JBI evidence synthesis最新文献

{"title":"Experiences of HIV and/or AIDS caregiving by informal caregivers and the experience of care in low- and middle-income countries: a qualitative systematic review protocol.","authors":"Benjamin Spears Ngmekpele Cheabu, Christina Godfrey, Madison A Robertson, Amanda Ross-White, Rylan Egan","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00118","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00118","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The objective of this review is to identify, appraise, and synthesize available evidence on the experiences of informal caregivers providing HIV and/or AIDS care and the experiences of care received by people living with HIV and/or AIDS (PLHIV) in sub-Saharan Africa.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>PLHIV share the burden of the disease with their informal caregivers throughout their lives. Experiences of HIV- and/or AIDS-related caregiving and care receiving have a significant impact on the treatment and physiological health outcomes of both care receivers and caregivers. However, there is limited evidence regarding how caregiving approaches and caregiving experiences influence HIV and/or AIDS care.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will consider qualitative studies on informal caregivers providing HIV- and/or AIDS-related care and PLHIV receiving care in sub-Saharan Africa. Eligible studies will focus on positive and negative experiences of informal caregivers and PLHIV throughout the HIV/AIDS caregiving continuum.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search strategy will be developed to retrieve relevant articles from Ovid MEDLINE (R), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). The review will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers using the JBI approach to perform study selection, critical appraisal, data extraction, assessment of confidence, and data synthesis.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023470996.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143597920","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for cohort studies.","authors":"Timothy H Barker, Sabira Hasanoff, Edoardo Aromataris, Jennifer C Stone, Jo Leonardi-Bee, Kim Sears, Nahal Habibi, Miloslav Klugar, Catalin Tufanaru, Sandeep Moola, Xian-Liang Liu, Zachary Munn","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00103","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00103","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Cohort studies are a robust analytical observational study design that explore the difference in outcomes between two cohorts, differentiated by their exposure status. Despite being observational in nature, they are often included in systematic reviews of effectiveness, particularly when randomized controlled trials are limited or not feasible. Like all studies included in a systematic review, cohort studies must undergo a critical appraisal process to assess the extent to which a study has considered potential bias in its design, conduct, or analysis. Critical appraisal tools facilitate this evaluation. This paper introduces the revised critical appraisal tool for cohort studies, completed by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, who are currently revising the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs. The revised tool responds to updates in methodological guidance from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group and reporting guidance from PRISMA 2020, providing a robust framework for evaluating risk of bias in a cohort study. Transparent and rigorous assessment using this tool will assist reviewers in understanding the validity and relevance of the results and conclusions drawn from a systematic review that includes cohort studies. This may contribute to better evidence-based decision-making in health care. This paper discusses the key changes made to the tool, outlines justifications for these changes, and provides practical guidance on how this tool should be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"441-453"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142037276","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Barriers and facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Catherine Stratton, Andrew Taylor, Menelaos Konstantinidis, Vanda McNiven, Peter Kannu, Peter Gill, Ian Stedman, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Martin Offringa, Beth Potter, Durhane Wong-Rieger, John Adams, Kathy Hodgkinson, Alison M Elliott, Alexandra Neville, Marie Faughnan, Sarah Dyack, Pavel Zhelnov, Jennifer Daly-Cyr, Jessie McGowan, Sharon Straus, Maureen Smith, Laura Rosella, Andrea C Tricco","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00091","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00091","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objectives of this review are to identify barriers and facilitators to designing, maintaining, and utilizing rare disease patient registries; determine whether and how these differ among patient partners, other knowledge users, and researchers; and chart definitions of rare diseases and rare disease patient registries.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Rare disease patient registries are vital to improving the understanding of the natural histories and predictors of outcomes of rare diseases, assessing interventions, and identifying potential participants for clinical trials. Currently, however, the functionality of rare disease patient registries is not fully optimized. To improve the quality and functionality of rare disease patient registries, it is important to understand the barriers and/or facilitators involved in their design, maintenance, and utilization; how these might differ among patient partners, other knowledge users, and researchers; and to delineate the range of definitions for rare diseases and rare disease patient registries.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Evidence from any study design or format (including empirical studies, books, manuals, commentaries, editorials, guidance documents, conference abstracts, review documents, and gray literature) that references barriers or facilitators for designing, maintaining, or utilizing rare disease patient registries will be considered for inclusion.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The review will follow the JBI methodology for scoping reviews. We will search health science databases, including the Cochrane Library, Embase, MEDLINE, the JBI EBP Database, and PsycINFO, from inception onwards. Multiple sources will be searched for theses and gray literature, including the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) Grey Matters. Two independent reviewers will screen titles and abstracts and full-text documents, as well as abstract data. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or with a third reviewer. Evidence will be synthesized descriptively and reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRIMSA-ScR).</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>Open Science Framework https://osf.io/mvf9r.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"546-553"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142476700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Methods for data extraction and data transformation in convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews.","authors":"Lucylynn Lizarondo, Cindy Stern, Susan Salmond, Judith Carrier, Kay Cooper, Christina Godfrey, Manda Vandyk, Danielle Pollock, Kendra Rieger, Joao Apostolo, Pamela Kirkpatrick, Kelli Borges Dos Santos, Heather Loveday","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00331","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00331","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;The objective of this guidance paper is to describe data transformation involving qualitization, including when and how to undertake this process, and to clarify how it aligns with data extraction in order to expand on the current guidance for JBI convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction: &lt;/strong&gt;The convergent integrated approach to MMSRs involves combining extracted data from both quantitative studies (including the quantitative components of mixed methods studies) and qualitative studies (including the qualitative components of mixed methods studies). This process requires data transformation, which can occur either by converting qualitative data into quantitative data (ie, quantitizing ) or converting quantitative data into qualitative data (ie, qualitizing ). Data transformation involving qualitization is poorly understood in the context of MMSRs, and there is confusion regarding how to undertake this process, with much of the literature specific to primary mixed methods studies. There is a need to expand current guidance and provide more practical advice to reviewers on how to undertake this process.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;The JBI MMSR Methodology Group took a multipronged approach to update its guidance. First, a structured search of the literature was conducted to determine what is known about data transformation, followed by analysis of a sample of systematic reviews that claimed to use the JBI convergent integrated approach to MMSRs. Approaches were summarized and used to inform the development of draft guidance. This guidance was iteratively revised following a series of online meetings, as well as presented to evidence synthesis experts at an international conference. Finally, the guidance was submitted to the JBI International Scientific Committee for discussion, feedback, and ratification.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;There is uncertainty in the literature regarding the process of data transformation within the context of MMSRs, with ill-defined approaches provided and variation in practice. In JBI convergent integrated MMSRs, it is recommended that data extraction from quantitative studies (or mixed method studies reporting quantitative findings) stays as close as possible to the data reported in the primary studies. Where data are absent or insufficient to meet the needs of the MMSR, systematic reviewers may need to construct the narrative representation using relevant data from the primary studies. Following data extraction, the process of qualitization occurs where extracted data (both quantitative and qualitative) are assembled, and reviewers are required to conduct detailed examination across data to identify likenesses and create categories based on similarities in meaning.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusion: &lt;/strong&gt;To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive guidance currently available for data extraction and qualitization for MMSRs. ","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"429-440"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143013257","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Defining the exit meta-analysis.","authors":"Jazeel Abdulmajeed, Luis Furuya-Kanamori, Tawanda Chivese, Chang Xu, Lukman Thalib, Suhail A R Doi","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00155","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00155","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In recent decades, clinical research has seen significant advancements, both in the generation and synthesis of evidence through meta-analyses. Despite these methodological advancements, there is a growing concern about the accumulation of repetitive and redundant literature, potentially contributing to research waste. This highlights the necessity for a mechanism to determine when a meta-analysis has conclusively addressed a research question, signaling no further need for additional studies-a concept we term an \"exit\" meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We introduced a convergence index, the Doi-Abdulmajeed Trial Stability (DAts) index, and a convergence plot to determine the exit status of a meta-analysis. The performance of DAts was examined through simulation and applied to two real-world meta-analyses.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The DAts index and convergence plot demonstrate highly effective discriminative ability across varying study scenarios. This represents the first attempt to define an exit meta-analysis using a quantitative measurement of stability (as opposed to sufficiency) and its corresponding plot. The application to real-world scenarios further validated the utility of DAts and the convergence plot in identifying a conclusive (exit) meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The new development of DAts and the convergence plot provide a promising tool for investigating the conclusiveness of meta-analyses. By identifying an exit status for meta-analysis, the scientific community may be equipped to make better-informed decisions on the continuation of research on a specific topic, thereby preventing research waste and focusing efforts on areas with unresolved questions.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"480-492"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142297411","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Textual evidence systematic reviews series paper 1: introduction to the revised JBI methodology and overview of recent changes.","authors":"Alexa McArthur, Adam Cooper, Deborah Edwards, Jitka Klugarova, Hu Yan, Brittany V Barber, Emily E Gregg, Lori E Weeks, Zoe Jordan","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00291","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00291","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is now widely recognized that an inclusive approach to evidence to inform policy and practice is necessary. Although methodologies for the synthesis of qualitative and quantitative evidence are well established, the synthesis of non-research evidence remains relatively new. In 2004, JBI developed a methodological approach to synthesize this type of evidence, advocating for the unique role of textual evidence when research to inform decision-making is limited. The JBI approach has recently been revised to reflect significant changes and advances in thinking and conceptualization of conducting textual evidence systematic reviews. The evolution of this methodology and the recent changes that have been made are articulated in this paper.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"423-428"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143123819","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion in JBI qualitative systematic reviews: a methodological scoping review.","authors":"Catrin Evans, Zeinab M Hassanein, Manpreet Bains, Clare Bennett, Merete Bjerrum, Alison Edgley, Deborah Edwards, Kylie Porritt, Susan Salmond","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00025","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00025","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;The objective of this methodological scoping review was to investigate ways in which qualitative review teams are addressing equity, diversity, and inclusion (EDI) in the process of conducting and reporting qualitative systematic reviews that use JBI guidelines.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction: &lt;/strong&gt;To promote health equity, there is a need for evidence synthesis processes and practices to develop approaches that incorporate EDI. Some guidance is available to guide equity-focused review methods and reporting, but this is primarily oriented to quantitative systematic reviews. There is currently limited knowledge about how review teams are addressing EDI within qualitative evidence syntheses.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Inclusion criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;This review included English-language qualitative systematic reviews, published in 2022, that used all the stjpg outlined in the JBI guidance for qualitative reviews.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;A 1-year sample of published reviews was identified from a search undertaken on March 17, 2023, of 2 health care databases: MEDLINE (Ovid) and CINAHL (EBSCOhost). Data extraction followed a framework approach, using an adapted pre-existing equity template. This included attention to i) the reporting of a range of characteristics associated with EDI, ii) search approaches, and iii) analytical approaches (including reflexivity, intersectionality, and knowledge user engagement). Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and narrative summary.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;Forty-three reviews met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the reviews (n = 30) framed their questions and aims in a generic/universal (rather than EDI-focused) way. Six reviews justified their population focus in terms of an EDI-related issue. Only 1 review included a knowledge user. The sociodemographic and other key characteristics of the samples in underpinning studies were poorly reported, making it hard to discern EDI-related issues or to undertake EDI-related analyses. Thirteen of the reviews included non-English-language evidence sources, and 31 reviews included gray literature sources. Ten reviews demonstrated an element of intersectional or otherwise critical approach within their analyses of categories and synthesized findings (whereby issues of power and/or representation were explicitly considered). Only 8 reviews included discussions of review team composition and reflexivity within the review process.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Conclusions: &lt;/strong&gt;This EDI-focused methodological enquiry has highlighted some limitations within current qualitative evidence synthesis practice. Without closer attention to EDI, there is a danger that systematic reviews may simply serve to amplify, rather than illuminate, existing gaps, silences, and inequitable knowledge claims based on dominant representations. This review sets out a range of suggestions to help qualitative evidence synthesis teams to more systematically embed EDI w","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"454-479"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11893006/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142120791","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":"Methodological components, structure, and quality assessment tools for evidence summaries: a scoping review.","authors":"Ashley Whitehorn, Craig Lockwood, Yan Hu, Weijie Xing, Zheng Zhu, Kylie Porritt","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00557","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00557","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Objective: &lt;/strong&gt;The objective of this review was to identify and map the available information related to the definition, structure, and core methodological components of evidence summaries, as well as to identify any indicators of quality.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Introduction: &lt;/strong&gt;Evidence summaries offer a practical solution to overcoming some of the barriers present in evidence-based health care, such as lack of access to evidence at the point of care, and the knowledge and expertise to evaluate the quality and translate the evidence into clinical decision-making. However, lack of transparency in reporting and inconsistencies in the methodology of evidence summary development have previously been cited and pose problems for end users (eg, clinicians, policymakers).&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Inclusion criteria: &lt;/strong&gt;Any English-language resource that described the methodological development or appraisal of an evidence summary was included.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Methods: &lt;/strong&gt;PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL (EBSCOhost) were systematically searched in November 2019, with no limits on the search. The search was updated in June 2021 and January 2023. Gray literature searches and pearling of references of included sources were also conducted at the same time as the database searches. All resources (ie, articles, papers, books, dissertations, reports, and websites) were eligible for inclusion in the review if they evaluated or described the development or appraisal of an evidence summary methodology within a point-of-care context and were published in English. Literature reviews (eg, systematic reviews, rapid reviews)-including summaries of evidence on interventions or health care activities that measure effects, a phenomenon of interest, or where the objective was the development, description, or evaluation of methods without a clear point-of-care target-were excluded from the review.&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;strong&gt;Results: &lt;/strong&gt;A total of 76 resources (n = 56 articles from databases and n = 20 reports from gray literature sources) were included in the review. The most common type/name of resource included critically appraised topic (n = 18) and evidence summary (n = 17). A total of 25 resources provided a definition of an evidence summary: commonalities included a clinical question; a structured, systematic literature search; a description of literature selection; and appraisal of evidence. Of these 25 resources, 16 included descriptors such as brief, concise, rapid, short, succinct , and snapshot . The reported methodological components closely reflected the definition results, with the most reported methodological components being a systematic, multi-database search, and critical appraisal. Evidence summary examples were mostly presented as narrative summaries and usually included a reference list, background or clinical context, and recommendations or implications for practice or policy. Four quality assessment tools and a systematic review of tools were included.&lt;","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"493-516"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142082059","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: a scoping review protocol.","authors":"Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Brian Hutton, Adrienne Stevens, Joanne E McKenzie, Matthew J Page, David Moher, Jessie McGowan, Sharon E Straus, Tianjing Li, Zachary Munn, Danielle Pollock, Heather Colquhoun, Christina Godfrey, Maureen Smith, Janice Tufte, Sherrie Logan, Ferrán Catalá-López, David Tovey, Juan V A Franco, Stephanie Chang, Chantelle Garritty, Lisa Hartling, Tanya Horsley, Etienne V Langlois, Matthew McInnes, Martin Offringa, Vivian Welch, Chris Pritchard, Hanan Khalil, Nicole Mittmann, Micah Peters, Menelaos Konstantinidis, Ellen B M Elsman, Shannon E Kelly, Adrian Aldcroft, Sai Surabi Thirugnanasampanthar, Jasmeen Dourka, Dipika Neupane, George Well, Elie Akl, Michael Wilson, Karla Soares-Weiser, Andrea C Tricco","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00308","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00308","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this scoping review is to develop a list of items for potential inclusion in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines for network meta-analysis (NMA), scoping reviews (ScRs), and rapid reviews (RRs).</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The PRISMA extensions for NMA and ScRs were published in 2015 and 2018. However, since then, their methodologies and innovations, including automation, have evolved. There is no reporting guideline for RRs. In 2020, an updated PRISMA statement was published, reflecting advances in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. These advances are not yet incorporated into these PRISMA extensions. We will update our previous methods for scoping reviews to inform the update of PRISMA-NMA and PRISMA-ScR as well as the development of the PRISMA-RR reporting guidelines.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will include any study design evaluating the completeness of reporting, offering reporting guidance, or assessing methods relevant to NMA, ScRs, or RRs. Editorial guidelines and tutorials that describe items related to reporting completeness will also be eligible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We will follow the JBI guidance for scoping reviews. For each PRISMA extension, we will i) search multiple electronic databases from inception to present, ii) search for unpublished studies, and iii) scan the reference lists of included studies. There will be no language limitations. Screening and data extraction will be conducted by 2 researchers independently. A third researcher will resolve discrepancies. We will conduct frequency analyses of the identified items. The final list of items will be considered for potential inclusion in the relevant PRISMA reporting guidelines.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>NMA protocol (OSF: osf.io/7bkwy ); ScR protocol (OSF: osf.io/7bkwy ); RR protocol (OSF: osf.io/3jcpe ); EQUATOR registration link: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-systematic-reviews/.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"517-526"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11892999/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143013260","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":"Long-term care insurance and implementation for older people in China: a systematic review of textual evidence protocol.","authors":"Xiaoman Yang, Shuqi Yuan, Yan Hu","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00315","DOIUrl":"10.11124/JBIES-23-00315","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this systematic review is to synthesize and compare policies and implementation strategies on long-term care insurance for older people in China.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Current information about China's long-term care insurance from a textual perspective is limited. Due to late inception and fragmented management, textual evidence on this topic will offer a unique perspective on the structure and implementation strategies of long-term care insurance policies in China.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>The population of this review will be adults aged 60 years or older. The phenomena of interest will be long-term care insurance policies and implementation strategies in China. Published sources and gray literature in English and Chinese since 2016 will be included. Exclusions will apply to hospitalized individuals as well as those under 60 years of age who are permanently disabled due to illness or disability.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The proposed systematic review will be conducted in line with the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of textual evidence. Databases to be searched will include PubMed, Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Social Science Citation Index, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and the National Social Science Database. For gray literature, we will conduct an advanced Google search as well as searching ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global and ProQuest Central. Additionally, we will search the websites of local governments in pilot cities. The JBI critical appraisal checklist for textual evidence will be used to evaluate the quality of textual sources. All identified sources will be retrieved and assessed in detail by 2 independent reviewers. Data extraction and synthesis will be conducted, and a meta-aggregative approach will be employed to synthesize data and conclusions, which will be graded using ConQual. A recommendation will be issued as a Good Practice Statement.</p><p><strong>Review registration: </strong>PROSPERO CRD42023414967.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":"554-563"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143081447","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}