptomatic individuals. Two authors independently applied the selection criteria, assessed risk of bias from the included reviews and extracted data. An established model of generalisation guided the data analysis and interpretation.

Results

We included 12 reviews (5 rated as low risk of bias according the ROBIS tool). The findings showed that manual therapies may have an effect on both sympathetic and parasympathetic systems. However, the results from included reviews were inconsistent due to differences in their methodological rigour and how the effects were measured. The reviews with a lower risk of bias could not discriminate the effects depending on the body region to which the technique was applied.

Conclusion

The magnitude of the specific autonomic effect elicited by manual therapies and its clinical relevance is uncertain. We point out some specific recommendations in order to improve the quality and relevance of future research in this field.

Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review

Background

Information specialists conducting searches for systematic reviews need to consider key questions around which and how many sources to search. This is particularly important for public health topics where evidence may be found in diverse sources.

Objectives

The objective of this review is to give an overview of recent studies on information retrieval guidance and methods that could be applied to public health evidence and used to guide future searches.

Methods

A literature search was performed in core databases and supplemented by browsing health information journals and citation searching. Results were sifted and reviewed.

Results

Seventy‐two papers were found and grouped into themes covering sources and search techniques. Public health topics were poorly covered in this literature.

Discussion

Many researchers follow the recommendations to search multiple databases. The review topic influences decisions about sources. Additional sources covering grey literature eliminate bias but are time‐consuming and difficult to search systematically. Public health searching is complex, often requiring searches in multidisciplinary sources and using additional methods.

Conclusions

Search planning is advisable to enable decisions about which and how many sources to search. This could improve with more work on modelling search scenarios, particularly in public health topics, to examine where publications were found and guide future research.

Economic evaluations of interventions for the prevention and treatment of pressure ulcers: an umbrella review protocol

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this review is to synthesize the findings of economic evaluations of preventing or treating pressure ulcers.

INTRODUCTION

Pressure ulcers are one of the most common preventive complications characterized by local tissue injury. Pressure ulcers increase mortality rates, impair quality of life, increase the length of hospital stay, and alter overall health outcomes. Published studies have found higher costs associated with treating pressure ulcers than preventing them, with treatment cost varying based on the pressure ulcer category (the greater category, the higher cost). We will systematically review the evidence on preventing or treating pressure ulcers from an economic perspective.

INCLUSION CRITERIA

We will include systematic reviews that investigate both the cost and outcomes associated with the prevention or treatment of pressure ulcers. Systematic reviews dealing with economic evaluation of wound care or management will be excluded if they have not provided separate information for pressure ulcers.

METHODS

Epistemonikos and MEDLINE (Ovid) will be searched for relevant systematic reviews from inception without any language restrictions. Titles and abstracts will be screened at the initial stage, followed by full-text screening. Quality assessment will be done using the standard JBI critical appraisal instrument for systematic reviews and research syntheses. Article screening, data extraction, and quality assessment will be performed by two reviewers independently. All economic health outcomes will be considered under the primary outcomes of the study.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9y2a7/).

Bibliometric study of 'overviews of systematic reviews' of health interventions: Evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor

Overviews synthesising the results of multiple systematic reviews help inform evidence-based clinical practice. In this first of two companion papers, we evaluate the bibliometrics of overviews, including their prevalence and factors affecting citation rates and journal impact factor (JIF). We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). We included overviews that: (a) synthesised reviews, (b) conducted a systematic search, (c) had a methods section and (d) examined a healthcare intervention. Multivariable regression was conducted to determine the association between citation density, JIF and six predictor variables. We found 1218 overviews published from 2000 to 2020; the majority (73%) were published in the most recent 5-year period. We extracted a selection of these overviews (n = 541; 44%) dated from 2000 to 2018. The 541 overviews were published in 307 journals; CDSR (8%), PLOS ONE (3%) and Sao Paulo Medical Journal (2%) were the most prevalent. The majority (70%) were published in journals with impact factors between 0.05 and 3.97. We found a mean citation count of 10 overviews per year, published in journals with a mean JIF of 4.4. In multivariable analysis, overviews with a high number of citations and JIFs had more authors, larger sample sizes, were open access and reported the funding source. An eightfold increase in the number of overviews was found between 2009 and 2020. We identified 332 overviews published in 2020, which is equivalent to one overview published per day. Overviews perform above average for the journals in which they publish.

Exploring digital health interventions to support community health workers in low-and-middle-income countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

COVID-19 has significantly affected community health workers' (CHWs) performance as they are expected to perform pandemic-related tasks along with routine essential healthcare services. A plausible way to optimise CHWs' functioning during this pandemic is to couple the efforts of CHWs with digital tools. So far, no systematic evidence is available on the use of digital health interventions to support CHWs in low-middle-income countries (LMICs) amid the COVID-19 pandemic. The article describes a protocol for a scoping review of primary research studies that aim to map evidence on the use of unique digital health interventions to support CHWs during COVID-19 in LMICs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our methodology has been adapted from scoping review guidelines provided by Arksey and O'Malley, Levac et al. and the Joanna Briggs Institute. Our search strategy has been developed for the following four main electronic databases: Excerpta Medica Database, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cumulated Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. Google Scholar and reference tracking will be used for supplementary searches. Each article will be screened against eligibility criteria by two independent researchers at the title and abstract and full-text level. The review will include studies that targeted digital health interventions at CHWs' level to provide support in delivering COVID-19-related and other essential healthcare services. A date limit of 31 December 2019 to the present date will be placed on the search and English language articles will be included.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Formal ethical approval is not required, as primary data will not be collected in this study. The results from our scoping review will provide valuable insight into the use of digital health interventions to optimise CHWs' functioning and will reveal current knowledge gaps in research. The results will be disseminated through journal publications and conference presentations.

Best Practices for Meta-Reviews in Physical Activity and Health Research: Insights From the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Advisory Committee Scientific Report

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) have proliferated with a concomitant increase in reviews of SRs/MAs or "meta-reviews" (MRs). As uncovered by the 2018 US Physical Activity Guidelines Advisory Committee (PAGAC), there is a paucity of best practice guidance on MRs on physical activity health-related research. This manuscript aims to fill this gap.

METHODS

In total, the PAGAC conducted 38 literature searches across 3 electronic databases and triaged 20,838 titles, 4913 abstracts, and 2139 full texts from which 1130 articles qualified for the PAGAC Scientific Report.

RESULTS

During the MR process, the following challenges were encountered: (1) if the SR/MA authors had limited experience in synthesis methodology, they likely did not account for risk of bias in the conclusions they reached; (2) many SRs/MAs reviewed the same primary-level studies; (3) many SRs/MAs failed to disclose effect modifier analyses; (4) source populations varied; (5) physical activity exposures were nonstandardized; and (6) dose-response effects or effect modification of the physical activity exposure could not be identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Using examples from the PAGAC Scientific Report, we provide (1) a high-level introduction to MRs; (2) recommended steps in conducting a MR; (3) challenges that can be encountered; and (4) guidance in addressing these challenges.

Overlaps of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking in dementia care research: a methodological study

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine overlaps and optimal combination of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking for evidence synthesis, based on a previously conducted scoping review on facilitators and barriers to implementing nurse-led interventions in dementia care.

METHODS

In our 2019 scoping review, we performed a comprehensive literature search in eight databases (CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, MEDLINE, Ovid Nursing Database, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection) and used citation tracking. We retrospectively analyzed the coverage and overlap of 10,527 retrieved studies published between 2015 and 2019. To analyze database overlap, we used cross tables and multiple correspondence analysis (MCA).

RESULTS

Of the retrieved studies, 6,944 were duplicates and 3,583 were unique references. Using our search strategies, considerable overlaps can be found in some databases, such as between MEDLINE and Web of Science Core Collection or between CINAHL, Emcare, and PsycINFO. Searching MEDLINE, CINAHL, and Web of Science Core Collection and using citation tracking were necessary to retrieve all included studies of our scoping review.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results can contribute to enhancing future search practice related to database selection in dementia care research. However, due to limited generalizability, researchers and librarians should carefully choose databases based on the research question. More research on optimal database retrieval in dementia care research is required for the development of methodological standards.

Dental patient reported outcome and oral health-related quality of life measures: protocol for a systematic evidence map of reviews

AIMS

This research synthesis protocol addresses the question: what is the evidence concerning measurement properties of dental patient reported outcome measures (dPROMs), and regarding the real-world value of dPROMs, and where are the gaps in this evidence? Evidence mapping will systematically examine reviews of quantitative dPROMs used to assess the impact of oral health on the quality of life of dental patients and research participants. Evidence gaps where future research or systematic reviews are required will be identified.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This protocol accords with the PRISMA-P guideline. Open Science Framework Registration https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/RZD3N . Biomedical and grey literature databases will be searched, adapting the same search strategy. Published or unpublished reviews evaluating any dPROM will be considered for inclusion. There will be no restriction by date, setting, or language. AMSTAR2 and ROBIS will evaluate risk of bias. Psychometric criteria will be adapted from COSMIN. Data will be summarised separately for specific populations and conditions.

DISCUSSION

The findings will enable clinicians and researchers to identify methodologically robust dPROMs, appropriate for use with relevant populations and conditions. Implications for real-world practice and research will be discussed.

Challenges and Strategies for Promoting Health Equity in Virtual Care: Protocol for a Scoping Review of Reviews

BACKGROUND

The rapid virtualization of health services during the COVID-19 pandemic has drawn increasing attention to the impact of virtual care technologies on health equity. In some circumstances, virtual care initiatives have been shown to increase health disparities, as individuals from underserved communities are less likely to benefit from such initiatives.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper is to describe a protocol for a scoping review of reviews that aims to map review-level evidence that describes challenges and strategies for promoting effective engagement with virtual care technologies among underserved communities.

METHODS

Our methodology was adapted from seminal scoping review guidelines provided by Arksey and O'Malley, Levac at al, Colquhoun et al, and the Joanna Briggs Institute. Our search strategy was developed for the following databases: MEDLINE (on Ovid), EMBASE (on Ovid), CINAHL (on EBSCO), Scopus, and Epistemonikos. Supplementary searches will include the use of Google Scholar and reference tracking. Each citation will be independently screened by 2 researchers at the title and abstract level, and full-text screening will be performed in accordance with our eligibility criteria. The eligibility criteria focused on the inclusion of methods-driven reviews (ie, systematic reviews, scoping reviews, meta-analyses, realist reviews, and critical interpretative syntheses) to enhance rigor and quality. Other inclusion criteria included a focus on virtual care services that facilitate bidirectional patient-provider communication (ie, video, telephone, and asynchronous messaging visits) for underserved populations (ie, those who experience social disadvantage due to race, age, income, and other factors related to the social determinants of health).

RESULTS

This scoping review of reviews will provide a broad overview of identified challenges associated with the accessibility of virtual health care services among underserved communities. In addition, strategies for improving the access to, uptake of, and engagement with virtual care technologies among underserved communities will be identified. The knowledge synthesized from this review will aid in developing and implementing virtual services that acknowledge the unique needs of populations who experience barriers to care and disproportionately worse health outcomes. The results will also inform gaps in current research.

CONCLUSIONS

The rapid shift toward virtual health services has highlighted the urgent need to critically examine the intersection of virtual care and health equity. Although technology-driven innovations in health care generally aim to improve access, quality, and health outcomes, it is also possible for these innovations to produce intervention-generated inequities. Assessing current review-level evidence on the key challenges and strategies for improving the application of virtual care in underserved communities is imperative for ensuring that virtual care benefits all populations.

INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID)

PRR1-10.2196/22847.