Producing Cochrane systematic reviews-a qualitative study of current approaches and opportunities for innovation and improvement

Commentary: collaborative systematic review may produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently

Systematic reviews are necessary to synthesize available evidence and inform clinical practice and health policy decisions. There has been an explosion of evidence available in many fields; this makes it challenging to keep evidence syntheses up to date and useful. Comparative effectiveness systematic reviews are informative; however, producing these often-large reviews bring intense time and resource demands. This commentary describes the implementation of a systematic review using a collaborative model of evidence synthesis. We are implementing the collaborative review model to update a large Cochrane review investigating the efficacy and comparative effectiveness of the design, delivery, and type of exercise treatment for people with chronic low-back pain. Three key benefits of the collaborative review model for evidence synthesis are (1) team coordination and collaboration, (2) quality control measures, and (3) advanced comparative and other analyses. This new collaborative review model is developed and implemented to produce and share high-quality, comparative evidence more efficiently while building capacity and community within a research field.

Crowdsourcing trainees in a living systematic review provided valuable experiential learning opportunities: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVES

To understand trainee experiences of participating in a living systematic review (LSR) for rheumatoid arthritis and the potential benefits in terms of experiential evidence-based medicine (EBM) education.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a mixed-methods study with trainees who participated in the LSR and who were recruited broadly from training programs in two countries. Trainees received task-specific training and completed one or more tasks in the review: assessing article eligibility, data extraction, and quality assessment. Trainees completed a survey followed by a one-on-one interview. Data were triangulated to produce broad themes.

RESULTS

Twenty one trainees, most of whom had a little prior experience with systematic reviews, reported a positive overall experience. Key benefits included learning opportunities, task segmentation (ability to focus on a single task, as opposed to an entire review), working in a supportive environment, international collaboration, and incentives such as authorship or acknowledgment. Trainees reported improvement in their competency as a Scholar, Collaborator, Leader, and Medical Expert. Challenges included communication and technical difficulties and appropriate matching of tasks to trainee skillsets.

CONCLUSION

Participating in an LSR provided benefits to a wide range of trainees and may provide an opportunity for experiential EBM training, while helping LSR sustainability.

The diagnostic value of Red Flags in thoracolumbar pain: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Red Flags (RFs) are signs and symptoms related to the screening of serious underlying pathologies mimicking a musculoskeletal pain. The current literature wonders about the usefulness of RFs, due to high false-positive rates and low diagnostic accuracy. The aims of this systematic review are: (a) to identify and (b) to evaluate the most important RFs that could be found by a health care professional during the assessment of patients with low and upper back pain (named as thoracolumbar pain (TLP)) to screen serious pathologies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was conducted. Searches were performed on seven databases (Pubmed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Pedro, Scielo, CINAHL, and Google Scholar) between March 2019 and June 2020, using a search string which included synonyms of low back pain (LBP), chest pain (CP), differential diagnosis, RF, and serious disease. Only observational studies enrolling patients with LBP or CP were included. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle Ottawa Scale and inter-rater agreement between authors for full-text selection was evaluated with Cohen's Kappa. Where possible the diagnostic accuracy was recorded for sensitivity (Sn), specificity (Sp), and positive/negative likelihood ratio (LR+/LR-).

RESULTS

Forty full-texts were included. Most of the included observational studies were judged as low risk of bias, and Cohen's Kappa was good (=0.78). The identified RFs were: advanced age; neurological signs; history of trauma; malignancy; female gender; corticosteroids use; night pain; unintentional weight loss; bladder or bowel dysfunction; loss of anal sphincter tone; saddle anaesthesia; constant pain; recent infection; family or personal history of heart or pulmonary diseases; dyspnoea; fever; postprandial CP; typical reflux symptoms; haemoptysis; sweating; pain radiated to upper limbs; hypotension; retrosternal pain; exertional pain; diaphoresis; and tachycardia. The diagnostic accuracy of RFs as self-contained screening tool was low, while the combination of multiple RFs showed to increase the probability to identify serious pathologies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the use of single RF should not be recommended for the screening process in clinical practice, the combination of multiple RFs to enhance diagnostic accuracy is promising. Moreover, the identified RFs could be a baseline to develop a screening tool for patients with TLP.Implications for rehabilitationDifferential diagnosis and screening for referral are mandatory skills for each healthcare professional in direct access clinical settings, and should be the primary step for an appropriate management of a patient with signs and symptoms mimicking serious pathologies in thoracolumbar region.Clinical reasoning and decision-making processes are essential throughout all phases of a patient's pathway of care. By which, the use of single Red Flag (RF) as a self-contained screening tool should not be recommended. The combination of multiple RFs promises to increase diagnostic accuracy and could grow into an excellent screening tool for thoracolumbar pain.

Artificial intelligence and automation of systematic reviews in women's health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Evidence-based women's healthcare is underpinned by systematic reviews and guidelines. Generating an evidence synthesis to support guidance for clinical practice is a time-consuming and labour-intensive activity that delays transfer of research into practice. Artificial intelligence has the potential to rapidly collate, combine, and update high-quality medical evidence with accuracy and precision, and without bias.

RECENT FINDINGS

This article describes the main fields of artificial intelligence with examples of its application to systematic reviews. These include the capabilities of processing natural language texts, retrieving information, reasoning, and learning. The complementarity and interconnection of the various artificial intelligence techniques can be harnessed to solve difficult problems in automation of reviews. Computer science can advance evidence-based medicine through development, testing, and refinement of artificial intelligence tools to deploy automation, creating 'living' evidence syntheses.

SUMMARY

Groundbreaking, high-quality, and impactful artificial intelligence will accelerate the transfer of individual research studies seamlessly into evidence syntheses for contemporaneously improving the quality of healthcare.

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer clinical questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and efficacy of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for efficacy of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs.

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer health care questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for effects of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs.

Toolkit of methodological resources to conduct systematic reviews

Background: Systematic reviews (SR) can be classified by type depending on the research question they are based on. This work identifies and describes the most relevant methodological resources to conduct high-quality reviews that answer health care questions regarding prevalence, prognosis, diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions. Methods: Methodological resources have been identified from literature searches and consulting guidelines from institutions that develop SRs. The selected resources are organized by type of SR, and stage of development of the review (formulation of the research question, development of the protocol, literature search, risk of bias assessment, synthesis of findings, assessment of the quality of evidence, and report of SR results and conclusions). Results: Although the different types of SRs are developed following the same steps, each SR type requires specific methods, differing in characteristics and complexity. The extent of methodological development varies by type of SR, with more solid guidelines available for diagnostic accuracy and effects of interventions SRs. This methodological toolkit describes the most up-to-date risk of bias instruments: Quality in Prognostic Studies (QUIPS) tool and Prediction model study Risk Of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST) for prognostic SRs, Quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies tool (QUADAS-2) for diagnostic accuracy SRs, Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB-2) and Risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions studies tool (ROBINS-I) for effects of interventions SRs, as well as the latest developments on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Conclusions: This structured compilation of the best methodological resources for each type of SR may prove to be a very useful tool for those researchers that wish to develop SRs or conduct methodological research works on SRs.

Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management: Five Years into Implementation of the Sendai Framework

The Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015–2030 recognizes health at the heart of disaster risk management (DRM) at the global policy level. Five years on, it has catalyzed the rapid development of the field of Health Emergency and Disaster Risk Management (Health EDRM) by providing a mandate for building partnerships as well as enhancing scientific research. Key milestones achieved include publication of the World Health Organization’s Health EDRM Framework, development of the WHO Thematic Platform for Health EDRM and the WHO Health EDRM Research Network, and further application of health information principles to DRM. Furthermore, health actors at all levels have continued to engage in the Sendai Framework processes and have had a key role in its implementation and proposed monitoring. There have been significant gains made through the partnership of health and DRM, but the relationship has not been without its challenges. Many national, regional, and global initiatives continue to operate with a lack of consistency and of linkages to respond to the Sendai Framework’s call for embedding health resilience in DRM, and conversely, embedding DRM in health resilience. Overcoming this hurdle is important, and doing so will be a key marker of success of the next 10 years of partnership under the Sendai Framework.

Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report

BACKGROUND

Maintained study-based registers (SBRs) have, at their core, study records linked to, potentially, multiple other records such as references, data sets, standard texts and full-text reports. Such registers can minimise and refine searching, de-duplicating, screening and acquisition of full texts. SBRs can facilitate new review titles/updates and, within seconds, inform the team about the potential workload of each task.

METHODS

We discuss the advantages/disadvantages of SBRs and report a case of how such a register was used to develop a successful grant application and deliver results-reducing considerable redundancy of effort.

RESULTS

SBRs saved time in question-setting and scoping and made rapid production of nine Cochrane systematic reviews possible.

CONCLUSION

Whilst helping prioritise and conduct systematic reviews, SBRs improve quality. Those funding information specialists for literature reviewing could reasonably stipulate the resulting SBR to be delivered for dissemination and use beyond the life of the project.

Partially systematic thoughts on the history of systematic reviews

Six years after the launch of Systematic Reviews by Biomed Central, this article is part of the celebration of the journal. It contains personal reflections on the past, present and future of systematic reviews, using examples relevant to the role of systematic reviews in cataloguing and analysing research, assessing quality and planning new studies. The focus is on the most common of the various types of systematic review in health and social care, namely those assessing the effects of interventions.

The clinical and economic consequences of practice style variations in common surgical interventions: A protocol for systematic review

BACKGROUND

Surgical intervention is one of the common therapeutic interventions applied to a vast class of diseases. Unwarranted variation in practice style in different locations is considered as practice style variations (PSVs), which cause undesirable effects on patient health status and economic consequences. The magnitude of the variations in surgical interventions and its effects on clinical outcomes of patients and also utilization of resources have been investigated in recent years. But the findings show considerable heterogeneities in magnitude and consequences. We develop a protocol to systematically review the current literature of PSV to explain the magnitude of PSV and its clinical and economic consequences.

METHOD

This systematic review will include observational and experimental studies to investigate magnitude and consequences of PSV in common surgical interventions, cardiovascular disease, urological, and ophthalmological diseases. Source of information is scientific databases, theses, clinical trials registrations website, and grey literature. A comprehensive electronic search will be conducted through PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO, EMBASE, and Scopus databases. Studies are assessed systematically by 2 investigators. Methodological quality of the included studies is evaluated by the STROBE and CONSORT checklists. In case of data availability, we will pool findings of included studies by meta-analysis techniques in the CMA software. Subgroup analyses are based on the type of the interventions and selected diseases.

RESULTS

This study has ethical approval from ethical committee of Iran University of Medical Sciences, ethic code: IR.IUMS.REC1395.9221504203. The results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

CONCLUSION

A systematic review is considered as an appropriate scientific method for reaching a consensus on magnitude as well as consequences of PSV. Results of this study will help clinical experts to attain more knowledge about PSV and encourage them to use some tools such as clinical guidelines and shared decision making to alleviate its consequences.

Opportunities for computer support for systematic reviewing - a gap analysis

Systematic review is a type of literature review designed to synthesize all available evidence on a given question. Systematic reviews require significant time and effort, which has led to the continuing development of computer support. This paper seeks to identify the gaps and opportunities for computer support. By interviewing experienced systematic reviewers from diverse fields, we identify the technical problems and challenges reviewers face in conducting a systematic review and their current uses of computer support. We propose potential research directions for how computer support could help to speed the systematic review process while retaining or improving review quality.

Using systematic review in occupational safety and health

Evaluation of scientific evidence is critical in developing recommendations to reduce risk. Healthcare was the first scientific field to employ a systematic review approach for synthesizing research findings to support evidence-based decision-making and it is still the largest producer and consumer of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews in the field of occupational safety and health are being conducted, but more widespread use and adoption would strengthen assessments. In 2016, NIOSH asked RAND to develop a framework for applying the traditional systematic review elements to the field of occupational safety and health. This paper describes how essential systematic review elements can be adapted for use in occupational systematic reviews to enhance their scientific quality, objectivity, transparency, reliability, utility, and acceptability.