开发 InSynQ 核对表:规划和报告干预措施系统综述问题的工具

Miranda S. Cumpston, Joanne E. McKenzie, Rebecca Ryan, Ella Flemyng, James Thomas, Sue E. Brennan
{"title":"开发 InSynQ 核对表:规划和报告干预措施系统综述问题的工具","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":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <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>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <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>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":100286,"journal":{"name":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","volume":"1 10","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12036","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <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>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <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>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <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>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <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>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100286,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"volume\":\"1 10\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cesm.12036\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12036\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cesm.12036","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言 系统综述的方法指南和评估工具要求明确综述的问题和资格标准("综述的 PICO")。然而,关于在每项综述中纳入哪些研究的决定会对综述的效用和结果产生至关重要的影响。本文介绍了开发 InSynQ(干预综述问题)工具的原理和方法,该工具用于规划和报告干预综述中的综述问题。目的是使该工具的基础透明化,并为制定研究行为和报告指南的方法提供证据。 方法 我们借鉴了 EQUATOR 网络的方法,(1) 成立了一个项目组;(2) 检查了已发表综述中 "每项综述的 PICO "的报告情况;(3) 回顾了现有的报告指南和《干预措施系统性综述 Cochrane 手册》;(4) 起草了附有详细说明、解释和示例的项目;(5) 召开了咨询会议,进行了评估调查和试点测试;(6) 纳入了反馈意见。 结果 现有的报告指南没有区分综述和综述的 PICO,对说明每项综述的 PICO 所需的要素覆盖有限。使用 PRISMA 2020 格式,工具草案包含 10 个项目,包括基本和附加报告要素、解释和示例。根据咨询会议(30 人)的意见进行了修订,包括增加第 11 个关于消费者和利益相关者参与的项目、每个综述的 PICO 解释图,以及将示例整合到要素/解释中。调查的所有受访者(12 人)都表示该工具有助于他们规划或评估综合问题。InSynQ 可在 https://InSynQ.info 网站上查阅。 结论 透明的开发过程报告有助于为指南开发方法提供证据基础。它可以提高 InSynQ 的使用率,进而提高综述的清晰度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Development of the InSynQ checklist: A tool for planning and reporting the synthesis questions in systematic reviews of interventions

Development of the InSynQ checklist: A tool for planning and reporting the synthesis questions in systematic reviews of interventions

Introduction

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.

Methods

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 Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; (4) drafted items with elaboration, explanation, and examples; (5) conducted consultation meetings, an evaluation survey and pilot test; (6) incorporated feedback.

Results

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 (>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.

Conclusion

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信