1
|
Murad MH, Wang Z, Chu H, Lin L, El Mikati IK, Khabsa J, Akl EA, Nieuwlaat R, Schuenemann HJ, Riaz IB. Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28:348-352. [PMID: 36889900 PMCID: PMC10579491 DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112100] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/23/2023] [Indexed: 03/10/2023]
Abstract
Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mohammad Hassan Murad
- Public Health, Infectious Diseases and Occupational Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
- Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Zhen Wang
- Kern Center for the Science of Healthcare Delivery Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA
| | - Haitao Chu
- Department of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota Twin Cities, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA
| | - Lifeng Lin
- Department of Statistics, University of Arizona Medical Center-South Campus, Tucson, Arizona, USA
| | | | - Joanne Khabsa
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
| | - Elie A Akl
- Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Robby Nieuwlaat
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| | - Holger J Schuenemann
- Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- McMaster University, GRADE Center, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
- Institute for Evidence in Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany
- Department of Biomedical Sciences, Humanitas University, Milano, Italy
| | - Irbaz Bin Riaz
- Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
- Mass General Brigham Inc, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Lund H, Tang L, Poulsen I, la Cour K, Bjerrum M, Nielsen CV, Maribo T. Lack of systematicity in research prioritisation processes - a scoping review of evidence syntheses. Syst Rev 2022; 11:277. [PMID: 36564846 PMCID: PMC9784020 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-022-02149-2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/30/2022] [Accepted: 11/30/2022] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND A systematically and transparently prepared research priority-setting process within a specific scientific area is essential in order to develop a comprehensive and progressive evidence-based approach that will have a substantial societal impact on the site of interest. On the basis of two consensus workshops, the authors suggest the following methods for all such processes: use of experts, stakeholder involvement, literature review, and ranking. OBJECTIVES The identification, categorisation, and discussion of methods for preparing a research prioritisation process. METHODS Eligibility criteria: Evidence synthesis includes original studies presenting a research prioritisation process and which listed the methods used to create a research prioritisation process. Only evidence syntheses related to health research were included. DATA SOURCES We searched the following electronic databases, without limiting by date or language: MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL EBSCO. CHARTING METHODS The methods used were mapped and broken down into different elements, and the use of the elements was determined. To support the mapping, (A) all of the elements were collapsed into unique categories, and (B) four essential categories were selected as crucial to a successful research prioritisation process. RESULTS Twelve evidence syntheses were identified, including 416 original studies. The identification and categorisation of methods used resulted in 13 unique categories of methods used to prepare a research agenda. CONCLUSION None of the identified categories was used in all of the original studies. Surprisingly, all four of the essential categories were used in only one of the 416 original studies identified. There is seemingly no international consensus on which methods to use when preparing a research prioritisation process. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/dygz8/ ).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hans Lund
- Section Evidence-Based Practice, Department of Health and Functioning, Western Norway University of Applied Sciences, 5063, Bergen, Norway.
| | - Lars Tang
- The Research Unit PROgrez, Department of Physiotherapy and Occupational Therapy, Næstved-Slagelse-Ringsted Hospitals, Slagelse, Denmark.,Department of Regional Health Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Ingrid Poulsen
- Department of Clinical Research, Copenhagen University Hospital, Amager and Hvidovre, Denmark.,Research Unit of Nursing and Healthcare, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Karen la Cour
- Research Unit of User Perspectives and Community-Based Interventions, Department of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Merete Bjerrum
- Research Unit of Nursing and Healthcare, Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.,The Centre of Clinical Guidelines, Department of Clinical Medicine & The Danish Centre of Systematic Reviews - a JBI Centre of Excellence, University of Adelaide, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Claus Vinther Nielsen
- Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.,DEFACTUM Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark.,Regionshospital Gødstrup, Herning, Denmark
| | - Thomas Maribo
- Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark.,DEFACTUM Central Denmark Region, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Delgado AH, Sauro S, Lima AF, Loguercio AD, Della Bona A, Mazzoni A, Collares FM, Staxrud F, Ferracane J, Tsoi J, Amato J, Neuhaus KW, Ceballos L, Breschi L, Hannig M, Melo MA, Özcan M, Scotti N, Opdam N, Yamaguchi S, Paris S, Turkun LS, Doméjean S, Rosa V, Palin W, Schwendicke F. RoBDEMAT: A risk of bias tool and guideline to support reporting of pre-clinical dental materials research and assessment of systematic reviews. J Dent 2022; 127:104350. [PMID: 36341980 DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104350] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 9.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/08/2022] [Revised: 10/10/2022] [Accepted: 10/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To develop a risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research studies that aims to support reporting of future investigations and improve assessment in systematic reviews. METHODS A four-stage process following EQUATOR network recommendations was followed, which included project launch, literature review, Delphi process and the tool finalization. With the support of the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry (EFCD) and the Dental Materials Group of the International Association for Dental Research (DMG-IADR), a total of 26 expert stakeholders were included in the development and Delphi vote of the initial proposal. The proposal was built using data gathered from the literature review stage. During this stage, recent systematic reviews featuring dental materials research, and risk of bias tools found in the literature were comprehensively scanned for bias sources. The experts thus reached a consensus for the items, domains and judgement related to the tool, allowing a detailed guide for each item and corresponding signalling questions. RESULTS The tool features nine items in total, spread between 4 domains, pertaining to the following types of bias: bias related to planning and allocation (D1), specimen preparation (D2), outcome assessment (D3) and data treatment and outcome reporting (D4). RoBDEMAT, as presented, features signalling questions and a guide that can be used for RoB judgement. Its use as a checklist is preferred over a final summary score. CONCLUSION RoBDEMAT is the first risk of bias tool for pre-clinical dental materials research, supported and developed by a broad group of expert stakeholders in the field, validating its future use. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE This new tool will contribute the study field by improving the scientific quality and rigour of dental materials research studies and their systematic reviews. Such studies are the foundation and support of future clinical research and evidence-based decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- António Hs Delgado
- Centro de Investigação Interdisciplinar Egas Moniz (CiiEM), Monte de Caparica, Almada 2829-511 Portugal; Department of Biomaterials and Tissue Engineering, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, London, UK.
| | - Salvatore Sauro
- Dental Biomaterials and Minimally Invasive Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, Cardenal Herrera-CEU University, CEU Universities, Valencia, Spain
| | - Adriano F Lima
- Dental Research Division, Paulista University, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Alessandro D Loguercio
- Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, PR, Brazil
| | - Alvaro Della Bona
- Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Passo Fundo, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil
| | - Annalisa Mazzoni
- Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), University of Bologna-Alma Mater Studiorum, Bologna, Italy
| | | | - Frode Staxrud
- Nordic Institute for Dental Materials (NIOM), Oslo, Norway
| | - Jack Ferracane
- Department of Restorative Dentistry, Oregon Health & Science University, 2730 S. Moody Avenue Portland, OR 97201, Oregon, USA
| | - James Tsoi
- Dental Materials Science, Applied Oral Sciences and Community Dental Care, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR
| | - Julia Amato
- Department of Periodontology, Endodontology and Cariology, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel UZB, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland
| | - Klaus W Neuhaus
- Department of Periodontology, Endodontology and Cariology, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel UZB, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland; Department of Dermatology, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Laura Ceballos
- Nursing and Stomatology Department, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Madrid, Spain
| | - Lorenzo Breschi
- Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences (DIBINEM), University of Bologna-Alma Mater Studiorum, Bologna, Italy
| | - Matthias Hannig
- Clinic of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, Saarland University, 66421 Homburg, Germany
| | - Mary Anne Melo
- Division of Operative Dentistry, Department of General Dentistry, University of Maryland School of Dentistry, 650 West Baltimore St, Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
| | - Mutlu Özcan
- University of Zürich, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Center for Oral Medicine, Clinic for Reconstructive Dentistry, Zürich, Switzerland
| | - Nicola Scotti
- Department of Surgical Sciences, Dental School Lingotto, University of Turin, Turin, Italy
| | - Niek Opdam
- Radboud University Medical Centre, Department of Dentistry, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Satoshi Yamaguchi
- Department of Biomaterials Science, Osaka University Graduate School of Dentistry, Suita, Osaka 565-0871, Japan
| | - Sebastian Paris
- Department of Operative, Preventive and Paediatric Dentistry, Center of Oral Health Sciences, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
| | - Lezize Sebnem Turkun
- Department of Restorative Dentistry, Ege University School of Dentistry, 35100 Bornova/Izmir Turkey
| | - Sophie Doméjean
- CHU Estaing, Service d'Odontologie, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Université Clermont Auvergne, UFR d'Odontologie, Clermont-Ferrand, France; Centre de Recherche en Odontologie Clinique EA 4847, Clermont-Ferrand, France
| | - Vinicius Rosa
- Faculty of Dentistry, National University of Singapore, Singapore; ORCHIDS: Oral Care Health Innovations and Designs Singapore, National University of Singapore, Singapore
| | - William Palin
- Dental and Biomaterials Sciences, School of Dentistry, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, University of Birmingham, UK
| | - Falk Schwendicke
- Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14199 Berlin, German
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Devane D, Burke NN, Treweek S, Clarke M, Thomas J, Booth A, Tricco AC, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM. Study within a review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med 2022; 15:328-332. [PMID: 36513956 PMCID: PMC10107874 DOI: 10.1111/jebm.12505] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/18/2022] [Accepted: 11/29/2022] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Declan Devane
- Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
- HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Nikita N Burke
- Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
| | - Shaun Treweek
- Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Aberdeen, UK
| | - Mike Clarke
- Northern Ireland Methodology Hub, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - James Thomas
- EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK
| | - Andrew Booth
- School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Andrea C Tricco
- Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
- Epidemiology Division and Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario
- Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, Toronto, Ontario
| | - K M Saif-Ur-Rahman
- Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
La Bella E, Allen C, Lirussi F. Communication vs evidence: What hinders the outreach of science during an infodemic? A narrative review. Integr Med Res 2021; 10:100731. [PMID: 34141575 PMCID: PMC8185242 DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2021.100731] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/20/2021] [Revised: 03/12/2021] [Accepted: 04/26/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Background The COVID-19 pandemic is placing significant pressure on national and international health organizations and the measures taken to combat it are having many impacts beyond health. At the same time, misleading communication practices and what has been called an “infodemic” by the World Health Organization have been hampering the uptake of coronavirus-related scientific information. Moreover, public awareness about the dangers of the infodemic remains poor, and misinformation may lead to hazardous behaviours. We therefore analysed factors potentially undermining communication of scientific evidence and proposed strategies to counteract this phenomenon. Methods We sought official academic and institutional publications of any type, published in English and analyzed their approaches to communication used during the pandemic. Results The factors that might undermine appropriate communication include but are not limited to (a) the exponential increase of COVID-19-related publications, often including biases in the peer-review and editorial process; (b) the role of traditional media; (c) politicization of the virus; and (d) the impact of social media. We argue that evidence synthesis and knowledge translation are useful tools to communicate accurate scientific evidence to decision-makers. Conclusion Clear and concise messages in this form can help decision-makers to interpret data correctly, take consequent actions, and avoid being compromised by low-quality or even misleading information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Epaminondas La Bella
- Research Fellow, Azienda Sanitaria Universitaria Friuli Centrale (ASU FC), Udine, Italy
| | | | - Flavio Lirussi
- Professor, Master's in Science Communication, University of Padua, Padua, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Kim D, Hasford J. Redundant trials can be prevented, if the EU clinical trial regulation is applied duly. BMC Med Ethics 2020; 21:107. [PMID: 33115456 PMCID: PMC7592564 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-020-00536-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/23/2019] [Accepted: 09/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
The problem of wasteful clinical trials has been debated relentlessly in the medical community. To a significant extent, it is attributed to redundant trials - studies that are carried out to address questions, which can be answered satisfactorily on the basis of existing knowledge and accessible evidence from prior research. This article presents the first evaluation of the potential of the EU Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014, which entered into force in 2014 but is expected to become applicable at the end of 2021, to prevent such trials. Having reviewed provisions related to the trial authorisation, we propose how certain regulatory requirements for the assessment of trial applications can and should be interpreted and applied by national research ethics committees and other relevant authorities in order to avoid redundant trials and, most importantly, preclude the unnecessary recruitment of trial participants and their unjustified exposure to health risks.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daria Kim
- Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Marstallplatz 1, 81545 Munich, Germany
| | - Joerg Hasford
- Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, The Institute for Medical Information Processing, Biometry, and Epidemiology, and Chairman of the Permanent Working Party of Research Ethics Committees in Germany, Scharnitzerstaße 7, 82166 Gräfelfing, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
MacEntee MI. A typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care. Gerodontology 2019; 36:303-312. [PMID: 31691365 DOI: 10.1111/ger.12439] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/28/2019] [Revised: 08/28/2019] [Accepted: 09/24/2019] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The objectives of this paper are to (a) Review published references to systematic reviews; (b) offer a typology of systematic reviews for synthesising evidence on health care; and (c) summarise the guides for designing, reporting and appraising the reviews. BACKGROUND Systematic reviews play a role in finding, synthesising, transferring and implementing evidence for healthcare policy, practice guidelines and allocation of health resources. They have been particularly successful in confirming or synthesising evidence for health care by meta-analysing aggregated data from multiple randomised controlled trials. However, concerns about the limitations of evidence from controlled trials have prompted interest in other review methods capable of locating and appraising evidence from more diverse, and possibly more realistic, healthcare situations. METHODS An iterative citation-tracking process with Google Search and grey literature identified 204 papers on previous typologies and methods of systematic reviews. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS There are six types of systematic reviews: narrative; meta-analysis; scoping; qualitative; umbrella; and realist. Each type has distinct objectives, characteristics and attributes, but with much overlapping of methods and guides. Sensitivity to the need for qualitative evidence on complex human responses to ill-health and health care has broadened the objectives and methods of health-related systematic reviews to find, appraise and synthesis useful evidence for practice guidelines, healthcare policy and allocation of health resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael I MacEntee
- Professor Emeritus of Prosthodontics & Dental Geriatrics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| |
Collapse
|