Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods最新文献

{"title":"Machine learning for accelerating screening in evidence reviews","authors":"Mary Chappell,&nbsp;Mary Edwards,&nbsp;Deborah Watkins,&nbsp;Christopher Marshall,&nbsp;Sara Graziadio","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12021","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12021","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Evidence reviews are important for informing decision-making and primary research, but they can be time-consuming and costly. With the advent of artificial intelligence, including machine learning, there is an opportunity to accelerate the review process at many stages, with study screening identified as a prime candidate for assistance. Despite the availability of a large number of tools promising to assist with study screening, these are not consistently used in practice and there is skepticism about their application. Single-arm evaluations suggest the potential for tools to reduce screening burden. However, their integration into practice may need further investigation through evaluations of outcomes such as overall resource use and impact on review findings and recommendations. Because the literature lacks comparative studies, it is not currently possible to determine their relative accuracy. In this commentary, we outline the published research and discuss options for incorporating tools into the review workflow, considering the needs and requirements of different types of review.</p>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12021","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50152689","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":"Should CINAHL be used as one of the main databases for evidence synthesis of health services intervention?","authors":"Teerapon Dhippayom,&nbsp;Natnicha Rattanachaisit,&nbsp;Apinya Wateemongkollert,&nbsp;Rawiwan Napim,&nbsp;Nathorn Chaiyakunapruk","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12019","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12019","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>CINAHL is not listed as one of the minimum databases for systematic review (SR) of interventions in the Methodological Expectations of the Cochrane Intervention Review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To determine additional studies uniquely identified from the CINAHL search in SR of health services interventions (HSI).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched PubMed from inception to October 1, 2022 to identify SRs of HSI that determined clinical or humanistic outcomes of HSI and used CINAHL. Out of 5655 Systematic reviews identified, we randomly selected 374 SRs and extracted all primary studies included. We then explored the bibliographic databases in which the journals of those studies were indexed. The outcome of interest was the number of studies uniquely available in CINHAL. We also performed a subgroup analysis based on the type of HSI. We performed descriptive statistics to report the study outcomes using Excel (Microsoft 365).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 7550 primary studies were identified from the 374 Systematic reviews that met the inclusion criteria. Of these studies, 7380 were journal publications that have been indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed (75.1%), Scopus (74.5%), Sciences Citation Index, SCI (54.7%), Embase (48.1%), and CINAHL (34.9%). Only 83 out of 7380 (1.1%) studies were published in journals that were uniquely indexed in CINAHL. The percentage of studies that were only available in other databases was 9.7% (Scopus), 4.3% (MEDLINE/PubMed), 1.6% (SCI), and 0.3% (Embase). The number of studies that were unique to CINAHL in specific types of HSI were: 24/1570 (1.5%) for community health services, 20/1520 (1.3%) for preventive health services, 45/3624 (1.2%) for patient care, 8/1173 (0.7%) for mental health services, and 18/2804 (0.6%) for rehabilitation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The gain of CINAHL to identify unique primary studies for SR of HSI appears minimal. The impact of missing studies uniquely available in CINAHL on SR summary or magnitude of effect estimates from meta-analysis requires further investigation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12019","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50130211","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":"Empowering workplace allies for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender employees to prevent and minimize psychological distress: A scoping review","authors":"Laurie Long Kwan Ho,&nbsp;Ankie Tan Cheung,&nbsp;Carlo Chak Yiu Chan,&nbsp;Eliza Lai Yi Wong,&nbsp;Wilson Wai San Tam,&nbsp;Wai Tong Chien","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12018","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) employees have increasingly reported experiencing different forms of workplace discrimination/harassment. Workplace allyship may be positively associated with psychological health through creating inclusive organizational cultures or reducing discrimination/harassment. However, comprehensive literature reviews or evidence syntheses on the effects of workplace allyship in mental health protection/promotion for LGBT employees are limited.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This scoping review aimed to summarize available evidence regarding the effectiveness of workplace allies for LGBT employees in preventing/minimizing psychological distress and clarify the therapeutic components. This review included published research articles and grey literature identified through 11 electronic databases, a secondary search, and other sources.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 27 relevant articles. Most included studies used cross-sectional or qualitative research designs, and evidence from countries beyond the United States was limited. Three essential/effective components of workplace allies/allyship were identified that could create supportive/safe workplace relationships/climates: (a) knowledge, (b) empathy, and (c) action.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Further longitudinal studies and controlled trials are needed to increase the quality of evidence on the effects and change processes induced by workplace allyship. Qualitative studies are also recommended to understand the health needs and mechanism of actions of workplace allyships in different LGBT communities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12018","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50153662","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 impact of blinding on trial results: A systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Tyler Pitre,&nbsp;Sarah Kirsh,&nbsp;Tanvir Jassal,&nbsp;Mason Anderson,&nbsp;Adelia Padoan,&nbsp;Alexander Xiang,&nbsp;Jasmine Mah,&nbsp;Dena Zeraatkar","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12015","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12015","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Blinding—the concealment of the arm to which participants have been randomized—is an important consideration for assessing the risk of bias of randomized trials. A growing body of evidence has, however, yielded inconsistent results on whether trials without blinding produce biased findings.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the evidence addressing whether trials with and without blinding produce different results.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Reviews, JBI EBP, and Web of Science, from inception to May 2022, for studies comparing the results of trials with and without blinding. Pairs of reviewers, working independently and in duplicate, reviewed search results for eligible studies and extracted data. We pooled the results of studies comparing trials with and without blinding of patients, healthcare providers/investigators, and outcome assessors/adjudicators using frequentist random-effects meta-analyses. We coded study results such that a ratio of odds ratio &lt; 1 and difference in standardized mean difference &lt; 0 indicate that trials without blinding overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 47 eligible studies. For dichotomous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers and trials without blinding of patients may slightly overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. We found moderate certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. For continuous outcomes, we found low certainty evidence that trials without blinding of patients and healthcare providers may overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments. We found moderate certainty evidence that trials without blinding of outcome assessors/adjudicators probably overestimate the beneficial effects of treatments.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that blinding may influence trial results in select situations—although the findings are of low certainty and the magnitude of effect is modest. In the absence of high-certainty evidence suggesting that trials with and without blinding produce similar results, investigators should be cautious about interpreting the results of","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12015","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50138880","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":"Launching “methods and statistics tutorials”: A collection of resources for systematic reviewers","authors":"Kerry Dwan,&nbsp;Rachel Richardson","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12017","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12017","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Robust and innovative methods are the lynchpin of Cochrane and remain the basis of its reputation as the home of high-quality systematic reviews. As methodology evolves to respond to the evidence needs of our stakeholders, it is crucial for Cochrane to be able to offer timely and clear advice to those working on our reviews.</p><p>Cochrane's Methods Support Unit (MSU) was established in 2019 [<span>1</span>] to provide methodological and statistical support to authors and editors working on Cochrane protocols and reviews. A key challenge in the first 2 years of the Unit was the introduction of our new tool [<span>2</span>] to assess the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials (RCTs), but we have dealt with a multiplicity of different issues since being established. By March 2023, the Unit has dealt with over 1200 referrals relating to protocols, systematic reviews, updates of reviews, and statistical and methodological queries relating to reviews. Our work has ranged from full methodological and statistical reviews of research incorporating network meta-analyses to individual queries about the use of an intracluster correlation coefficient to adjust data from an individual study.</p><p>It quickly became apparent that similar queries were often raised and we noticed common problems when working on reviews. Our monthly web clinic series was set up to allow authors and editors to raise questions and then later to provide guidance on a specific topic in addition [<span>3</span>]. However, we also felt that there is a need for accessible help with these issues which would be instantly available.</p><p>Professor Doug Altman was a leader and pioneer in Cochrane and in the field of medical statistics [<span>4</span>]. One of Professor Altman's legacies was the Statistics Notes series in <i>The BMJ</i>, which provided clear advice on statistical concepts to medical researchers. Inspired by this work, former and current MSU managers (Dr Kerry Dwan and Rachel Richardson) are launching this series to provide easily accessible advice to the evidence synthesis community on the common methodological and statistical issues that we have observed within Cochrane. The hope is to make this as interactive and easy to understand as possible. In addition, the series will collaborate with Cochrane Training [<span>5</span>] to complement the articles in the series with visual learning, such as short videos or quick e-learning checks, to help those who learn better by doing or watching rather than reading.</p><p>There are various sources of advice on methodological and statistical issues already available to reviewers, including the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention [<span>6</span>] and resources from specialized Cochrane Methods Groups. This series will complement existing sources by responding to the day-to-day difficulties encountered by reviewers when implementing systematic review methods. The MSU is in a unique position to provide advi","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-06-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12017","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50137033","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":"Identifying important questions for Cochrane systematic reviews in Eyes and Vision: Report of a priority setting exercise","authors":"Jennifer R. Evans,&nbsp;Iris Gordon,&nbsp;Augusto Azuara-Blanco,&nbsp;Michael Bowen,&nbsp;Tasanee Braithwaite,&nbsp;Roxanne Crosby-Nwaobi,&nbsp;Stephen Gichuhi,&nbsp;Ruth E. Hogg,&nbsp;Tianjing Li,&nbsp;Virginia Minogue,&nbsp;Roses Parker,&nbsp;Fiona J. Rowe,&nbsp;Anupa Shah,&nbsp;Gianni Virgili,&nbsp;Jacqueline Ramke,&nbsp;John G. Lawrenson,&nbsp;Cochrane Eyes and Vision Priority Setting Group Authorship","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12014","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Systematic reviews are important to inform decision-making for evidence-based health care and patient choice. Deciding which reviews should be prioritized is a key issue for decision-makers and researchers. Cochrane Eyes and Vision conducted a priority setting exercise for systematic reviews in eye health care.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We established a steering group including practitioners, patient organizations, and researchers. To identify potential systematic review questions, we searched global policy reports, research prioritization exercises, guidelines, systematic review databases, and the Cochrane Library (CENTRAL). We grouped questions into separate condition lists and conducted a two-round online modified Delphi survey, including a ranking request. Participants in the survey were recruited through social media and the networks of the steering group.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>In Round 1, 343 people ranked one or more of the condition lists. Participants were eye care practitioners (69%), researchers (37%), patients or carers (24%), research providers/funders (5%), or noneye health care practitioners (4%) and from all World Health Organization regions. Two hundred twenty-six people expressed interest in completing Round 2 and 160 of these (71%) completed the Round 2 survey. Reviews on cataract and refractive error, reviews relevant to children, and reviews on rehabilitation were considered to have an important impact on the magnitude of disease and equity. Narrative comments emphasized the need for reviews on access to eye health care, particularly for underserved groups, including people with intellectual disabilities.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A global group of stakeholders prioritized questions on the effective and equitable delivery of services for eye health care. When considering the impact of systematic reviews in terms of reducing the burden of eye conditions, equity is clearly an important criterion to consider in priority-setting exercises.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12014","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50143107","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 equity group: Supporting Cochrane's social responsibility of improving health equity","authors":"Roses Parker,&nbsp;Jennifer Petkovic,&nbsp;Jordi Pardo Pardo,&nbsp;Andrea Darzi,&nbsp;Omar Dewidar,&nbsp;Joanne Khabsa,&nbsp;Elizabeth Kristjansson,&nbsp;Tamara Lotfi,&nbsp;Olivia Magwood,&nbsp;Lawrence Mbuagbaw,&nbsp;Kevin Pottie,&nbsp;Alison Riddle,&nbsp;Ammar Saad,&nbsp;Eve Tomlinson,&nbsp;Peter Tugwell,&nbsp;Vivian Welch","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12012","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12012","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Health equity is a moral and ethical imperative for clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and all who use health research. Both Cochrane and the Campbell Collaboration have focused on health equity for many years.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The new Equity Group will continue and expand this work by designing a program of projects aiming to (1) promote equity in the evidence base, (2) ensure equitable processes for stakeholder engagement, (3) produce high-priority, equity-focused evidence syntheses, (4) build capacity for equity design, analysis, and reporting, and (5) promote equity in implementation tools.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We will build on our current network of collaborators and create a group structure striving to recruit across the PROGRESS-Plus characteristics.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We invite readers to join our cause and contribute wherever they are able. Together, we can help Cochrane achieve its social responsibility of improving health equity at a planetary level.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-05-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12012","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50142543","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 did the scientific literature learn from internal company documents in the pharmaceutical industry? A scoping review","authors":"Marc-André Gagnon,&nbsp;Miaoran Dong","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12011","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12011","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To identify all scientific papers that used internal industry documents in the pharmaceutical sector and analyze what and how the scientific literature learned about corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector through these internal documents.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Design</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Scoping review.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Using different series of keywords, we searched six databases, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CINAHL, Business Source Complete, and PAIS, for peer-reviewed journal articles analyzing pharmaceutical corporations' internal documents. We completed the scoping review using a purposive snowball sampling method to extract relevant case studies and peer-reviewed journal articles from relevant articles' reference lists when our search keywords failed to capture them. To analyze the content of the literature and better categorize the types of corporate strategies at play in the pharmaceutical sector, we used categories of ghost-management previously developed in the literature.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified 37 peer-reviewed papers in the final results. All the articles included in the final results are published in English. Almost all articles obtained most of their internal document data through legal proceedings. All 37 articles unveil dynamic ghost-management strategies that pharmaceutical corporations employ to safeguard their corporate interest. The strategies identified relate to scientific capture (<i>n</i> = 28), professional capture (<i>n</i> = 16), regulatory capture (<i>n</i> = 6), media capture (<i>n</i> = 3), market capture (<i>n</i> = 4), technological capture (<i>n</i> = 2), civil society capture (<i>n</i> = 4), and others (<i>n</i> = 2).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The scientific literature using internal documents confirmed widespread corporate influence in the pharmaceutical sector. While the academic literature used internal documents related to only a handful of products, our research results, based on ghost-management categories, demonstrate the extent of corporate influence in every interstice of pharmaceutical markets, particularly in clinical research and clinical practice. It also allows us to better refine the conceptual categories of ghost-management to better map corporate influence and conflict of interest.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 3","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12011","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50145224","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 context-specific conceptual framework of evidence synthesis to improve childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in Egypt: Using real-world data and addressing the implementation gaps","authors":"Ranin Soliman","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12010","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12010","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Introduction</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Given the large numbers of children with cancer in Egypt, the limited resources, and inferior survival outcomes, there is a need to better target resources to improve outcomes efficiently based on evidence. Nevertheless, there is a gap in knowledge about childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in Egypt. This commentary presents a “context-specific” conceptual framework of evidence synthesis to improve childhood cancer health outcomes and resource use in a resource-limited setting in Egypt, using real-world data and addressing the implementation gaps.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Real-world data is defined as data relating to health status and/or the delivery of health services routinely collected from various sources outside the contexts of randomized controlled trials that can be used to conduct prospective/retrospective observational research studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To better address this context-specific clinical problem, the conceptual framework of evidence synthesis proposes to generate three types of evidence using hybrid research methods; (1) Real-world evidence (obtained from observational studies based on routinely collected data from local context); (2) systematic evidence from the literature (systematic review); and (3) qualitative evidence based on experts' opinions in the local setting (interview study). Generating evidence from the three pillars altogether makes for a stronger approach to better research and tackle the local problem in this specific resource-limited context, and address the implementation gaps.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>This framework serves as a methodological roadmap to generate relevant evidence in similar resource-limited contexts in low- and middle-income countries, where there is a paucity of published studies in the literature about childhood cancer survival outcomes and resource use.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12010","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50151538","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 develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests according to experts: A qualitative exploration of researcher views","authors":"Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez,&nbsp;Susan Baxter,&nbsp;Karen R. Steingart,&nbsp;Andrea C. Tricco,&nbsp;Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit,&nbsp;David Kaunelis,&nbsp;Pablo Alonso-Coello,&nbsp;Patrick M. Bossuyt,&nbsp;Javier Zamora","doi":"10.1002/cesm.12006","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cesm.12006","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Background</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Rapid reviews (RRs) have been used to provide timely evidence for policymakers, health providers, and the public in several healthcare scenarios, most recently during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Despite the essential role of diagnosis in clinical management, data about how to perform RRs of diagnostic tests are scarce. We aimed to explore the views and perceptions of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence about the value of methods used to accelerate the review process.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence. We carried out the interviews in English between July and December 2021. Initial reading and coding of the transcripts were performed using NVIVO qualitative data analysis software.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of a total of 23 invited experts, 16 (70%) responded. We interviewed all 16 participants representing key roles in evidence synthesis. We identified 14 recurring themes including the review question, characteristics of the review team, and use of automation, as the topics with the highest number of quotes. Some participants considered several methodological “shortcuts” to be ineffective or risky, such as automating quality appraisal, using only one reviewer for diagnostic data extraction and only performing descriptive analysis. The introduction of limits might depend on whether the test being assessed is a new test, the availability of alternative tests, the needs of providers and patients, and the availability of high-quality systematic reviews.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Our findings suggest that organizational strategies (e.g., defining the review question, availability of a highly experienced team) may have a role in conducting RRs of diagnostic tests. Several methodological shortcuts were considered inadequate for accelerating the review process, though they need to be assessed in well-designed studies. Improved reporting of RRs would support evidence-based decision-making and help users of RRs understand their limitations.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2023-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12006","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"50130952","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}