Prenatal alcohol exposure and associations with physical size, dysmorphology and neurodevelopment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a significant public health concern, yet there is no internationally agreed set of diagnostic criteria or summary of underlying evidence to inform diagnostic decision-making. This systematic review assesses associations of prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) and outcomes of diagnostic assessments, providing an evidence base for the improvement of FASD diagnostic criteria. METHODS: Six databases were searched (inception-February 2023). Case-controls or cohort studies examining associations between participants with/without PAE or a FASD diagnosis and the domains of physical size, dysmorphology, functional neurodevelopment and/or brain structure/neurology were included. Excluded studies were non-empirical, sample size < 10, PAE determined via biological markers only, or no suitable comparison group. Summary data were extracted and associations between outcomes and standardised levels of PAE or FASD diagnosis determined using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS: Of the 306 included studies, 106 reported physical size, 43 dysmorphology, 195 functional neurodevelopment and 110 structural/neurological outcomes, with 292 different outcomes examined. There was a dose-response relationship between PAE and head circumference, as well as measures of physical size, particularly at birth. There was also an association between higher PAE levels and characteristic sentinel facial dysmorphology, as well as many of the current functional neurodevelopmental outcomes considered during diagnosis. However, data were often lacking across the full range of exposures. There was a lack of evidence from studies examining PAE to support inclusion of non-sentinel dysmorphic features, social cognition, speech-sound impairments, neurological conditions, seizures, sensory processing or structural brain abnormalities (via clinical MRI) in diagnostic criteria. GRADE ratings ranged from very low to moderate certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive review provides guidance on which components are most useful to consider in the diagnostic criteria for FASD. It also highlights numerous gaps in the available evidence. Future well-designed pregnancy cohort studies should specifically focus on dose-response relationships between PAE and dysmorphology, neurodevelopment and brain structure/neurological outcomes. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42021230522.

'How-To:' Scoping Review?

Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, within or across a defined context or contexts. Scoping reviews can contribute to clinical practice guideline development, policy making, reduce research waste by eliminating duplication of research effort, and be a precursor to a systematic review. This paper aims to provide a brief introduction of how to conduct and report scoping reviews, their role and value of within the evidence synthesis ecosystem, the differences and similarities between these reviews and other types of evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews, mapping reviews, evidence and gap maps and overviews and how to overcome common challenges often associated in the conduct, reporting and dissemination of scoping reviews.

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.

GRADE guidance 39: using GRADE-ADOLOPMENT to adopt, adapt or create contextualized recommendations from source guidelines and evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology has been widely used to adopt, adapt, or de novo develop recommendations from existing or new guideline and evidence synthesis efforts. The objective of this guidance is to refine the operationalization for applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT. METHODS: Through iterative discussions, online meetings, and email communications, the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT project group drafted the updated guidance. We then conducted a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and a scoping review of published and planned adolopment guideline projects. The lead authors refined the existing approach based on the scoping review findings and feedback from members of the GRADE working group. We presented the revised approach to the group in November 2022 (approximately 115 people), in May 2023 (approximately 100 people), and twice in September 2023 (approximately 60 and 90 people) for approval. RESULTS: This GRADE guidance shows how to effectively and efficiently contextualize recommendations using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach by doing the following: (1) showcasing alternative pathways for starting an adolopment effort; (2) elaborating on the different essential steps of this approach, such as building on existing evidence-to-decision (EtDs), when available or developing new EtDs, if necessary; and (3) providing examples from adolopment case studies to facilitate the application of the approach. We demonstrate how to use contextual evidence to make judgments about EtD criteria, and highlight the importance of making the resulting EtDs available to facilitate adolopment efforts by others. CONCLUSION: This updated GRADE guidance further operationalizes the application of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT based on over 6 years of experience. It serves to support uptake and application by end users interested in contextualizing recommendations to a local setting or specific reality in a short period of time or with limited resources.

Contextual factors and G6PD diagnostic testing: a scoping review and evidence and gap map.

BACKGROUND: Testing for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is an important consideration regarding treatment for malaria. G6PD deficiency may lead to haemolytic anaemia during malaria treatment and, therefore, determining G6PD deficiency in malaria treatment strategies is extremely important. METHODS: This report presents the results of a scoping review and evidence and gap map for consideration by the Guideline Development Group for G6PD near patient tests to support radical cure of Plasmodium vivax. This scoping review has investigated common diagnostic tests for G6PD deficiency and important contextual and additional factors for decision-making. These factors include six of the considerations recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) handbook for guideline development as important to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation, and included 'acceptability', 'feasibility,' 'equity,' 'valuation of outcomes,' 'gender' and 'human rights'. The aim of this scoping review is to inform the direction of future systematic reviews and evidence syntheses, which can then better inform the development of WHO recommendations regarding the use of G6PD deficiency testing as part of malaria treatment strategies. RESULTS: A comprehensive search was performed, including published, peer-reviewed literature for any article, of any study design and methodology that investigated G6PD diagnostic tests and the factors of 'acceptability', 'feasibility,' 'equity,' 'valuation of outcomes,' 'gender' and 'human rights'. There were 1152 studies identified from the search, of which 14 were determined to be eligible for inclusion into this review. The studies contained data from over 21 unique countries that had considered G6PD diagnostic testing as part of a malaria treatment strategy. The relationship between contextual and additional factors, diagnostic tests for G6PD deficiency and study methodology is presented in an overall evidence and gap, which showed that majority of the evidence was for the contextual factors for diagnostic tests, and the 'Standard G6PD (SD Biosensor)' test. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review has produced a dynamic evidence and gap map that is reactive to emerging evidence within the field of G6PD diagnostic testing. The evidence and gap map has provided a comprehensive depiction of all the available literature that address the contextual and additional factors important for decision-making, regarding specific G6PD diagnostic tests. The majority of data available investigating the contextual factors of interest relates to quantitative G6PD diagnostic tests. While a formal qualitative synthesis of this data as part of a systematic review is possible, the data may be too heterogenous for this to be appropriate. These results can now be used to inform future direction of WHO Guideline Development Groups for G6PD near patient tests to support radical cure of P. vivax malaria.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for cohort studies.

Cohort studies are a robust analytical observational study design that explore the difference between two different cohorts on an outcome, 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 (EMG), 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, justifications for these changes, and provides practical guidance on how this tool should be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers.

Experiences of mental health practitioners after clients' suicide: a qualitative systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this qualitative systematic review will be to understand the experiences of mental health practitioners after clients' suicide. INTRODUCTION: Mental health practitioners inevitably encounter client suicide during their careers, which can significantly affect their personal lives and professional outcomes. A deeper understanding of mental health practitioners' experiences in the aftermath of clients' suicide is necessary to provide effective support and assist with adaptation to this situation. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This systematic review will consider qualitative studies that explore the experiences of mental health practitioners, including psychotherapists, psychiatrists, psychological counselors, clinical psychologists, psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners, and social workers following clients' suicide. Experiences may include emotional responses, coping strategies, changes in social relationships, and reflections on practice. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for qualitative systematic reviews. The databases to be searched will include PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase, PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), SocINDEX (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Bibliographia Medica Cechoslovaca, and Bibliographia Medica Slovaca. Gray literature sources will include Google Scholar, and ProQuest. Studies in English, Czech, Slovak, and Chinese will be assessed for inclusion regardless of publication date. Studies that are initially selected will be assessed for methodological quality using the JBI critical appraisal tool for qualitative studies. Then, findings with illustrations will be extracted for subsequent meta-aggregation and ConQual assessment. All the above steps will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42023410523.

Contextual factors related to vector-control interventions for malaria: a scoping review and evidence and gap map protocol.

Objective: This scoping review will identify existing literature regarding contextual factors relevant to vector-control interventions to prevent malaria. We will use the findings of the scoping review to produce an interactive evidence and gap map. The map will assist in the priority setting, development, and conduct of targeted systematic reviews. These systematic reviews seek to assist the Vector Control and Insecticide Resistance Unit of the World Health Organization's Global Malaria Programme by informing recommendation development by their Guidelines Development Group. Introduction: Malaria contributes substantially to the global burden of disease, with an estimated 247 million cases and 619,000 deaths in 2021. Vector-control is key in reducing malaria transmission. Vector-control interventions directly target the mosquito, reducing the potential for parasite infections. These interventions commonly include insecticides used in indoor residual spraying or insecticide-treated nets and larval source management. Several new vector-control interventions are under evaluation to complement these. In addition to estimating the effects of interventions on health outcomes, it is critical to understand how populations at risk of malaria consider them in terms of their feasibility, acceptability, and values. Inclusion Criteria: Eligible studies will have assessed the contextual factors of feasibility or acceptability of the interventions of interest, or the valuation of the outcomes of interests. These assessments will be from the perspective of people who receive (residents) or deliver (workers or technicians) the vector-control intervention for the purpose of preventing malaria. Methods: We will conduct this scoping review in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and report in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will construct the evidence and gap map following guidance from the Campbell Collaboration.

Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews.

OBJECTIVE: This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group. RESULTS: This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability. CONCLUSION: This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews.

A summary of the 2023 Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) hypertension in pregnancy guideline.

INTRODUCTION: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) affect up to 10% of all pregnancies annually and are associated with an increased risk of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. This guideline represents an update of the Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) guidelines for the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 2014 and has been approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) under section 14A of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992. In approving the guideline recommendations, NHMRC considers that the guideline meets NHMRC's standard for clinical practice guidelines. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: A total of 39 recommendations on screening, preventing, diagnosing and managing HDP, especially preeclampsia, are presented in this guideline. Recommendations are presented as either evidence-based recommendations or practice points. Evidence-based recommendations are presented with the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Practice points were generated where there was inadequate evidence to develop specific recommendations and are based on the expertise of the working group. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT RESULTING FROM THE GUIDELINE: This version of the SOMANZ guideline was developed in an academically robust and rigorous manner and includes recommendations on the use of combined first trimester screening to identify women at risk of developing preeclampsia, 14 pharmacological and two non-pharmacological preventive interventions, clinical use of angiogenic biomarkers and the long term care of women who experience HDP. The guideline also includes six multilingual patient infographics which can be accessed through the main website of the guideline. All measures were taken to ensure that this guideline is applicable and relevant to clinicians and multicultural women in regional and metropolitan settings in Australia and New Zealand.

First Nations Peoples' perceptions, knowledge and beliefs regarding stillbirth prevention and bereavement practices: A mixed methods systematic review.

BACKGROUND: First Nations Peoples endure disproportionate rates of stillbirth compared with non-First Nations Peoples. Previous interventions have aimed at reducing stillbirth in First Nations Peoples and providing better bereavement care without necessarily understanding the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs that could influence the design of the intervention and implementation. AIM: The aim of this review was to understand the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs about stillbirth prevention and bereavement of First Nations Peoples from the US, Canada, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia. METHODS: This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for a convergent integrated mixed method systematic review. This review was overseen by an advisory board of Aboriginal Elders, researchers, and clinicians. A search of eight databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, Dissertations and Theses and Indigenous Health InfoNet) and grey literature was conducted. All studies were screened, extracted, and appraised for quality by two reviewers and results were categorised, and narratively summarised. RESULTS: Ten studies were included within this review. Their findings were summarised into four categories: safeguarding baby, traditional practices of birthing and grieving, bereavement photography and post-mortem examination. The results indicate a diversity of perceptions, knowledge and beliefs primarily around smoking cessation and bereavement practices after stillbirth. However, there was a paucity of research available. CONCLUSIONS: Further research is needed to understand the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs about stillbirth among First Nations Peoples. Without research within this area, interventions to prevent stillbirth and support bereaved parents and their communities after stillbirth may face barriers to implementation.

Large scoping reviews: managing volume and potential chaos in a pool of evidence sources.

Scoping reviews can identify a large number of evidence sources. This commentary describes and provides guidance on planning, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. This guidance is informed by experts in scoping review methodology, including JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Methodology group members, who have also conducted and reported large scoping reviews. We propose a working definition for large scoping reviews that includes approximately 100 sources of evidence but must also consider the volume of data to be extracted, the complexity of the analyses, and purpose. We pose 6 core questions for scoping review authors to consider when planning, developing, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. By considering and addressing these questions, scoping review authors might better streamline and manage the conduct and reporting of large scoping reviews from the planning to publishing stage.

An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool.

OBJECTIVES: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group. RESULTS: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs. CONCLUSION: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025.

Common tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment: implications for systematic reviewers.

There are numerous tools available to assess the risk of bias in individual studies in a systematic review. These tools have different structures, including scales and checklists, which may or may not separate their items by domains. There are also various approaches and guides for the process, scoring, and interpretation of risk of bias assessments, such as value judgments, quality scores, and relative ranks. The objective of this commentary, which is part of the JBI Series on Risk of Bias, is to discuss some of the distinctions among different tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment and the implications of these approaches for systematic reviewers.

Implementing GRADE in systematic reviews that adhere to JBI methodological conduct.

GRADE is a methodological approach used to establish certainty in a body of evidence and is now widely adopted among the evidence synthesis and guideline development community. JBI is an international evidence-based health care organization that provides guidance for a range of evidence synthesis approaches. The GRADE approach is currently endorsed for use in a subset of JBI systematic reviews; however, there is some uncertainty regarding when (and how) GRADE may be implemented in reviews that follow JBI methodology.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies.

Systematic reviews of effectiveness offer a rigorous synthesis of the best evidence available regarding the effects of interventions or treatments. Randomized controlled trials are considered the optimal study design for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and are the ideal study design for inclusion in a systematic review of effectiveness. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies may be relied on to provide information on treatment or intervention effectiveness. However, such studies are subject to unique considerations regarding their internal validity and, consequently, the assessment of the risk of bias of these studies needs to consider these features of design and conduct. The JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group has recently commenced updating the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs to align with the latest advancements in risk of bias assessment. This paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for risk of bias assessment of quasi-experimental studies; offers practical guidance for its use; provides examples for interpreting the results of risk of bias assessment; and discusses major changes from the previous version, along with the justifications for those changes.

Advancing the methodology of mapping reviews: A scoping review.

This scoping review aims to identify and systematically review published mapping reviews to assess their commonality and heterogeneity and determine whether additional efforts should be made to standardise methodology and reporting. The following databases were searched; Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Campbell collaboration database, Social Science Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Following a pilot-test on a random sample of 20 citations included within title and abstracts, two team members independently completed all screening. Ten articles were piloted at full-text screening, and then each citation was reviewed independently by two team members. Discrepancies at both stages were resolved through discussion. Following a pilot-test on a random sample of five relevant full-text articles, one team member abstracted all the relevant data. Uncertainties in the data abstraction were resolved by another team member. A total of 335 articles were eligible for this scoping review and subsequently included. There was an increasing growth in the number of published mapping reviews over the years from 5 in 2010 to 73 in 2021. Moreover, there was a significant variability in reporting the included mapping reviews including their research question, priori protocol, methodology, data synthesis and reporting. This work has further highlighted the gaps in evidence synthesis methodologies. Further guidance developed by evidence synthesis organisations, such as JBI and Campbell, has the potential to clarify challenges experienced by researchers, given the magnitude of mapping reviews published every year.

Effectiveness of erector spinae plane block for rib fracture analgesia: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review will investigate the effectiveness of the ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block as an analgesic technique for patients with rib fractures compared with all other standard management techniques. Comparisons will be made with both nerve blocks (neuraxial techniques and peripheral nerve blocks) and systemic treatment (with patient-controlled analgesia and/or per required need analgesia for breakthrough pain). INTRODUCTION: Erector spinae plane block is a well-established rescue analgesia option for patients with rib fractures. The use of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block in clinical practice has been largely based on observational data, with recent randomized controlled trials examining it against several other options for analgesic management. This review will compare the erector spinae against all other management techniques used in practice for rib fractures to determine whether this is the most effective analgesic technique. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will include all randomized controlled and pseudo-randomized controlled trials examining ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for the analgesic management of traumatic rib fractures. All other study designs will be excluded. METHODS: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry will be searched to identify all relevant ongoing clinical trials. Study selection, critical appraisal, and data extraction will be performed by 2 independent reviewers. Data will be extracted into software for statistical analysis (including meta-analysis where possible). REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023414849.

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study.

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.