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.

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.

"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.

Reporting and conducting patient journey mapping research in healthcare: A scoping review.

AIM: To identify how patient journey mapping is being undertaken and reported. DESIGN: A scoping review of the literature was undertaken using JBI guidance. DATA SOURCES: Databases were searched in July 2021 (16th-21st), including Ovid's Medline, Embase, Emcare and PsycINFO; Scopus; Web of Science Core Collection, the Directory of Open Access Journals; Informit and; ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global. REVIEW METHODS: Eligible articles included peer-reviewed literature documenting journey mapping methodologies and studies conducted in healthcare services. Reviewers used Covidence to screen titles and abstracts of located sources, and to screen full-text articles. A table was used to extract data and synthesize results. RESULTS: Eighty-one articles were included. An acceleration of patient journey mapping research was observed, with 76.5% (n = 62) of articles published since 2015. Diverse mapping approaches were identified. Reporting of studies was inconsistent and largely non-adherent with relevant, established reporting guidelines. CONCLUSION: Patient journey mapping is a relatively novel approach for understanding patient experiences and is increasingly being adopted. There is variation in process details reported. Considerations for improving reporting standards are provided. IMPACT: Patient journey mapping is a rapidly growing approach for better understanding how people enter, experience and exit health services. This type of methodology has significant potential to inform new, patient centred models of care and facilitate clinicians, patients and health professionals to better understand gaps and strategies in health services. The synthesised results of this review alert researchers to options available for journey mapping research and provide preliminary guidance for elevating reporting quality.

Managing Chronic otitis media with Effusion in Children with non-Syndromic Cleft Palate: Short-Term Ventilation Tubes Versus Surveillance.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effectiveness of short-term ventilation tubes compared to surveillance on conductive hearing loss in children with non-syndromic orofacial clefting involving the muscular palate. INTRODUCTION: Chronic otitis media with effusion is a common finding in children with cleft palate. The accepted convention is insertion of short-term ventilation tubes at the time of palate repair, but some centres are choosing conservative management. Each approach has its advantages but there is currently no consensus on the most appropriate management in children with non-syndromic cleft palate. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Children <18 years with cleft lip and palate, or isolated cleft palate, not associated with a genetic syndrome, who have been diagnosed with chronic otitis media with effusion. METHODS: A systematic search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and Scopus databases was conducted. Grey literature searches were conducted through Central Register of Controlled Trials, Clinicaltrials.gov and ProQuest. Two reviewers screened the studies, conducted critical appraisal, assessed the methodological quality, and extracted the data. Where possible, studies were pooled in statistical meta-analysis with heterogeneity being assessed using the standard Chi-squared and I2 tests. RESULTS: Four studies met the inclusion criteria but were of low quality with a moderate risk of bias. Only data on hearing thresholds could be pooled for analysis which found no statistically significant difference. Other outcomes were presented in narrative form. Certainty of evidence for all outcomes was deemed low to very low using GRADE criteria. CONCLUSIONS: No definitive conclusions can be drawn regarding most effective management at improving conductive hearing loss. Missing data and inconsistent reporting of outcomes limited capacity for pooled analysis.

Practical guide to undertaking scoping reviews for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: Scoping reviews are a valuable evidence synthesis methodology. They can be used to map the evidence related to any topic to allow examination of practice, methods, policy and where (and how) future research could be undertaken. As such, they are a useful form of evidence synthesis for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to review a broad range of evidence sources. COMMENT: This commentary presents the most comprehensive and up to date methodology for scoping reviews published by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI). This approach builds upon two older approaches by Arksey and O'Malley, and Levac. To assist reviewers working in the field of pharmacy with planning and conducting scoping reviews, this paper describes how to undertake scoping reviews from inception to publication with specific examples related to pharmacy topics. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: The JBI scoping review methodology is a valuable evidence synthesis approach to the field of pharmacy and therapeutics. This approach can assist pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers to gain an understanding of the extant literature, to identify gaps, to explore concepts, characteristics and to examine current practice.

Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

AIM: The aim of this study is to discuss the available methodological resources and best-practice guidelines for the development and completion of scoping reviews relevant to nursing and midwifery policy, practice, and research. DESIGN: Discussion Paper. DATA SOURCES: Scoping reviews that exemplify best practice are explored with reference to the recently updated JBI scoping review guide (2020) and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Scoping Review extension (PRISMA-ScR). IMPLICATIONS FOR NURSING AND MIDWIFERY: Scoping reviews are an increasingly common form of evidence synthesis. They are used to address broad research questions and to map evidence from a variety of sources. Scoping reviews are a useful form of evidence synthesis for those in nursing and midwifery and present opportunities for researchers to review a broad array of evidence and resources. However, scoping reviews still need to be conducted with rigour and transparency. CONCLUSION: This study provides guidance and advice for researchers and clinicians who are preparing to undertake an evidence synthesis and are considering a scoping review methodology in the field of nursing and midwifery. IMPACT: With the increasing popularity of scoping reviews, criticism of the rigour, transparency, and appropriateness of the methodology have been raised across multiple academic and clinical disciplines, including nursing and midwifery. This discussion paper provides a unique contribution by discussing each component of a scoping review, including: developing research questions and objectives; protocol development; developing eligibility criteria and the planned search approach; searching and selecting the evidence; extracting and analysing evidence; presenting results; and summarizing the evidence specifically for the fields of nursing and midwifery. Considerations for when to select this methodology and how to prepare a review for publication are also discussed. This approach is applied to the disciplines of nursing and midwifery to assist nursing and/or midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics.

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 used 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 a significant impact on the health care system, where people with chronic diseases, such as those with diabetes, were required to transition most 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 will include pre-COVID-19 data; quantitative studies; and secondary, tertiary, and all other gray literature. METHODS: A search of CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Scopus, Emcare (Ovid), Embase, 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.

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.

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.

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.

An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses Evaluating Associations between Human Health and Exposure to Major Classes of Plastic-Associated Chemicals.

Background: Epidemiological research investigating the impact of exposure to plastics, and plastic-associated chemicals, on human health is critical, especially given exponentially increasing plastic production. In parallel with increasing production, academic research has also increased exponentially both in terms of the primary literature and ensuing systematic reviews with meta-analysis. However, there are few overviews that capture a broad range of chemical classes to present a state of play regarding impacts on human health. Methods: We undertook an umbrella review to review the systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Given the complex composition of plastic and the large number of identified plastic-associated chemicals, it was not possible to capture all chemicals that may be present in, and migrate from, plastic materials. We therefore focussed on a defined set of key exposures related to plastics. These were microplastics, due to their ubiquity and potential for human exposure, and the polymers that form the matrix of consumer plastics. We also included plasticisers and flame retardants as the two classes of functional additive with the highest concentration ranges in plastic. In addition, we included bisphenols and per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as two other major plastic-associated chemicals with significant known exposure through food contact materials. Epistemonikos and PubMed were searched for systematic reviews with meta-analyses, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses evaluating the association of plastic polymers, particles (microplastics) or any of the selected groups of high-volume plastic-associated chemicals above, measured directly in human biospecimens, with human health outcomes. Results: Fifty-two systematic reviews were included, with data contributing 759 meta-analyses. Most meta-analyses (78%) were from reviews of moderate methodological quality. Across all the publications retrieved, only a limited number of plastic-associated chemicals within each of the groups searched had been evaluated in relevant meta-analyses, and there were no meta-analyses evaluating polymers, nor microplastics. Synthesised estimates of the effects of plastic-associated chemical exposure were identified for the following health outcome categories in humans: birth, child and adult reproductive, endocrine, child neurodevelopment, nutritional, circulatory, respiratory, skin-related and cancers. Bisphenol A (BPA) is associated with decreased anoclitoral distance in infants, type 2 diabetes (T2D) in adults, insulin resistance in children and adults, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity and hypertension in children and adults and cardiovascular disease (CVD); other bisphenols have not been evaluated. Phthalates, the only plasticisers identified, are associated with spontaneous pregnancy loss, decreased anogenital distance in boys, insulin resistance in children and adults, with additional associations between certain phthalates and decreased birth weight, T2D in adults, precocious puberty in girls, reduced sperm quality, endometriosis, adverse cognitive development and intelligence quotient (IQ) loss, adverse fine motor and psychomotor development and elevated blood pressure in children and asthma in children and adults. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) but not other flame retardants, and some PFAS were identified and are all associated with decreased birth weight. In general populations, PCBs are associated with T2D in adults and endometriosis, bronchitis in infants, CVD, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) and breast cancer. In PCB-poisoned populations, exposure is associated with overall mortality, mortality from hepatic disease (men), CVD (men and women) and several cancers. PBDEs are adversely associated with children's cognitive development and IQ loss. PBDEs and certain PFAS are associated with changes in thyroid function. PFAS exposure is associated with increased body mass index (BMI) and overweight in children, attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) in girls and allergic rhinitis. Potential protective associations were found, namely abnormal pubertal timing in boys being less common with higher phthalate exposure, increased high-density lipoprotein (HDL) with exposure to mono(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (MEOHP) and reduced incidence of chronic lymphocytic lymphoma (a subtype of NHL) with PCB exposure. Conclusions: Exposure to plastic-associated chemicals is associated with adverse outcomes across a wide range of human health domains, and every plastic-associated chemical group is associated with at least one adverse health outcome. Large gaps remain for many plastic-associated chemicals. Recommendations: For research, we recommend that efforts are harmonised globally to pool resources and extend beyond the chemicals included in this umbrella review. Priorities for primary research, with ensuing systematic reviews, could include micro- and nanoplastics as well as emerging plastic-associated chemicals of concern such as bisphenol analogues and replacement plasticisers and flame retardants. With respect to chemical regulation, we propose that safety for plastic-associated chemicals in humans cannot be assumed at market entry. We therefore recommend that improved independent, systematic hazard testing for all plastic-associated chemicals is undertaken before market release of products. In addition because of the limitations of laboratory-based testing for predicting harm from plastic in humans, independent and systematic post-market bio-monitoring and epidemiological studies are essential to detect potential unforeseen harms.

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.

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.

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.

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.

'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.

Protocol: Assessing the impact of interest-holder engagement on guideline development: A systematic review.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows. The objective of this review is to identify and synthesize empirical research on the impacts of interest-holder engagement on the guideline development process and content. Our research questions are as follows: (1) What are the empirical examples of impact on the process in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist? (2) What are the empirical examples of impact on the content in health guideline development across any of the 18 steps of the GIN-McMaster checklist?