Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

{"title":"Adherence to PRISMA 2020 statement assessed through the expanded checklist in systematic reviews of interventions: A meta-epidemiological study","authors":"Diego Ivaldi,&nbsp;Mariana Burgos,&nbsp;Gisela Oltra,&nbsp;Camila E. Liquitay,&nbsp;Luis Garegnani","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12074","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12074","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Due to the suboptimal reporting of the 2009 version, an update was performed and published in 2021. Despite having been evaluated in studies published before its publication, its adherence in SRs of interventions published after 2021 remains unclear.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess PRISMA 2020 statement adherence and its uptake in SRs of interventions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a prospective cross-sectional study searching MEDLINE (PubMed), including a 10% random sample of all SRs involving human interventions published since January 2022 retrieved by our search process. We did not apply any restrictions. We assessed PRISMA 2020 statement uptake and its adherence using its expanded checklist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included 222 out of 945 studies. 67 (30.18%) used PRISMA 2020 statement. None adhered completely, with an average adherence of 42.64% (Min–Max: 14.29%–76.19%). Results and Methods sections had low adherence, with 40.57% (Min–Max: 10.45%–98.51%) and 25.55% (Min–Max: 7.46%–55.22%) respectively. The items with the least adherence were: certainty and reporting bias assessment, excluded studies characteristics and search strategy with 7.46% (5/67), 8.96% (6/67), 10.45% (7/67), and 11.94% (8/67) respectively.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Discussion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As in previous studies, our study showed low adherence, mainly to the methods and results sections. However, our study showed a lower adherence, probably due to the use of the expanded checklist to assessed the tools adherence.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found a low adherence rate to the PRISMA 2020 expanded checklist. Further PRISMA dissemination and targeted audience training are needed to improve SR reporting and quality.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12074","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141085071","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":"Intention-to-treat analyses and missing outcome data: A tutorial","authors":"Marty Chaplin,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12075","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12075","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This tutorial focuses on “intention-to-treat” analyses and missing outcome data in systematic reviews. There is a lack of consensus on the definition of the ITT approach. We will explain the principles of an intention-to-treat analysis, and outline the key issues you need to consider when planning, conducting and writing up your systematic review.</p><p>The authors of studies included in systematic reviews may use the term “intention-to-treat” or “intent-to-treat” (ITT) to describe the approach taken when reporting and analyzing outcome data. The ITT approach has two principles.</p><p><i>Principle A: Outcome data are reported and/or analysed according to the participant's assigned intervention, regardless of the intervention they actually received or their adherence to their assigned intervention. For randomised controlled trials, this approach is sometimes referred to as an “as-randomised” analysis</i>.</p><p>Study authors make decisions about which approach to take based on whether they are interested in determining the effect of allocation to an intervention (regardless of whether the intervention was received as intended), the effect of receiving an intervention, or the effect of adhering to an intervention (as specified in the trial protocol).</p><p><i>Principle B: Outcome data are measured for all randomised participants</i>.</p><p>If some participants do not contribute data for the outcome of interest at the required follow-up time (i.e., there are missing outcome data), data may be imputed. Various imputation methods are available, from simply assuming that all participants with missing data had a particular outcome (e.g., study authors may assume that all participants with missing data experienced a poor outcome, such as treatment failure), to more complex methods such as multiple imputation.</p><p>This principle is not met if study authors report and/or analyze outcome data only for participants with nonmissing outcome data (this approach is sometimes referred to as a “complete-case analysis”).</p><p>When choosing whether to ignore or impute missing data, and when selecting an imputation method, study authors should consider whether missing data are likely to be “missing at random” or not. Data are “missing at random” if the fact that the data are missing is unrelated to the true data values. Complete-case analyses, and some imputation methods, may lead to biased results if the missing data is “missing not at random.” Table 1 provides examples of data that are “missing at random” and data that are “missing not at random.”</p><p>There is no consensus on the definition of the ITT approach [<span>1, 2</span>]. Some study authors use the term ITT when applying both principles; others use the term when applying just one principle. Study authors may use the term “modified ITT” approach, which also has no consistent definition. The estimated intervention effect in a study may be impacted by the study author's choice of ITT approach. If this","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12075","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141078933","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":"Development of a topic-specific bibliographic database supporting the updates of SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010","authors":"Lasse Østengaard,&nbsp;Ariel Barrientos,&nbsp;Isabelle Boutron,&nbsp;An-Wen Chan,&nbsp;Gary Collins,&nbsp;Sally Hopewell,&nbsp;David Moher,&nbsp;Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard,&nbsp;Kenneth F. Schulz,&nbsp;Benjamin Speich,&nbsp;Evan Tang,&nbsp;Ruth Tunn,&nbsp;Nozomi Watanabe,&nbsp;Chenchen Xu,&nbsp;Asbjørn Hróbjartsson","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12057","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12057","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>An important mechanism of research waste is inadequate incorporation of, and references to, previous relevant research. Identifying references for a research manuscript can be challenging, in part due to the exponential rise in potentially relevant literature to consider. For large research projects, such as developing or updating reporting guidelines, it may be helpful to construct a supportive topic-specific bibliographic database.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In support of updating the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 and the CONsolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010, we developed the SPIRIT-CONSORT Evidence Bibliographic database (SCEBdb): a freely available topic-specific bibliographic database of publications providing an evidence foundation for the updates. We searched multiple sources of potential publications and tagged included ones with database-specific keywords. For context, we also formulated 10 core considerations for constructing topic-specific bibliographic databases and identified and described 5 illustrative other databases.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>As of April 2024, the SCEBdb included 846 publications. The database proved useful as a supplementary information source for our scoping review of published comments on SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, for a supplementary Delphi process, and in the writing phase of the guidance documents. We expect that the database will be useful for future projects within the fields of clinical research methodology, bias, evidence synthesis, and randomized trials.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The methods involved in constructing the SCEBdb, and our suggested core considerations for topic-specific bibliographic databases, could be helpful for researchers reflecting on whether, and how, to develop a topic-specific bibliographic database.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12057","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140924824","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 systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology","authors":"Annapoorani Muthiah,&nbsp;Loch Kith Lee,&nbsp;John Koh,&nbsp;Ashly Liu,&nbsp;Aidan Tan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12056","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12056","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Although the number of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology has increased over the past decade, their quality is unknown.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The objective of this study was to determine the change in risk of bias, methodological quality and reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in dermatology between 2010 and 2019.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a comparative study of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in the 10 highest-ranked dermatology journals in 2010 and 2019. Studies were identified through electronic searches of MEDLINE, Embase, and eight other bibliographic databases. Risk of bias and methodological quality were assessed in duplicate with the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) tools, respectively, with the latter only applied to studies of interventions. Reporting quality was assessed with the Preferred Reporting Items of systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2009 and PRISMA for abstracts (PRISMA-A) 2013 statements.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included 27 systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in 2010 and 127 published in 2019. There was no evidence of a difference in the proportion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses at high/unclear risk of bias with ROBIS (Fisher's exact test = 1.00) or critically low methodological quality using AMSTAR-2 (Fisher's exact test = 0.456), between 2010 and 2019. There was evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA (<i>t</i>(26) = 2.7, <i>p</i> = 0.01), and very strong evidence of a difference in proportion of PRISMA-A (<i>t</i>(26) = 4.2, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) checklist items adequately reported between 2010 and 2019. The difference in mean proportion of PRISMA checklist items adequately reported was 3.6 items more (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.8–5.4 items more) in 2019 (mean = 10.7 items, SD = 2.4 items) than in 2010 (mean = 7.1 items, SD = 2.9 items), and of PRISMA-A checklist items adequately reported was 1.1 items more (95% CI: 0.2–2.0 items more) in 2019 (mean = 5.6 items, SD = 1.5 items) than in 2010 (mean = 4.4 items, SD = 1.7 items)</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>No improvement was observed in the overall methodological quality of included systematic reviews and meta-analyses; however, there was strong evidenc","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12056","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140819017","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 effects of public health and social measures (PHSM) implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: An overview of systematic reviews","authors":"Racha Fadlallah,&nbsp;Fadi El-Jardali,&nbsp;Lama Bou Karroum,&nbsp;Nour Kalach,&nbsp;Reem Hoteit,&nbsp;Andrew Aoun,&nbsp;Lara Al-Hakim,&nbsp;Francisca Verdugo-Paiva,&nbsp;Gabriel Rada,&nbsp;Atle Fretheim,&nbsp;Simon Lewin,&nbsp;Ramona Ludolph,&nbsp;Elie A. Akl","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12055","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12055","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To systematically review the effectiveness and unintended health and socioeconomic consequences of public health and social measures (PHSM) aimed at reducing the scale and risk of transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This review followed guidance about overviews of reviews in the <i>Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions</i> and used the Epistemonikos database's COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository as a primary search source. Methodological quality was evaluated using the Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2) checklist.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 94 reviews were included, of which eight (9%) had “moderate” to “high” confidence ratings on the AMSTAR 2. Of 16 reviews (17%) reporting applying the GRADE framework, none found high certainty evidence for any of our outcomes of interest. Across the 94 reviews, the most frequently examined PHSM were personal protection (<i>n</i> = 18, 19%). Within multicomponent interventions, so-called “lockdown” was the most frequently examined component (<i>n</i> = 39, 41%). The most frequently reported outcome category was non-COVID-19-related health outcomes (<i>n</i> = 58, 62%). Only five (5%) reviews reported on socioeconomic outcomes. Findings from the eight reviews with moderate or high confidence ratings on AMSTAR 2 are narratively summarized. There is low-certainty evidence that multicomponent interventions may reduce the transmission of COVID-19 in different settings. For active surveillance and response measures, low-certainty evidence suggests that routine testing of residents and staff in long-term care facilities may reduce the number of infections, hospitalizations, and deaths among residents. We found very low-certainty evidence about the effectiveness of personal protection measures, travel-related control measures, and environmental measures. Unintended consequences were rarely examined by those eight reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We found predominantly low- to very low-certainty evidence regarding the effectiveness and unintended consequences of PHSM in controlling the risk and scale of COVID-19 transmission. There is a need to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12055","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140814153","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 simple form could prevent authorship issues in Cochrane manuscripts: A cohort study","authors":"Siv Fonnes,&nbsp;Kristoffer Andresen,&nbsp;Stina Öberg,&nbsp;Jason Joe Baker,&nbsp;Jacob Rosenberg","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12053","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12053","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aim</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We aimed to investigate authorship issues after the implementation of an authorship declaration form in a Cochrane Review Group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The Cochrane Colorectal Group uses an authorship declaration form that consists of three parts: (1) manuscript information, (2) documentation for roles according to the four authorship criteria of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), and (3) identification information of individual authors and signed approval. The manuscripts' contact authors were responsible for collecting the forms from all coauthors. This observational cohort study reports on all authorship issues in authorship declaration forms collected from February 2020 to December 2023.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We received 276/277 authorship declaration forms or replies from authors (response rate 99.6%) from 44 manuscripts, including 52% protocols and 48% reviews. There were authorship issues present in 14/44 (32%) of the manuscripts, and the most common issue was that not all authors fulfilled all four ICMJE authorship criteria. Six gift authors were removed from by-lines. Issues in nine of the 14 manuscripts were resolved by the author group when informing them about the ICMJE authorship criteria and guidance from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). The issues in the remaining five manuscripts were unresolved since the manuscripts were transferred or rejected, thus, ceased to be developed by the Cochrane Colorectal Group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Authorship issues were raised in almost one-third of manuscripts. Most issues were resolved and six gift authorships were prevented. The awareness of authorship criteria is sharpened when all authors are individually asked to fill out and sign a form. This could help decrease the rate of unethical authorships in Cochrane publications and contribute to more ethical and robust evidence production.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12053","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140348821","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":"Publication barriers and facilitators of Cochrane authors in sub-Saharan Africa: A mixed-methods study","authors":"Idriss I. Kallon,&nbsp;Taryn Young,&nbsp;Tonya A. MacDonald,&nbsp;Anel Schoonees,&nbsp;Joy Oliver,&nbsp;Dachi I. Arikpo,&nbsp;Solange Durão,&nbsp;Emmanuel Effa,&nbsp;Ameer S.-J. Hohlfeld,&nbsp;Tamara Kredo,&nbsp;Charles S. Wiysonge,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12054","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12054","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Well-conducted systematic reviews contribute to informing clinical practice and public health guidelines. Between 2008 and 2018 Cochrane authors in sub-Saharan Africa were publishing progressively fewer Cochrane Reviews, compared to non-Cochrane reviews. The objective of this study was to determine what motivated trained Cochrane authors in sub-Saharan Africa to conduct and publish non-Cochrane reviews over Cochrane Reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We conducted a mixed-methods exploratory sequential study. We purposely selected 12 authors, who had published at least one Cochrane- and one non-Cochrane review, for in-depth, semi-structured interviews. We manually coded and analysed the qualitative data using Grounded Theory approach and used the results to inform the survey questions. Subsequently we surveyed 60 authors with similar publishing experience. We analysed the quantitative data using descriptive and inferential statistics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Facilitators to publish with Cochrane were a high-impact factor, rigorous research, and visibility. From barriers, the main categories were protracted time to complete Cochrane Reviews, complex title registration process, and inconsistencies between Cochrane Review groups regarding editorial practices. From the survey, authors confirmed rigorous research and reviewing process (84%), high impact factor (77%), and good mentorship (73%). The major barriers included Cochrane's long reviewing process (70%) and Cochrane's complicated title registration (50%). Authors with publishing experience in the previous 10 years at &lt;95 percentile of systematic review publications, there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (1) and non-Cochrane (0) reviews, <i>p</i> = 0.06. Similarly, for those with publishing experience of ≥95 percentile of systematic review publication there was no significant difference between the medians for publishing with Cochrane (4) and non-Cochrane (6), <i>p</i> = 0.344.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Authors considered the visibility and relevance of Cochrane research as a trade-off point. They continued publishing with Cochrane despite the barriers that they encountered. However, the concerns raised by many authors are worth addressing.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12054","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140345808","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":"Consideration of health inequity in systematic reviews and primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss","authors":"Simon Briscoe,&nbsp;Elizabeth Shaw,&nbsp;Michael Nunns,&nbsp;Hassanat Lawal,&nbsp;Noreen Orr,&nbsp;Jo Thompson Coon,&nbsp;Ruth Garside,&nbsp;G. J. Melendez-Torres","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12052","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12052","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Health inequities are systematic, avoidable, and unfair differences in health between populations or population subgroups. There is increased recognition of the need for systematic reviews (SRs) to address health inequities, including drawing out findings relevant to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). The aim of this study was to determine the extent to which SRs on risk factors for hearing loss reported findings associated with health inequities, and the extent to which this data was captured in the primary studies included within these SRs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified SRs on risk factors for hearing loss from a report on this topic which included a systematic search for relevant SRs. SRs thus identified were inspected for data related to health inequity with reference to PROGRESS-Plus. We compared how data were reported in SRs versus within primary studies included in the SRs, and the extent to which primary studies from LMICs were represented.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We included 17 SRs which reported findings on a variety of physiological, behavioral, demographic, and environmental risk factors for hearing loss. There were 296 unique primary studies included in the SRs, of which 251 (81.49%) were successfully retrieved. Data relating to health inequities was reported relatively infrequently in the SRs and mainly focused on gender and age. Data related to health inequities was more frequently reported in primary studies. However, several PROGRESS-Plus criteria were only reported in a minority of primary studies. Approximately one-third of primary studies were from LMICs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There is scope to improve the reporting of data relating to health inequities in primary studies on risk factors for hearing loss. However, SR authors could do more to report health inequities than is currently undertaken, including drawing out findings relevant to LMICs where data are available.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"2 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12052","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"140345785","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":"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}