坎贝尔标准:使坎贝尔合作干预审查方法现代化(MECCIR)。

IF 4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY
Ariel M. Aloe, Omar Dewidar, Emily A. Hennessy, Terri Pigott, Gavin Stewart, Vivian Welch, David B. Wilson, Campbell MECCIR Working Group
{"title":"坎贝尔标准:使坎贝尔合作干预审查方法现代化(MECCIR)。","authors":"Ariel M. Aloe,&nbsp;Omar Dewidar,&nbsp;Emily A. Hennessy,&nbsp;Terri Pigott,&nbsp;Gavin Stewart,&nbsp;Vivian Welch,&nbsp;David B. Wilson,&nbsp;Campbell MECCIR Working Group","doi":"10.1002/cl2.1445","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Introduction</h3>\n \n <p>The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross-reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non-intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-literature search extension (S) and PRISMA-2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co-chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Campbell Policy</h3>\n \n <p>The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA-2020.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> How to Use</h3>\n \n <p>The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist during their work in formulating their protocol, carrying out their review, and reporting it. Authors will be asked to submit a completed checklist with their submission. We plan to develop an online tool to facilitate use of the form by author teams and those reviewing submissions.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Providing Feedback</h3>\n \n <p>We invite the scientific community to provide their comments using this <i>anonymous google form</i>.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Plan for Updating</h3>\n \n <p>We will update the Campbell Standards periodically in light of new evidence.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":36698,"journal":{"name":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","volume":"20 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11456310/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)\",\"authors\":\"Ariel M. Aloe,&nbsp;Omar Dewidar,&nbsp;Emily A. Hennessy,&nbsp;Terri Pigott,&nbsp;Gavin Stewart,&nbsp;Vivian Welch,&nbsp;David B. Wilson,&nbsp;Campbell MECCIR Working Group\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/cl2.1445\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Introduction</h3>\\n \\n <p>The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross-reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non-intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-literature search extension (S) and PRISMA-2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co-chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Campbell Policy</h3>\\n \\n <p>The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA-2020.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> How to Use</h3>\\n \\n <p>The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist during their work in formulating their protocol, carrying out their review, and reporting it. Authors will be asked to submit a completed checklist with their submission. We plan to develop an online tool to facilitate use of the form by author teams and those reviewing submissions.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Providing Feedback</h3>\\n \\n <p>We invite the scientific community to provide their comments using this <i>anonymous google form</i>.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Plan for Updating</h3>\\n \\n <p>We will update the Campbell Standards periodically in light of new evidence.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"volume\":\"20 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11456310/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Campbell Systematic Reviews\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1445\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Campbell Systematic Reviews","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cl2.1445","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:作者们成立了一个小型工作组,以更新《坎贝尔合作干预综述方法学期望》(MECCIR)。我们审查了编辑、坎贝尔投稿的同行评审员和作者提出的意见和反馈,例如,坎贝尔 MECCIR 太长,报告和行为核对表中的一些项目难以相互参照。我们还想让核对表更适用于关联性或风险因素的综述以及其他定量非干预综述类型,我们欢迎坎贝尔综述。因此,我们的目标是制定一个更简短、更全面的坎贝尔标准指南和核对表,将这些标准的行为和报告都包含在同一个核对表中:更新后的《坎贝尔标准》将是一份有生命力的文件。为了制定第一版标准,我们邀请坎贝尔成员加入一个虚拟工作组;我们寻求在开展坎贝尔系统性综述和开展坎贝尔方法编辑综述方面的经验。我们调整了 MECCIR 中的行为和报告项目,然后将适用于各种综述类型的行为原则与系统综述和 Meta 分析首选报告项目 (PRISMA)- 文献检索扩展 (S) 和 PRISMA-2020 报告标准进行了比较。我们对每个部分进行了讨论,目的是制定一个具有解释性指导的简明核对表,同时避免遗漏与所有类型综述相关的重要概念。我们在 2022 年 9 月至 2023 年 3 月期间召开了九次会议,详细讨论了每个部分。我们向所有坎贝尔编辑、方法编辑、信息专家和联合主席分发了这份初步核对表和指南,以征求他们的反馈意见。工作组对所有反馈意见进行了讨论,并将其纳入《标准》,如果未纳入,我们将正式回复,说明未纳入反馈意见的理由:该指南包括七个主要部分,共 35 个项目,这些项目涉及多个方面,但都是作者在进行坎贝尔评审时必须遵守的明确概念。作者和审稿人必须注意,每个项目都需要评估多个因素。根据坎贝尔标准,坎贝尔综述的报告必须遵守适当的 PRISMA 报告指南,如 PRISMA-2020:编委会建议作者在制定方案、开展综述和报告过程中使用该核对表。我们将要求作者在提交稿件时一并提交填写完整的核对表。我们计划开发一个在线工具,方便作者团队和审稿人使用该表格:我们邀请科学界使用这个匿名的谷歌表格提供意见:我们将根据新证据定期更新坎贝尔标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Campbell Standards: Modernizing Campbell's Methodologic Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR)

Introduction

The authors formed a small working group to modernize the Methodological Expectations for Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR). We reviewed comments and feedback from editors, peer reviewers of Campbell submissions, and authors; for example, that the Campbell MECCIR was long and some of the items in the reporting and conduct checklists were difficult to cross-reference. We also wanted to make the checklist more relevant for reviews of associations or risk factors and other quantitative non-intervention review types, which we welcome in Campbell. Thus, our aim was to develop a shorter, more holistic guidance and checklist of Campbell Standards, encompassing both conduct and reporting of these standards within the same checklist.

Methods

Our updated Campbell Standards will be a living document. To develop this first iteration, we invited Campbell members to join a virtual working group; we sought experience in conducting Campbell systematic reviews and in conducting methods editor reviews for Campbell. We aligned the items from the MECCIR for conduct and reporting, then compared the principles of conduct that apply across review types to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-literature search extension (S) and PRISMA-2020 reporting standards. We discussed each section with the aim of developing a parsimonious checklist with explanatory guidance while avoiding losing important concepts that are relevant to all types of reviews. We held nine meetings to discuss each section in detail between September 2022 and March 2023. We circulated this initial checklist and guidance to all Campbell editors, methods editors, information specialists and co-chairs to seek their feedback. All feedback was discussed by the working group and incorporated to the Standards or, if not incorporated, a formal response was returned about the rationale for why the feedback was not incorporated.

Campbell Policy

The guidance includes seven main sections with 35 items multifaceted but distinct concepts that authors must adhere to when conducting Campbell reviews. Authors and reviewers must be mindful that multiple factors need to be assessed for each item. According to the Campbell Standards, the reporting of Campbell reviews must adhere to appropriate PRISMA reporting guidelines(s) such as PRISMA-2020.

How to Use

The editorial board recommends authors use the checklist during their work in formulating their protocol, carrying out their review, and reporting it. Authors will be asked to submit a completed checklist with their submission. We plan to develop an online tool to facilitate use of the form by author teams and those reviewing submissions.

Providing Feedback

We invite the scientific community to provide their comments using this anonymous google form.

Plan for Updating

We will update the Campbell Standards periodically in light of new evidence.

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
Campbell Systematic Reviews
Campbell Systematic Reviews Social Sciences-Social Sciences (all)
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
21.90%
发文量
80
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
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