Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

{"title":"Meta-epidemiological study on the publication rate of South American countries' systematic reviews of interventions registered in PROSPERO","authors":"Mariana A. Burgos,&nbsp;Diego Ivaldi,&nbsp;Gisela Oltra,&nbsp;Camila M. Escobar Liquitay,&nbsp;Luis Garegnani","doi":"10.1002/cesm.70002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.70002","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess the publication rate and time from registration to publication of systematic intervention reviews registered in PROSPERO originated from South American countries in 2020.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Study Design and Setting</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Cross-sectional study. We searched PROSPERO for protocols of systematic reviews of interventions with affiliation in South America during 2020. We randomly extracted 10% and searched databases to identify their publication status.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 1361 intervention systematic reviews with South American affiliation registered in PROSPERO during 2020. We assessed a random sample of 10% (<i>n</i> = 135). The publishing rate in indexed journals was 36.9% (<i>n</i> = 41). The median time to publication was 1.6 years (IQR 0.9–2.1).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The publication rate of South American PROSPERO registers is low. These findings emphasize the need for further efforts to improve publication rates and increase the visibility of South American research in the global scientific community.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.70002","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142170023","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":"Trustworthiness assessment of published clinical trials: Literature review of domains and questions","authors":"Zarko Alfirevic,&nbsp;Jo Weeks","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12099","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Historically, peer reviewing has focused on the importance of research questions/hypotheses, appropriateness of research methods, risk of bias, and quality of writing. Until recently, the issues related to trustworthiness—including but not limited to plagiarism and fraud—have been largely neglected because of lack of awareness and lack of adequate tools/training. We set out to identify all relevant papers that have tackled the issue of trustworthiness assessment to identify key domains that have been suggested as an integral part of any such assessment.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched the literature for publications of tools, checklists, or methods used or proposed for the assessment of trustworthiness of randomized trials. Data items (questions) were extracted from the included publications and transcribed on Excel including the assessment domain. Both authors then independently recategorised each data item in five domains (governance, plausibility, plagiarism, reporting, and statistics).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>From the 41 publications we extracted a total of 284 questions and framed 77 summary questions grouped in five domains: governance (13 questions), plausibility (17 questions), plagiarism (4 questions), reporting (29 questions), and statistics (14 questions).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The proposed menu of domains and questions should encourage peer reviewers, editors, systematic reviewers and developers of guidelines to engage in a more formal trustworthiness assessment. Methodologists should aim to identify the domains and questions that should be considered mandatory, those that are optional depending on the resources available, and those that could be discarded because of lack of discriminatory power<b>.</b></p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12099","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142013626","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":"Systematic reviews of clinical laboratory studies: Pilot risk of bias tool developed by consensus","authors":"Tilly Fox,&nbsp;Beverley J. Hunt,&nbsp;Robert A. S. Ariens,&nbsp;Greg J. Towers,&nbsp;Robert Lever,&nbsp;Paul Garner,&nbsp;Rebecca Kuehn","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12098","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Some research studies aim to elucidate pathophysiology by examining blood or tissue markers in relation to clinical findings. In COVID-19, this has led specialists to promote treatment options based on single studies without systematic appraisal and critical summaries of the data. As we could not identify any published tools for this purpose, we developed a pilot risk of bias tool by consensus, and report here on our approach.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using an expert consultative consensus process, a panel of five topic experts were guided through a set of iterative steps to develop questions intended to elicit information about the study methods and reporting in clinical laboratory studies. The team piloted the tool in three clinical laboratory studies, and then applied it formally as a component in assessing a hypothesis about mechanisms in the post-COVID-19 condition as part of a Cochrane review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The pilot tool assessed study quality and bias across three domains applicable to comparative and single-arm clinical laboratory studies: collection and handling of samples, experimental methods, and reporting of the results. In the Cochrane review, the tool identified substantive risk of bias in the included clinical laboratory studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The plethora of COVID-19 research has highlighted the need for formal methods to systematically appraise clinical laboratory studies related to disease pathology. This tool provides a systematic approach to appraise the validity of these studies. Our process may guide others in the development of appraisal tools in areas where they are needed. Given the relationship between clinical laboratory studies and the development of medical treatments, further development of this risk of bias tool is important for evidence-based healthcare and research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12098","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141967894","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":"What are the methodological characteristics of evidence and gap maps? A systematic review and evidence and gap map","authors":"Mary Fredlund,&nbsp;Morwenna Rogers,&nbsp;Noreen Orr,&nbsp;Dylan Kneale,&nbsp;Kate Allen,&nbsp;Jo Thompson Coon","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12096","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Clarity on the characteristics of methods used to produce evidence and gap maps (EGMs) will highlight areas where method development is needed to ensure these increasingly produced tools are made following best practice to assure their quality and utility. This paper aims to describe the range, nature and variability of key methodological characteristics of studies publishing EGMs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We followed a protocol, written a-prior and informed by PRISMA and MECCIR guidelines for undertaking systematic reviews. We searched nine data bases, from 2010, for studies across any discipline that included details of their methods used to produce an EGM. Search results were screened by two reviewers independently and the subsequent data was extracted and managed according to predefined criteria. We mapped these together with the year of publication and the area of research as the two primary dimensions. We followed established methods for mapping the evidence, including the process of developing the map framework and the filters for our interactive map. We sought input and involvement from stakeholders during this process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found 145 studies from nine distinct research areas, with health research accounting for 67%. There were 11 map designs found, of these bubble plots were the most common design, before 2019, since then it has been a matrix map design. Stakeholders were involved in 47.7% of studies, 48.35% of studies stated finding gaps was an aim of their work, 42% reported publishing or registering a protocol and only 9.39% of studies mentioned a plan to update their evidence maps/EGMs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion/Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Key areas of methodological development relate to: the involvement of stakeholders, the conceptualization of gaps and the practices for updating maps. The issues of ambiguity in terminology, the flexibility of visualizations of the data and the lack of reporting detail were other aspects that needs further consideration in studies producing an EGM.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12096","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141967325","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":"Assessing qualitative data richness and thickness: Development of an evidence-based tool for use in qualitative evidence synthesis","authors":"Heather M. R. Ames,&nbsp;Emma F. France,&nbsp;Sara Cooper,&nbsp;Mayara S. Bianchim,&nbsp;Simon Lewin,&nbsp;Bey-Marrié Schmidt,&nbsp;Isabelle Uny,&nbsp;Jane Noyes","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12059","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12059","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Well-conducted qualitative evidence syntheses (QESs) can provide invaluable insights into complex phenomena. However, the development of an in-depth understanding depends on the analysis of rich, thick data from the included primary qualitative studies. Sampling may be needed if there are too many eligible studies. Data richness and thickness are among several criteria that can be taken into consideration when sampling studies for inclusion. However, existing tools do not address explicitly the assessment of both data richness and thickness in the context of QES.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To address this gap, we have developed, piloted, and conducted initial user testing of a richness and thickness assessment tool. The tool has been in development since 2014. Three pilot versions from three review teams have been used in six Cochrane reviews. Key members from the original three review teams subsequently came together to create a consensus-based definitive version 1 of the tool. Four review authors piloted the version 1 tool, which has been subject to initial user testing. The version 1 assessment tool consists of two components: assessing the thickness of contextual data and assessing the richness of conceptual data. The accompanying guidance emphasizes the importance of assessing data that addresses the review question.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The paper provides guidance on how to apply the tool, emphasizing the importance of reaching a consensus among review authors and fostering a shared understanding of what constitutes rich and thick data in the context of the review. The potential challenges related to the time and resource constraints of this additional review process are acknowledged.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Version 1 of the tool represents a significant development in QES methodology, filling a critical gap and enhancing the transparency and rigor of the sampling process. The authors invite feedback from the research community to further test, refine and improve this tool based on wider user experiences.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12059","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141488991","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":"A scoping review: Screening questionnaires for identifying tanning addiction","authors":"John Meisenheimer,&nbsp;Michelle Sobotka,&nbsp;Ronald Yang,&nbsp;Robert P. Dellavalle","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12092","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12092","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There is a growing body of evidence that ultraviolet (UV) tanning, whether practiced in indoor tanning salons or outdoors in the sun, is not only linked to detrimental health outcomes but is also addictive through both psychological and physiological mechanisms. In clinical practice, it can be challenging to determine which patients will continue tanning despite being at high risk for developing skin cancer. Our study seeks to identify all available screening questionnaires for tanning addiction that could be used in clinical practice and report on published measures of validity for each screening questionnaire.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An exhaustive literature search of EMBASE, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus was performed using search criteria including the concepts “UV” and “Addiction.” The most recent search was performed in March 2024 and included all articles from database inception to the time of the search. Studies were included if they reported on screening questionnaires for UV addiction. Articles were excluded from the study if they did not report primary data or did not report on measures of questionnaire validity. Methodology was created using best practices for scoping reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>After identifying 171 articles, 106 articles underwent full-text review, and 26 were included in data extraction. We identified nine questionnaires for tanning addiction, with the modified Cut-down, Annoyed, Guilty, Eye-opener (mCAGE), and modified Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (mDSM) being most frequently reported on, and the Behavioral Addiction Indoor Tanning Screener (BAITS) being the most promising for future use.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This information should be used to choose questionnaires to be studied against a “gold-standard” of a panel of psychologists. After defining accuracy of diagnostic tests, studies can be designed to examine interventions for treating tanning addiction, so at-risk patients can receive specialized therapy, reducing the overall burden of skin cancers.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12092","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141488519","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":"Real-world evaluation of interconsensus agreement of risk of bias tools: A case study using risk of bias in nonrandomized studies-of interventions (ROBINS-I)","authors":"Samer Saadi,&nbsp;Bashar Hasan,&nbsp;Adel Kanaan,&nbsp;Mohamed Abusalih,&nbsp;Zin Tarakji,&nbsp;Mustafa Sadek,&nbsp;Ayla Shamsi Basha,&nbsp;Mohammed Firwana,&nbsp;Zhen Wang,&nbsp;M. Hassan Murad","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12094","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12094","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Risk of bias (RoB) tools are critical in systematic reviews and affect subsequent decision-making. RoB tools should have adequate interrater reliability and interconsensus agreement. We present an approach of post hoc evaluation of RoB tools using duplicated studies that overlap systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using a back-citation approach, we identified systematic reviews that used the Risk Of Bias In Nonrandomized Studies-of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tool and retrieved all the included primary studies. We selected studies that were appraised by more than one systematic review and calculated observed agreement and unweighted kappa comparing the different systematic reviews' assessments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 903 systematic reviews that used the tool with 51,676 cited references, from which we eventually analyzed 171 duplicated studies assessed using ROBINS-I by different systematic reviewers. The observed agreement on ROBINS-I domains ranged from 54.9% (missing data domain) to 70.3% (deviations from intended interventions domain), and was 63.0% for overall RoB assessment of the study. Kappa coefficient ranged from 0.131 (measurement of outcome domain) to 0.396 (domains of confounding and deviations from intended interventions), and was 0.404 for overall RoB assessment of the study.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A post hoc evaluation of RoB tools is feasible by focusing on duplicated studies that overlap systematic review. ROBINS-I assessments demonstrated considerable variation in interconsensus agreement among various systematic reviewes that assessed the same study and outcome, suggesting the need for more intensive upfront work to calibrate systematic reviewers on how to identify context-specific information and agree on how to judge it.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12094","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141488174","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":"How to present an informative summary of findings table for systematic reviews of interventions: A tutorial","authors":"Jennifer Hilgart,&nbsp;Clare Miles,&nbsp;Jo-Ana Chase","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12093","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12093","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This tutorial provides guidance on creating clear and informative summary of findings tables for systematic reviews of interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12093","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141435607","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":"Equity in evidence synthesis: You can't play on broken strings","authors":"Tamara Lotfi,&nbsp;Vivian Welch,&nbsp;Jordi P. Pardo,&nbsp;Jennifer Petkovic,&nbsp;Shaun Treweek,&nbsp;Andrea J. Darzi,&nbsp;Rebecca Glover,&nbsp;Declan Devane,&nbsp;Meera Viswanathan,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw,&nbsp;Kevin Pottie,&nbsp;Elizabeth Kristjansson,&nbsp;Shahab Sayfi,&nbsp;Lara Maxwell,&nbsp;Olivia Magwood,&nbsp;Damian Francis,&nbsp;Dru Riddle,&nbsp;Beverly Shea,&nbsp;Peter Tugwell","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12091","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12091","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the 2022 Cochrane Lecture [<span>1</span>], Jimmy Volmink, recognized as a pioneer of evidence-based medicine in Africa, challenged Cochrane to enhance its equity efforts and suggested five ways to do so. We, as members of the Campbell and Cochrane Health Equity Thematic group*, fully agree with his suggestions and have developed an actionable plan, described below. We invite the global community to join us in our efforts to meet the equity gaps in research and practice.</p><p>Population health and healthcare delivery should be equitable and the research that guides it equity sensitive. By this, we mean that we need to focus on the distribution of health outcomes in the population not just overall health. That is, people should have equal opportunities for health and are not subjected to systemic discrimination or structural barriers to health. It is an ambitious goal and one that many of us who work in healthcare delivery and health research are striving for.</p><p>This includes those of us who work in evidence synthesis. Synthesizers of other researchers' evidence may think that our handling of equity cannot be better than the handling of equity in the research we synthesize. We, as members of the Campbell and Cochrane Health Equity Thematic Group, disagree. To truly address inequity, evidence synthesis must take into account equity considerations in a systematic and explicit manner, regardless of how equity was addressed in the original research. We believe that evidence synthesis should lead the way in promoting equity, rather than simply reflecting the approaches taken in the primary research that is included in our reviews (Box 1).</p><p>We fully agree that Cochrane cannot succeed in better addressing health equity in systematic reviews without also addressing inequities in its own organization and governance. As members of the Campbell and Cochrane Health Equity Thematic group, we commit to the following actions.</p><p><b>Tamara Lotfi</b>: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, reviewing and editing. <b>Vivian Welch</b>: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review &amp; editing. <b>Jordi P. Pardo</b>: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review &amp; editing. <b>Jennifer Petkovic</b>: Conceptualization, writing—original draft, review &amp; editing. <b>Shaun Treweek</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Andrea Darzi</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Rebecca Glover</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Declan Devane</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Meera Viswanathan</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Lawrence Mbuagbaw</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Kevin Pottie</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Elizabeth Kristjansson</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Shahab Sayfi</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Lara Maxwell</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Olivia Magwood</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Damian Francis</b>: Writing—review &amp; editing. <b>Dru Riddle</b>: Writing—review &amp; ed","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12091","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141425124","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":"Advisory groups in realist reviews: Systematically mapping current research and recommendations for practice","authors":"Jessica Power,&nbsp;Sara Dada,&nbsp;Andrew Booth,&nbsp;Aoife De Brún,&nbsp;Brynne Gilmore","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12073","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12073","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Realist reviews may involve groups or panels external to the research team who provide external and independent perspectives informing the review based on their experience of the topic area. These panels or groups are termed in this study as an “advisory group.” This study aims to map current practice of advisory groups in realist reviews and provide guidance for planning and reporting.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A “best-fit” framework synthesis methodology was used by first searching for a best-fit framework and then conducting a systematic search to identify a sample of realist reviews and rapid realist reviews (RRRs) from the most recent year, 2021. Nine databases were searched: CINAHL Complete, Cochrane, Embase, ERIC, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Social Services Abstracts, Sociological Abstracts, and Web of Science Core Collection. Screening and data extraction was conducted by two researchers. The chosen best-fit framework (ACTIVE framework) informed the data extraction tool.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>One hundred and seven reviews (93 realist reviews, 14 RRRs) were identified for inclusion. Of these, 40% (<i>n</i> = 37) of realist reviews and 71.5% (<i>n</i> = 10) of RRRs mentioned use of an advisory group, though there was considerable variation in terminology used. Individuals in advisory groups were involved at varying stages of the review and tended to bring experience in the topic area from the perspective of (i) a lived experience, that is, patients, carers, family members (<i>n</i> = 15 realist reviews; <i>n</i> = 4 RRRs); (ii) professional experience, such as healthcare professionals (<i>n</i> = 20 realist reviews; <i>n</i> = 6 RRRs); or (iii) policy or research experience in the topic area (<i>n</i> = 19 realist reviews; <i>n</i> = 7 RRRs).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This study proposes a  definition of advisory groups, considerations for advisory group use, and suggested items for reporting. The purpose of the advisory group should be carefully considered when deciding on their use in a realist review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 6","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-06-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12073","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141304224","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}