Conducting Pairwise and Network Meta-analyses in Updated and Living Systematic Reviews: a Scoping Review Protocol.

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Menelaos Konstantinidis, Catherine Stratton, Sofia Tsokani, Julian Elliott, Mark Simmonds, Jessie McGowan, David Moher, Andrea C Tricco, Areti-Angeliki Veroniki
{"title":"Conducting Pairwise and Network Meta-analyses in Updated and Living Systematic Reviews: a Scoping Review Protocol.","authors":"Menelaos Konstantinidis, Catherine Stratton, Sofia Tsokani, Julian Elliott, Mark Simmonds, Jessie McGowan, David Moher, Andrea C Tricco, Areti-Angeliki Veroniki","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00279","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review will be to describe existing guidance documents or studies reporting on the conduct of meta-analyses in updated systematic reviews (USRs) or living systematic reviews (LSRs).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The rapid increase in the medical literature poses a substantial challenge in keeping systematic reviews up to date. In LSRs, a review is updated with a pre-specified frequency or when some other signalling criterion is triggered. While the LSR framework is well-established, there is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate methods for conducting repeated meta-analyses over time, which may result in sub-optimal decision-making.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Studies of any design (including commentaries, books, manuals) providing guidance on conducting meta-analysis in USRs or LSRs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We will use the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search multiple medical bibliographic databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, JBI Evidence Synthesis, and PsycINFO), statistical and mathematics databases (COBRA, Current Index to Statistics, MathSciNet, Project Euclid Complete, and zbMATH), pre-print archives (Arvix, BioRxiv, and MedRxiv), as well as difficult to locate/unpublished (or gray) literature. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text documents, and extract data. Characteristics of recommendations for meta-analysis in USRs and LSRs will be presented using descriptive statistics and categorized concepts.Details of this review project can be found in Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/9c27g.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00279","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this scoping review will be to describe existing guidance documents or studies reporting on the conduct of meta-analyses in updated systematic reviews (USRs) or living systematic reviews (LSRs).

Introduction: The rapid increase in the medical literature poses a substantial challenge in keeping systematic reviews up to date. In LSRs, a review is updated with a pre-specified frequency or when some other signalling criterion is triggered. While the LSR framework is well-established, there is uncertainty regarding the most appropriate methods for conducting repeated meta-analyses over time, which may result in sub-optimal decision-making.

Inclusion criteria: Studies of any design (including commentaries, books, manuals) providing guidance on conducting meta-analysis in USRs or LSRs.

Methods: We will use the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search multiple medical bibliographic databases (Cochrane Library, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, JBI Evidence Synthesis, and PsycINFO), statistical and mathematics databases (COBRA, Current Index to Statistics, MathSciNet, Project Euclid Complete, and zbMATH), pre-print archives (Arvix, BioRxiv, and MedRxiv), as well as difficult to locate/unpublished (or gray) literature. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts, and full-text documents, and extract data. Characteristics of recommendations for meta-analysis in USRs and LSRs will be presented using descriptive statistics and categorized concepts.Details of this review project can be found in Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/9c27g.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信