Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

{"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}

{"title":"Multiarm studies and how to handle them in a meta-analysis: A tutorial","authors":"Emma Axon,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan,&nbsp;Rachel Richardson","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12033","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cesm.12033","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This tutorial focuses on multiarm studies. We will explain what multiarm studies are and how to include data from them in a meta-analysis.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12033","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138822500","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 as an inclusion criterion for systematic reviews—What is the impact on results?","authors":"Jo Weeks,&nbsp;Anna Cuthbert,&nbsp;Zarko Alfirevic","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12037","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12037","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>There is increasing concern that a significant proportion of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in Cochrane reviews may not be trustworthy. Applying the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Trustworthiness Screening Tool (CPC-TST) has already had a clinically important effect on several reviews published by the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We wanted to assess the impact of removing untrustworthy RCTs from already-published Cochrane reviews on a defined clinical area (antenatal and postnatal nutritional interventions).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We applied the tool to 18 Cochrane reviews (374 RCTs). The tool had four domains: (i) is the research governance trustworthy; (ii) are the baseline characteristics trustworthy; (iii) is the study feasible; (iv) are the results plausible? When additional information was needed, authors were contacted using a standard template. At least two attempts were made to contact the authors. At the end of the evaluation process each study was classified as: (i) included (YES to all questions); (ii) excluded (retracted study); or (iii) awaiting classification (any NO to the questions).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Ninety-three out of 374 included studies (25%) were reclassified as “excluded” or “awaiting classification.” The number of included RCTs was reduced in 14 out of 18 reviews. Six reviews (33%) were judged to require updating because of important differences in the Summary of Findings tables (direction and size of effects and/or GRADE ratings), conclusions, implication for practice, and/or implication for research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Formal assessment of trustworthiness, and inclusion only of studies that satisfy prespecified criteria for trustworthiness, affect conclusions in a relatively large number of Cochrane reviews, with potentially important clinical implications for practice and research.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12037","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138634199","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 the InSynQ checklist: A tool for planning and reporting the synthesis questions in systematic reviews of interventions","authors":"Miranda S. Cumpston,&nbsp;Joanne E. McKenzie,&nbsp;Rebecca Ryan,&nbsp;Ella Flemyng,&nbsp;James Thomas,&nbsp;Sue E. Brennan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12036","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12036","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Methods guidance and appraisal tools for systematic reviews require specification of the question and eligibility criteria for the review (“PICO for the review”). Less emphasis has been given to specifying the question and criteria for each synthesis (“PICO for each synthesis”), yet decisions about which studies to include in each synthesis can critically influence the utility and findings of a review. This paper describes the rationale and methods for developing the InSynQ (Intervention Synthesis Questions) tool for planning and reporting synthesis questions in reviews of interventions. The aim is to provide transparency about the basis of the tool and contribute to evidence on methods for developing guidance for research conduct and reporting.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Informed by EQUATOR Network methods, we (1) established a project group; (2) examined reporting of the “PICO for each synthesis” in published reviews; (3) reviewed existing reporting guidance and the <i>Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions</i>; (4) drafted items with elaboration, explanation, and examples; (5) conducted consultation meetings, an evaluation survey and pilot test; (6) incorporated feedback.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Existing reporting guidelines do not distinguish the review and synthesis PICO, with limited coverage of the elements needed to specify the PICO for each synthesis. Using the PRISMA 2020 format, the draft tool contained 10 items with essential and additional reporting elements, explanations, and examples. Revisions arising from consultation meetings (&gt;30 people), included adding an eleventh item on consumer and stakeholder involvement, a figure explaining PICO for each synthesis, and integrating examples into elements/explanations. All respondents to the survey (12 people) said the tool would help them plan or appraise synthesis questions. InSynQ is available at https://InSynQ.info.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Transparent reporting of the development process contributes to the evidence base for methods to develop guidance. It may improve uptake of InSynQ, in turn enhancing the clarity of syntheses.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12036","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138571044","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":"Ten tips for successful assessment of risk of bias in randomized trials using the RoB 2 tool: Early lessons from Cochrane","authors":"Theresa H. M. Moore,&nbsp;Julian P. T. Higgins,&nbsp;Kerry Dwan","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12031","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12031","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>RoB 2 is a tool used by systematic reviewers to assess risk of bias in randomized trials. Over a period of 19 months working as editors for Cochrane, we saw many instances where users of RoB 2 frequently applied the tool in ways the developers had not intended, despite availability of detailed guidance, webinars and FAQs.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In this paper we highlight the ten main issues that we observed, with the aims of optimising the application of the RoB 2 tool, avoiding some of the frequent misapplications of the tool.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Issues noted included failure to state an effect of interest, applying the tool to an entire study rather than to a specific numerical result, omitting key signaling questions and relying on outdated views of causes of bias.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Such omissions and misapplications can lead to overly harsh or lenient assessments of bias with potential to change the confidence we have in an evidence base of randomized trials. We recommend that teams planning to use RoB 2 include at least one member familiar with the RoB 2 detailed guidance and that they use the free resources, such as webinars and FAQs, from the developers of RoB 2 and Cochrane. Our ten tips should be useful to non-Cochrane systematic reviewers as well as to peer reviewers and editors in Cochrane and other journals.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12031","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138480934","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 international HTA database returned incomplete search results for NICE technology appraisals: An exploratory study and discussion of the implications","authors":"Christopher Cooper,&nbsp;Sabrina Smith","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12034","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12034","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) database offers a single point of access for identifying technology appraisals, in contrast to searching multiple websites directly. The aim of this research is to compare the coverage of the INAHTA and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) databases with direct searching on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) website to identify Technology Appraisals published by NICE.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>NICE Technology Appraisals were downloaded from the NICE website (April 2022). Technology Appraisals were randomized and the first 20 Technology Appraisals constituted data for analysis. The INAHTA and CRD HTA databases were searched to determine if the 20 Technology Appraisals available on the NICE website were also available for retrieval.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Coverage was incomplete. INAHTA: 15 of 20 Technology Appraisals (75%) were not identified via full title or intervention-specific searches. CRD HTA: 7 of 12 Technology Appraisals (58%) that were published before the last update of the database were not identified.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Findings indicate that researchers seeking to identify NICE Technology Appraisals should search the NICE website directly. How this finding impacts identification of guidance from other agencies should be evaluated.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12034","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138468522","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":"Stakeholder involvement in a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke: Description and reflections","authors":"Julie Brown,&nbsp;Gill Baer,&nbsp;Sheila Cameron,&nbsp;Karl Jackson,&nbsp;Carrol Lamouline,&nbsp;Richard Morley,&nbsp;Diane Ormsby,&nbsp;Anneliese Synnot,&nbsp;Alex Todhunter-Brown","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12032","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12032","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>It is good practice to involve stakeholders in systematic reviews, but it is not clear how best to involve them.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Aim</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To describe and reflect on the stakeholder involvement within an update of a Cochrane review of physical rehabilitation after stroke.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A stakeholder group, comprising 15 stroke survivors, carers, and physiotherapists from across the United Kingdom, were recruited and contributed throughout the process of the review. A framework was used to describe when and how stakeholders were involved. Stakeholders provided feedback on their involvement after meetings. An amended version of a validated patient engagement tool was used to collect reflections on the stakeholder involvement process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Five stakeholder meetings were held throughout the review process, supplemented by additional communication. Several changes were made to the review structure, analyses, and wording as a direct result of the stakeholder involvement. Stakeholders and researchers agreed that stakeholders' contributions were taken seriously and influenced the review. Stakeholders felt that they were given the chance to share their views and that information was shared well before, during, and after each meeting to help them to contribute knowledgeably in the process. Stakeholder reflections highlighted a number of key lessons relating to stakeholder involvement, including process of reflection and feedback, use of remote/virtual meetings, need for adequate time and funding, tensions experienced by clinicians, and recruitment considerations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We describe and reflect on stakeholder involvement in a systematic review and explores practical ways to support meaningful engagement during systematic review production. Our experience supports the view that coproducing reviews with stakeholders can make systematic reviews more relevant and meaningful. Our approach and experiences can be used to inform future review coproduction, supporting development of useful reviews that will improve clinical practice.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12032","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138468526","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":"Effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies: A scoping review","authors":"KM Saif-Ur-Rahman,&nbsp;Ani Movsisyan,&nbsp;Kavita Kothari,&nbsp;Thomas Conway,&nbsp;Marie Tierney,&nbsp;Caoimhe Madden,&nbsp;Petek Eylul Taneri,&nbsp;Jane A. O'Halloran,&nbsp;Nadra Nurdin,&nbsp;Lena Murphy,&nbsp;Deirdre Mulholland,&nbsp;Andrea C. Tricco,&nbsp;Declan Devane","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12030","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12030","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Rapid identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections by testing potentially reduced coronavirus disease-19 (COVID-19) cases. Testing strategies varied across countries and during different stages of the pandemic. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies for suspected cases and asymptomatic populations to inform the development of World Health Organization recommendations for SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We followed the standard methods for scoping reviews. We searched Medline (OVID), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Europe PMC using a comprehensive search strategy. The search was conducted in January 2023 and covered the period from January 2020 to January 2023. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, and full texts. Data were extracted onto a pilot-tested form by a review author and cross-checked by another review author. We provided a descriptive report summarizing the extracted data around the outcomes and created an interactive map of the available evidence using the evidence for policy and practice mapper.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 34,550 citations from the databases. After the screening, we included 17 studies from 11 countries for data extraction. The study designs were randomized controlled trials (<i>n</i> = 3), nonrandomized experimental studies (<i>n</i> = 3), cohort studies (<i>n</i> = 3), cross-sectional studies (<i>n</i> = 4), self-controlled case series (<i>n</i> = 1), and economic evaluations (<i>n</i> = 3).  Among the included studies, 14 used reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction and 10 studies used antigen-detecting rapid diagnostic test. The settings of the studies were healthcare facilities (<i>n</i> = 8), communities (<i>n</i> = 4), schools, and workplaces (<i>n</i> = 3). Included studies considered symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, or both, or asymptomatic contacts. Most of the studies (<i>n</i> = 14) reported the COVID-19 positivity rate as the primary outcome. Other reported outcomes are the number of COVID-19 cases (<i>n</i> = 11), number of hospitalizations and deaths (<i>n</i> = 3), and cost (<i>n</i> = 3).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified evidence gaps in the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 testing strategies, particularly in specific settings such as schools and long-term care facilities. This scoping review provides a foundati","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-11-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12030","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138432116","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}