Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

{"title":"Guidance for systematic reviews in journal author instructions: Findings and recommendations for editorial teams","authors":"Nele S. Pauwels,&nbsp;Muguet Koobasi,&nbsp;Andra Fry,&nbsp;Thomas Vandendriessche,&nbsp;Annie Wittevrongel,&nbsp;Marte Ødegaard","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12050","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12050","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Systematic reviews play a crucial role in informing clinical decision-making, policy formulation, and evidence-based practice. However, despite the existence of well-established guidelines, inadequately executed and reported systematic reviews continue to be published. These highly cited reviews not only pose a threat to the credibility of science but also have substantial implications for medical decision-making. This study aims to evaluate and recommend improvements to the author instructions of biomedical and health journals concerning the conducting and reporting of systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A sample of 168 journals was selected based on systematic reviews published between 2020 and 2021, taking into account their Altmetric attention score, citation impact, and mentions in Altmetric Explorer. Author instructions were downloaded, and data extraction was carried out using a standardized web form. Two reviewers independently extracted data, and discrepancies were resolved by a third reviewer. The findings were presented using descriptive statistics, and recommendations for editorial teams were formulated. The protocol is registered with the Open Science Framework Registries (osf. io/bym8d).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>One-third of the journals lack tailored guidance for systematic reviews, as demonstrated by the absence of references to conducting or reporting guidelines, protocol registration, data sharing, and the involvement of an information specialist. Half of the author instructions do not include a dedicated section on systematic reviews, hampering the findability of tailored information. The involvement of information specialists is seldom acknowledged. Ultimately, the absence of an update date in most author instructions raises concerns about the incorporation of the most recent developments and tools for systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Journals that make substantial contributions to synthesizing evidence in biomedicine and health are missing an opportunity to provide clear guidance within their author instructions regarding the conducting and reporting of reliable systematic reviews. This not only fails to inform future authors but also potentially compromises the quality of this frequently published research type. Furthermore, there is a need for greater recognition of the added value of information specialists to the systematic review and publishing processes. This article provides recommendations dra","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12050","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140333355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Correction to: “Standardized mean differences in meta-analysis: A tutorial”","authors":"","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12049","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Gallardo-Gómez D, Richardson R, Dwan K. Standardized mean differences in meta-analysis: A tutorial. <i>Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods</i> 2024; 2(3): e12047</p><p>The URL link to the micro-learning module produced by Cochrane Training to accompany this article was incorrect. This appears in Section 6: Further reading and online content. The link should read https://links.cochrane.org/cesm/tutorials/smd. This has now been corrected.</p><p>We apologize for this error.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12049","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140291412","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"An evaluation of the recommendations for primary nutrition research addressing noncommunicable disease using the EPICOT+ framework: A cross-sectional descriptive meta-research study of Cochrane nutrition systematic reviews","authors":"Sheena Ruzive,&nbsp;Helene Theunissen,&nbsp;Solange Durão,&nbsp;Marianne E. Visser,&nbsp;Celeste E. Naude","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12048","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) are a global health problem and many risk factors associated with the development of NCDs are related to nutrition.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aims</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study aimed to describe and summarize the research recommendations for primary research made in Cochrane nutrition systematic reviews (SRs) addressing NCDs, according to the evidence, population, intervention, comparison, outcome, time stamp (date of search), study design, time frame (length of follow-up) and burden of disease (EPICOT+) framework.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Materials &amp; Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We screened a database of Cochrane nutrition SRs (<i>n</i> = 692) in March 2021 to identify those SRs addressing the four main NCDs (cardiovascular diseases, cancer, chronic respiratory diseases, and diabetes) and their nutrition-related risk factors (obesity, unhealthy diets). The “implications for research” sections of included SRs (and the “search methods” sections for the time stamp item) were analyzed using EPICOT+.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included 150/692 SRs; most addressed cardiovascular diseases (38.6%), and cancer (17.3%). The EPICOT+ items with the most reported research recommendations were time stamp (98.7%), intervention (94.7%), study design (89.3%), and outcomes (86%), and the least reported were the time frame (52%), comparison (30%), and burden of disease (8%). Most SRs recommended more studies overall (98.7%), assessing specific interventions (93.3%) (e.g., specific foods/food groups and diets/dietary patterns, micronutrient/complementary supplements, nutrition education techniques, and policies/programs) and a range of clinical and patient-related outcomes (84.7%). Recommendations related to study design and quality included the need for more randomized (72.7%), better quality (55.3%), larger (44.7%), and better reported (26%) studies with a long-term duration of follow-up (50.7%).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our findings show that research recommendations reported in Cochrane nutrition SRs addressing the four major NCDs and their nutrition-related risk factors largely followed the EPICOT+ framework. For example, items that could be improved upon were the comparison and time frame items.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>These recomm","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12048","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140145823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Standardized mean differences in meta-analysis: A tutorial","authors":"Daniel Gallardo-Gómez,&nbsp;Rachel Richardson,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12047","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12047","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This tutorial focuses on standardized mean differences (SMD) as effect measures in meta-analyses. We will explain what they are, when they should be used, how to correctly compute and interpret them, and some of the most common error made within evidence synthesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12047","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140096596","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Designing, refining and reflecting on 3 years of daily evidence surveillance for Australia's living national COVID-19 guidelines","authors":"Steve McDonald,&nbsp;Tari Turner","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12045","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12045","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Australia's national living guidelines for COVID-19 were launched in April 2020 and include over 200 recommendations to guide the clinical care of patients with COVID-19. Until the guidelines were retired in August 2023, new evidence was continually monitored through daily surveillance. This paper describes the initial design for evidence surveillance (at a time when efforts to collate information on the novel coronavirus were in their infancy and often duplicative) and how it was refined throughout the pandemic. Among the wide range of sources monitored, the collections of COVID-19 research from leading medical journals, medRxiv preprints and PubMed auto alerts proved the most enduring in identifying time-critical and impactful evidence. The paper also explores how evidence was tracked and surveillance integrated into the overall evidence workflow by using messaging apps and communication platforms. Finally, we consider the implications for living guidelines and reflect on factors that contributed to the feasibility of daily surveillance: the clearly defined scope of the guidelines; focusing efforts on maximum impact; minimizing duplication by partnering with others; setting up simple but effective processes for managing evidence; and the value of continuous involvement of personnel from the outset. Australia's living COVID-19 guidelines were underpinned by a novel approach to evidence surveillance that was feasible and essential in maintaining COVID-19 living guidelines for over 3 years.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12045","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139976593","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Methods for conducting a living evidence profile on mpox: An evidence map of the literature","authors":"Kusala Pussegoda,&nbsp;Tricia Corrin,&nbsp;Austyn Baumeister,&nbsp;Dima Ayache,&nbsp;Lisa Waddell","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12044","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12044","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In May of 2022, several cases of mpox were identified in multiple nonendemic countries and on July 23, 2022 the World Health Organization declared mpox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. During the first six months of the outbreak there was an urgent need to have up-to-date synthesized evidence on mpox to inform public health decision-making. At this point, evidence is changing too quickly for traditional evidence synthesis methods, as systematic reviews were out-of-date before publication. This paper describes the framework developed to manage and maintain a living evidence profile (LEP) to systematically identify, classify and synthesize evidence on a broad range of mpox topics at a rapid pace as the outbreak unfolded.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The LEP framework was based on principles of evidence synthesis, risk assessment, priority epidemiological parameters for infectious disease modeling and consultation with experts. The framework consisted of a systematic search conducted twice weekly; study selection; categorization into pre-determined foci and data extraction; integration and synthesis of evidence; internal peer-review and dissemination to stakeholders.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Between April 14 and December 15, 2022, 2287 citations were identified, 687 were primary research studies or surveillance reports on the 2022 mpox outbreak and 496 were included in the final LEP. Each study was mapped to one of 32 foci and evidence was narratively synthesized. From June to December 2022, 23 LEPs were produced (approximately weekly) along with a searchable database of extracted data of the mpox literature. They were disseminated globally to public health researchers and decision-makers to inform public health response efforts.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The LEP framework is applicable to other public health emergencies when a rapid synthesis cycle is required because the evidence is evolving quickly. This efficient methodology for creating up-to-date summaries of the current evidence during the first few months of an outbreak or emergency supports public health decision-making and response activities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12044","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139937298","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The use of a large language model to create plain language summaries of evidence reviews in healthcare: A feasibility study","authors":"Colleen Ovelman,&nbsp;Shannon Kugley,&nbsp;Gerald Gartlehner,&nbsp;Meera Viswanathan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12041","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12041","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Plain language summaries (PLSs) make complex healthcare evidence accessible to patients and the public. Large language models (LLMs) may assist in generating accurate, readable PLSs. This study explored using the LLM Claude 2 to create PLSs of evidence reviews from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Effective Health Care Program.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We selected 10 evidence reviews published from 2021 to 2023, representing a range of methods and topics. We iteratively developed a prompt to guide Claude 2 in creating PLSs which included specifications for plain language, reading level, length, organizational structure, active voice, and inclusive language. PLSs were assessed for adherence to prompt specifications, comprehensiveness, accuracy, readability, and cultural sensitivity.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>All PLSs met the word count. We judged one PLS as fully comprehensive; seven mostly comprehensive. We judged two PLSs as fully capturing the PICO elements; five with minor PICO errors. We judged three PLSs as accurately reporting the results; and four with minor result errors. We judged three PLSs as having major result errors for incorrectly reporting total participants. Five PLSs met the target 6th to 8th grade reading level. Passive voice use averaged 16%. All PLSs used inclusive language.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>LLMs show promise for assisting in PLS creation but likely require human input to ensure accuracy, comprehensiveness, and the appropriate nuances of interpretation. Iterative prompt refinement may improve results and address the needs of specific reviews and audiences. As text-only summaries, the AI-generated PLSs could not meet all consumer communication criteria, such as textual design and visual representations. Further testing should include consumer reviewers and explore how to best leverage LLM support in drafting PLS text for complex evidence reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12041","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139682823","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Quality of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery: A cross-sectional meta-research study","authors":"Wilson Jiang,&nbsp;Bill Wang,&nbsp;Sandro Sperandei,&nbsp;Aidan Christopher Tan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12042","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12042","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There are few randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in pediatric surgery, and their risk of bias is unknown. There is also little known about the methodological or reporting quality of systematic reviews (with or without meta-analyses) in pediatric surgery. Therefore, we conducted a cross-sectional meta-research study to determine the risk of bias and reporting quality of RCTs and systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric surgery, and the associations between these outcomes and study characteristics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, JBI EBP Database, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and Web of Science for all RCTs and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery published in 2021. We also searched the 2021 indexes of high-impact pediatric surgery journals. We assessed the risk of bias and reporting quality of RCTs using the RoB 2 and CONSORT tools respectively. We assessed the same parameters for systematic reviews and meta-analyses using the ROBIS and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses tools.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Findings</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found 82 RCTs and 289 systematic reviews/meta-analyses published in 2021. More than half (<i>n</i> = 46, 56%) of RCTs and almost all (n = 278, 96%) systematic reviews and meta-analyses were at high risk of bias. Only one (1%) RCT and four (1%) systematic reviews and meta-analyses were adequately reported. Less than half (<i>n</i> = 40, 49%) of RCTs and just over a quarter (<i>n</i> = 77, 27%) of systematic reviews and meta-analyses had a registered protocol. Surprisingly, we found that more than half of systematic reviews and meta-analyse (<i>n</i> = 162, 56.1%), had no risk of bias assessment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Recently published RCTs and systematic reviews in pediatric surgery are at high risk of bias and have poor reporting quality. Journals, universities, and research institutions should train authors to conduct and report higher quality studies and develop strategies to reduce risk of bias. However, research with high bias and low reporting does not necessarily lack value.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-02-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12042","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139683007","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Menu labeling and portion size control to improve the out-of-home food environment: A scoping review","authors":"Kathiresan Jeyashree,&nbsp;Rizwan S. Abdulkader,&nbsp;Madhumitha Haridoss,&nbsp;Ranjithkumar Govindaraju,&nbsp;Amanda Brand,&nbsp;Marianne Visser,&nbsp;Sarah Gordon,&nbsp;Hemant Tiwari,&nbsp;T. S. Sumitha,&nbsp;Krupa Chandran,&nbsp;Denny Mabetha,&nbsp;Solange Durão","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12039","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Menu labeling and portion size control interventions may be effective strategies to mitigate the health risks posed by the out-of-home food environment. We conducted this scoping review to map the body of evidence (BoE) addressing the effects of menu labeling and portion size control interventions in the out-of-home food environment and to summarize the research gaps in this evidence base.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed, Embase, Epistemonikos, and PROSPERO in phase 1 for systematic reviews (SRs) and PubMed and Embase in phase 2 for primary studies in areas with insufficient SR evidence. We used a comprehensive search strategy without any restrictions on publication date, language, study population characteristics or outcomes. We screened all titles independently and in duplicate. We mapped the number of systematic reviews providing evidence per intervention-setting combination in a matrix. The gaps in the matrix informed the searches for primary studies in phase 2. For the included SR protocols and primary studies, we charted the population, intervention, comparator, outcome, period, and study design to facilitate their evaluation and inclusion in future evidence syntheses.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included 69 completed SRs; 37 on menu labeling, 9 on portion size control, and 23 on both. The types of menu labeling interventions studied were quantitative nutrient information (74%), interpretational guidance (48%), or contextual guidance (13%). Most reviews were from the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Most SRs included studies in establishments like cafeterias (51%) or restaurants (39%) and measured change in the quantity of food offered/ordered/consumed (96%). Phase 2 search yielded 24 primary studies; 16 experimental, 6 quasi-experimental, and 2 observational studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The BoE on the effectiveness of menu labeling and portion size control is predominantly from the developed world, on nutrient information labeling and reporting impact on consumer food choice. There is a need for studies in the online environment and reporting distal health outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12039","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139550238","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Mechanical ventilation core outcome set uptake in Cochrane systematic reviews: A cross-sectional study","authors":"Luis Garegnani,&nbsp;Diego Ivaldi,&nbsp;Mariana Burgos,&nbsp;Gisela Oltra,&nbsp;Camila M. Escobar Liquitay","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12038","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12038","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The Cochrane Handbook acknowledges core outcome sets' (COS) relevance in defining review questions and planning systematic reviews. We aimed to assess the uptake of the mechanical ventilation (MV) COS in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A cross-sectional study. We included Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols of Cochrane systematic reviews of any intervention related to mechanically ventilated patients through a search in the Cochrane database of systematic reviews. We did not apply restrictions based on age or setting. One reviewer assessed the studies for eligibility and extracted data. Both processes were validated by a second author.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 233 reviews and protocols through our search strategy. We finally included 36 records. Thirty-four (94.44%) were Cochrane reviews and two (5.56%) were protocols. The included Cochrane reviews and protocols assessed a median of 13 (interquartile range [IQR]: 9–17) outcomes, with 35 (97.22%) reviews reporting at least one outcome from the MV COS. The median number of outcomes from the MV COS reported in the Cochrane reviews and protocols was 2.5 (IQR: 2–3). Only one (2.78%) study reported all the outcomes from the MV COS. None of the included Cochrane reviews and protocols cited the MV COS publication.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Completed Cochrane systematic reviews and protocols of Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions related to mechanically ventilated patients have an overall limited uptake of the MV COS so far. Mortality and duration of stay were the most reported outcomes, while extubation and reintubation were the least informed. These findings may serve as a starting point for the Cochrane Critical Care community to develop dissemination strategies for improving the MV COS uptake.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12038","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"139419769","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}