在证据综述中检测和减少欺诈性或错误数据的工具、技术、方法和流程:范围审查协议。

IF 1.5 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Timothy Hugh Barker, Grace McKenzie McBride, Amanda Ross-White, Danielle Pollock, Cindy Stern, Sabira Hasanoff, Raju Kanukula, Mafalda Dias, Anna Scott, Edoardo Aromataris, Ashley Whitehorn, Jennifer Stone, Larissa Shamseer, Patrick Palmieri, Miloslav Klugar, Zachary Munn
{"title":"在证据综述中检测和减少欺诈性或错误数据的工具、技术、方法和流程:范围审查协议。","authors":"Timothy Hugh Barker, Grace McKenzie McBride, Amanda Ross-White, Danielle Pollock, Cindy Stern, Sabira Hasanoff, Raju Kanukula, Mafalda Dias, Anna Scott, Edoardo Aromataris, Ashley Whitehorn, Jennifer Stone, Larissa Shamseer, Patrick Palmieri, Miloslav Klugar, Zachary Munn","doi":"10.11124/JBIES-24-00167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of \"predatory journals,\" fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and subsequently full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate using Covidence. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables.</p><p><strong>This scoping review protocol was registered in open science framework: </strong>https://osf.io/u8yrn.</p>","PeriodicalId":36399,"journal":{"name":"JBI evidence synthesis","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tools, techniques, methods, and processes for the detection and mitigation of fraudulent or erroneous data in evidence synthesis: a scoping review protocol.\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Hugh Barker, Grace McKenzie McBride, Amanda Ross-White, Danielle Pollock, Cindy Stern, Sabira Hasanoff, Raju Kanukula, Mafalda Dias, Anna Scott, Edoardo Aromataris, Ashley Whitehorn, Jennifer Stone, Larissa Shamseer, Patrick Palmieri, Miloslav Klugar, Zachary Munn\",\"doi\":\"10.11124/JBIES-24-00167\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact.</p><p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of \\\"predatory journals,\\\" fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes.</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and subsequently full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate using Covidence. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables.</p><p><strong>This scoping review protocol was registered in open science framework: </strong>https://osf.io/u8yrn.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36399,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JBI evidence synthesis\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00167\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JBI evidence synthesis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11124/JBIES-24-00167","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目标:本范围综述旨在识别、编目和描述以前报道过的工具、技术、方法和流程,这些工具、技术、方法和流程已被证据合成者推荐或使用,以检测欺诈或错误数据并减轻其影响:政策和实践决策应始终以现有的最佳证据--通常是经同行评审的科学文献--为基础。证据综合文献应使用适当的证据综合方法进行整理和组织,系统综述在循证医疗保健中发挥的作用就是最好的例证。然而,随着 "掠夺性期刊 "的兴起,虚假或错误的数据可能会侵入这些文献,从而对使用这些数据的证据综合产生负面影响。纳入标准:本综述将包括经同行评审的文章、评论、书籍和社论,这些文章、评论、书籍和社论至少描述了一种工具、技术、方法或流程,其明确目的是在任何主题领域的任何证据综述中识别或减轻欺诈性或错误数据的影响。来自主要组织、大学和图书馆的手册、指南也在考虑之列:本综述将采用 JBI 的方法进行范围界定综述,并根据范围界定综述的《系统综述和元分析首选报告项目》(PRISMA-ScR)进行报告。将在数据库和相关组织网站上搜索符合条件的研究。标题和摘要以及随后的全文筛选将使用 Covidence 一式两份进行。将使用预先确定的核对表从已确定的全文中提取数据,同时对研究结果进行描述性总结并以表格形式呈现。本范围界定综述协议已在开放科学框架中注册:https://osf.io/u8yrn。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tools, techniques, methods, and processes for the detection and mitigation of fraudulent or erroneous data in evidence synthesis: a scoping review protocol.

Objective: This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact.

Introduction: Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of "predatory journals," fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes.

Inclusion criteria: This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered.

Methods: This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and subsequently full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate using Covidence. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables.

This scoping review protocol was registered in open science framework: https://osf.io/u8yrn.

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
JBI evidence synthesis
JBI evidence synthesis Nursing-Nursing (all)
CiteScore
4.50
自引率
3.70%
发文量
218
×
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