What do clinical practice guidelines say about deprescribing? A scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Deprescribing (medication dose reduction or cessation) is an integral component of appropriate prescribing. The extent to which deprescribing recommendations are included in clinical practice guidelines is unclear. This scoping review aimed to identify guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations, qualitatively explore the content and format of deprescribing recommendations and estimate the proportion of guidelines that contain deprescribing recommendations. METHODS: Bibliographic databases and Google were searched for guidelines published in English from January 2012 to November 2022. Guideline registries were searched from January 2017 to February 2023. Two reviewers independently screened records from databases and Google for guidelines containing one or more deprescribing recommendations. A 10% sample of the guideline registries was screened to identify eligible guidelines and estimate the proportion of guidelines containing a deprescribing recommendation. Guideline and recommendation characteristics were extracted and language features of deprescribing recommendations including content, form, complexity and readability were examined using a conventional content analysis and the SHeLL Health Literacy Editor tool. RESULTS: 80 guidelines containing 316 deprescribing recommendations were included. Deprescribing recommendations had substantial variability in their format and terminology. Most guidelines contained recommendations regarding for who (75%, n=60), what (99%, n=89) and when or why (91%, n=73) to deprescribe, however, fewer guidelines (58%, n=46) contained detailed guidance on how to deprescribe. Approximately 29% of guidelines identified from the registries sample (n=14/49) contained one or more deprescribing recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Deprescribing recommendations are increasingly being incorporated into guidelines, however, many guidelines do not contain clear and actionable recommendations on how to deprescribe which may limit effective implementation in clinical practice. A co-designed template or best practice guide, containing information on aspects of deprescribing recommendations that are essential or preferred by end-users should be developed and employed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/fbex4.

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.

Spanish adaptation of the Stillbirth Stigma Scale (SSS).

The death of a baby in the perinatal period is considered a disenfranchized grief that can be a source of significant symptoms of guilt, shame, and stigma. There is a lack of validated instruments for assessing the stigma associated with perinatal grief. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties (factor structure, reliability, and validity) of the Spanish version of the Stillbirth Stigma Scale (SSS) in parents who have experienced a perinatal loss. A total of 291 participants (mostly mothers) completed an online questionnaire that included the SSS and other measures. The best-fitting factor structure was a second-order model with four dimensions and adequate reliability values. In terms of validity, we found statistically significant relationships between the SSS scores and the variables of self-esteem, complicated grief, event centrality, depression, and anxiety. In conclusion, the Spanish adaptation of the SSS is deemed to have adequate psychometric properties.

Experiences of people with diabetes mellitus of telehealth for diabetes management during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to explore the experiences of people with diabetes who utilized telehealth for diabetes management due to COVID-19 pandemic protocols rather than traditional in-person consultations. INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 intensified globally from January 2020, eliciting a multinational response to infection control for health preservation, including social distancing in public areas and health care settings. The outcome had significant impact on the health care system, where people with chronic diseases, such as those with diabetes, were required to transition a majority of their care to telehealth to align with social restrictions. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include qualitative and mixed methods studies and theses of any research design and in any language that examine the experiences of adults with diabetes who transitioned from in-person consultations to telehealth during the COVID-19 pandemic. Exclusions include pre-COVID-19 data; quantitative studies; secondary, tertiary, and all other gray literature. METHODS: A search of CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Emcare (Ovid), Embase (Elsevier), PubMed (NCBI), and several ProQuest databases will be conducted. Studies from January 2020 onwards in any language will be assessed for inclusion. Two independent reviewers will retrieve and screen titles and abstracts and full-text studies and assess the methodological quality of the included studies utilizing the JBI qualitative critical appraisal tool. The included studies will be synthesized utilizing JBI meta-aggregation, and the certainty of the findings will be assessed with ConQual. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023424667.

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.

Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users.

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

Parents' descriptions of labouring with an antepartum fetal death: Findings from the Birthing in Grief study.

BACKGROUND: Evidence to guide intrapartum care when an unborn baby has died is limited. AIMS: To explore parents' experiences of care during labour of an antepartum stillbirth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 18 bereaved parents from across Australia. Content analysis was conducted. FINDINGS: Two broad themes were identified: 'explaining every step' and 'helping us feel like parents.' Sub-themes under the first broad theme, 'explaining every step', were 'how and when information was given' and 'what happens next.' 'Like any other parent', 'feeling the pain' and 'everything is clouded' were sub-themes of the second broad theme. These findings mapped to current Australian clinical practice guidelines for bereavement care around stillbirth and neonatal death, ie good communication, recognition of parenthood, shared decision making and effective support. CONCLUSIONS: This study on parents' experiences of labour with a fetal death in utero brings an important perspective to intrapartum care for this group. As far as we are aware, this study is the first to focus solely on this aspect of care. Our findings could be readily mapped to the four perinatal bereavement care goals. Parents wanted care providers to facilitate their choices, their sense of control, their autonomy and their agency. They wanted to feel that they had received the 'best' care available.

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.

Tools to assess the risk of bias of evidence syntheses: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to identify and examine risk of bias tools, critical appraisal tools, and/or assessment of methodological quality tools (including their items and domains) developed to assess all types of evidence syntheses. INTRODUCTION: Evidence synthesis is often the basis for policies, procedures, decisions, and evidence-based practice. It is imperative that evidence syntheses are of good quality, reproducible, and reliable. Despite methodological advancements, there remains a substantial risk that bias is present in the conduct of an evidence synthesis project, hindering the validity and reliability of the findings. One way to assess bias is through formal tools and assessments for assessing the risk of bias and/or methodological quality. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished papers presenting a risk of bias, critical appraisal, or methodological quality assessment tool for assessing an evidence synthesis will be included. Individual umbrella reviews proposing a de novo tool or modified tool will be excluded from the review, as will texts that do not present a tool. METHODS: A 3-step search strategy will be conducted to locate both published and unpublished documents. An initial search of PubMed was developed with a librarian, which identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Compendex will follow. Websites and databases, including Google, Cochrane, and JBI, will be searched for difficult-to-locate and unpublished literature. Documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by 2 researchers, and the data will be presented narratively and in tables. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/mjcfy.

First Nations populations' perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and myths about prevention and bereavement in stillbirth: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this review is to investigate First Nations populations' perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and myths about stillbirth. INTRODUCTION: First Nations populations experience disproportionate rates of stillbirth compared with non-First Nations populations. There has been a surge of interventions aimed at reducing stillbirth and providing better bereavement care, but these are not necessarily appropriate for First Nations populations. As a first step toward developing appropriate interventions for these populations, this review will examine current perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and myths about stillbirth held by First Nations people from the United States, Canada, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia. INCLUSION CRITERIA: The review will consider studies that include individuals of any age (bereaved or non-bereaved) who identify as belonging to First Nations populations. Eligible studies will include the perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and myths about stillbirth among First Nations populations. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for convergent mixed methods systematic reviews. The review is supported by an advisory panel of Aboriginal elders, lived-experience stillbirth researchers, Aboriginal researchers, and clinicians. PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Indigenous Health InfoNet, Trove, Informit, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses will be searched for relevant information. Titles and abstracts of potential studies will be screened and examined for eligibility. After critical appraisal, quantitative and qualitative data will be extracted from included studies, with the former "qualitized" and the data undergoing a convergent integrated approach. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023379627.

"Chemobrain" in childhood cancer survivors-the impact on social, academic, and daily living skills: a qualitative systematic review.

PURPOSE: To examine children's experiences of chemotherapy-induced cognitive impairment--colloquially "chemobrain"--and the impact on children's social, academic, and daily living skills via a qualitative systematic review. Experiencing chemotherapy as a child, when the brain is still developing, may cause lifelong detriment to survivors' lives. There is a significant gap in understanding their lived experience, including the self-identified barriers that children face following treatment. Such a gap can only be fully bridged by listening to the child's own voice and/or parent proxy report through an exploration of the qualitative research literature. METHODS: A search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases was conducted. Inclusion criteria were qualitative studies with a focus on children (0-18 years) during and/or following chemotherapy treatment and explored children's experiences of chemobrain. RESULTS: Two synthesized findings were identified from six studies. (1) Chemobrain has an academic and psychosocial impact, which may not be understood by education providers. (2) Children and their parents have concerns about their reintegration and adaptation to school, social lives, and their future selves as independent members of society. Children's experiences primarily related to changes in their academic and social functioning. CONCLUSION: This review highlights two important considerations: (1) the lived experiences of pediatric childhood cancer survivors guiding where future interventions should be targeted, and (2) a need to perform more qualitative research studies in this area, as well as to improve the quality of reporting among the existing literature, given that this is a current gap in the field.

Identifying priority questions regarding rapid systematic reviews' methods: protocol for an eDelphi study.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid systematic reviews (RRs) have the potential to provide timely information to decision-makers, thus directly impacting healthcare. However, consensus regarding the most efficient approaches to performing RRs and the presence of several unaddressed methodological issues pose challenges. With such a large potential research agenda for RRs, it is unclear what should be prioritised. OBJECTIVE: To elicit a consensus from RR experts and interested parties on what are the most important methodological questions (from the generation of the question to the writing of the report) for the field to address in order to guide the effective and efficient development of RRs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: An eDelphi study will be conducted. Researchers with experience in evidence synthesis and other interested parties (eg, knowledge users, patients, community members, policymaker, industry, journal editors and healthcare providers) will be invited to participate. The following steps will be taken: (1) a core group of experts in evidence synthesis will generate the first list of items based on the available literature; (2) using LimeSurvey, participants will be invited to rate and rank the importance of suggested RR methodological questions. Questions with open format responses will allow for modifications to the wording of items or the addition of new items; (3) three survey rounds will be performed asking participants to re-rate items, with items deemed of low importance being removed at each round; (4) a list of items will be generated with items believed to be of high importance by ≥75% of participants being included and (5) this list will be discussed at an online consensus meeting that will generate a summary document containing the final priority list. Data analysis will be performed using raw numbers, means and frequencies. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study was approved by the Concordia University Human Research Ethics Committee (#30015229). Both traditional, for example, scientific conference presentations and publication in scientific journals, and non-traditional, for example, lay summaries and infographics, knowledge translation products will be created.

Systematic reviewers used various approaches to data extraction and expressed several research needs: a survey.

OBJECTIVE: Data extraction is a prerequisite for analyzing, summarizing, and interpreting evidence in systematic reviews. Yet guidance is limited, and little is known about current approaches. We surveyed systematic reviewers on their current approaches to data extraction, opinions on methods, and research needs. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We developed a 29-question online survey and distributed it through relevant organizations, social media, and personal networks in 2022. Closed questions were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and open questions were analyzed using content analysis. RESULTS: 162 reviewers participated. Use of adapted (65%) or newly developed extraction forms (62%) was common. Generic forms were rarely used (14%). Spreadsheet software was the most popular extraction tool (83%). Piloting was reported by 74% of respondents and included a variety of approaches. Independent and duplicate extraction was considered the most appropriate approach to data collection (64%). About half of respondents agreed that blank forms and/or raw data should be published. Suggested research gaps were the effects of different methods on error rates (60%) and the use of data extraction support tools (46%). CONCLUSION: Systematic reviewers used varying approaches to pilot data extraction. Methods to reduce errors and use of support tools such as (semi-)automation tools are top research gaps.

Residual insecticide surface treatment for preventing malaria: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Malaria presents a significant global public health burden, although substantial progress has been made, with vector control initiatives such as indoor residual surface spraying with insecticides and insecticide-treated nets. There now exists many different approaches to apply residual insecticide to indoor and outdoor surfaces in malaria-endemic settings, although no comprehensive systematic reviews exist evaluating these interventions. This manuscript outlines the protocol for a systematic review which aims to synthesise the best available evidence regarding full or partial indoor or outdoor residual insecticide surface treatment for preventing malaria. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will comprehensively search the literature (both published and unpublished) for any studies investigating the effectiveness of residual insecticide surface treatment for malaria. Studies will be screened to meet the inclusion criteria by a minimum of two authors, followed by assessment of risk of bias (using appropriate risk-of-bias tools for randomised and non-randomised studies) and extraction of relevant information using structured forms by two independent authors. Meta-analysis will be carried out where possible for epidemiological outcomes such as malaria, anaemia, malaria-related mortality, all-cause mortality and adverse effects. Certainty in the evidence will be established with GRADE assessments. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A full review report will be submitted to the Vector Control & Insecticide Resistance Unit, Global Malaria Program, WHO. A version of this report will be submitted for publication in an open access peer-reviewed journal. The report will inform the development of WHO recommendations regarding residual insecticide treatment for malaria. This systematic review does not require ethics approval as it is a review of primary studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 293194.

Mapping reviews, scoping reviews, and evidence and gap maps (EGMs): the same but different- the "Big Picture" review family.

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence and gap maps are evidence synthesis methodologies that address broad research questions, aiming to describe a bigger picture rather than address a specific question about intervention effectiveness. They are being increasingly used to support a range of purposes including guiding research priorities and decision making. There is however a confusing array of terminology used to describe these different approaches. In this commentary, we aim to describe where there are differences in terminology and where this equates to differences in meaning. We demonstrate the different theoretical routes that underpin these differences. We suggest ways in which the approaches of scoping and mapping reviews may differ in order to guide consistency in reporting and method. We propose that mapping and scoping reviews and evidence and gap maps have similarities that unite them as a group but also have unique differences. Understanding these similarities and differences is important for informing the development of methods used to undertake and report these types of evidence synthesis.