Video-based interventions promoting social behavioural skills for autistic children and young people: An evidence and gap map.

Background: Video-based interventions (VBIs) are an approach that can be used to promote social behavioural skills for autistic children and young people. Despite an abundance of literature in this area, previous evidence syntheses are limited by their exclusive search strategies and eligibility criteria. Therefore, there is a lack of comprehensive evidence syntheses to provide insight on whether these interventions work, for whom, and in what circumstances. Evidence and Gap Maps (EGMs) are used to collate vast literature on a broad topic area such as this, highlighting areas for synthesis, and identifying gaps for future research. Objectives: To identify, map and synthesise existing primary research on VBIs promoting social behavioural skills for autistic children and young people, creating a live, searchable and publicly available EGM. Search Methods: Searches were conducted in electronic databases (n = 8), web search engines, and other repositories including published papers and grey literature. The search strategy was developed around two concepts including (1) terms related to autism, and (2) terms related to VBIs. Searches were conducted in May 2021. Selection Criteria: All primary studies evaluating the effectiveness of VBIs in promoting social behaviours for autistic children and young people aged 3-18 were included in the EGM. Data Collection and Analysis: Search results were imported into Eppi-Reviewer where duplicates of identical studies were removed. Titles and abstracts were then screened by two independent reviewers. Potentially eligible full texts were located and also screened by two reviewers. Data were then extracted on study design, participant characteristics, type of intervention, type of outcome, and country of study, by one of three reviewers. EPPI-Mapper was used to create the interactive EGM. Main Results: The current EGM contains 438 studies reporting on 394 single subject research designs, 25 randomised controlled trials, 15 non-randomised group designs, and 8 pretest-posttest designs. Included studies evaluated VBIs in all male (n = 238), mixed gender (n = 172) or all female (n = 17) samples. VBIs employed included video modelling (n = 273), video self-modelling (n = 82), point-of-view modelling (n = 61), video prompting (n = 57), video feedback (n = 12) and computer-based video instruction (n = 4). The most frequently used models were adults (n = 191) and peers (n = 135). In relation to social outcomes, almost half evaluated social engagement (n = 199) with limited studies looking at safety (n = 9) and community (n = 7) skills. Authors' Conclusions: This EGM provides a valuable resource for policy-makers, practitioners, researchers, funders and members of the public to access evidence on VBIs promoting social behavioural skills in autistic children and young people. The map has identified areas of sufficient research where evidence can undergo synthesis. In addition, important gaps in the evidence were highlighted and suggest further research is warranted in all female samples and less frequently evaluated types of VBIs and social outcomes. Evidence included in this EGM will be further explored via systematic review and meta-analysis on control group designs.

Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): An evidence and gap map.

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic, caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus, has resulted in illness, deaths and societal disruption on a global scale. Societies have implemented various control measures to reduce transmission of the virus and mitigate its impact. Individual behavioural changes are crucial to the successful implementation of these measures. Common recommended measures to limit risk of infection include frequent handwashing, reducing the frequency of social interactions and the use of face coverings. It is important to identify those factors that can predict the uptake and maintenance of these protective behaviours. Objectives: We aimed to identify and map the existing evidence (published and unpublished) on psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to behaviours aimed at reducing the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19. Search Methods: Our extensive search included electronic databases (n = 12), web searches, conference proceedings, government reports, other repositories including both published peer reviewed, pre-prints and grey literature. The search strategy was built around three concepts of interest including (1) context (terms relating to COVID-19), (2) behaviours of interest and (3) terms related to psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health-Related Behaviours and adherence or compliance with recommended behaviours, to capture both malleable and non-malleable determinants (i.e. determinants that could be changed and those that could not). Selection Criteria: This Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) includes all types of studies examining determinants of common recommended behaviours aimed at mitigating human-to-human spread of COVID-19. All potential malleable and non-malleable determinants of one or more behaviours are included in the map. As part of the mapping process, categories are used to group determinants. The mapping categories were based on a previous rapid review by Hanratty 2021. These include: 'behaviour', 'cognition', 'demographics', 'disease', 'emotions', 'health status', 'information', 'intervention', and 'knowledge'. Those not suitable for categorisation in any of these groups are included in the map as 'other' determinants. Data Collection and Analysis: Results were imported to a bibliographic reference manager where duplications of identical studies gathered from multiple sources were removed. Data extraction procedures were managed in EPPI-Reviewer software. Information on study type, population, behaviours measured and determinants measured were extracted. We appraised the methodological quality of systematic reviews with AMSTAR-2. We did not appraise the quality of primary studies in this map. Main Results: As of 1 June 2022 the EGM includes 1034 records reporting on 860 cross-sectional, 68 longitudinal, 78 qualitative, 25 reviews, 62 interventional, and 39 other studies (e.g., mixed-methods approaches). The map includes studies that measured social distancing (n = 487), masks and face coverings (n = 382), handwashing (n = 308), physical distancing (n = 177), isolation/quarantine (n = 157), respiratory hygiene/etiquette (n = 75), cleaning surfaces (n = 59), and avoiding touching the T-zone (n = 48). There were 333 studies that assessed composite measures of two or more behaviours. The largest cluster of determinants was 'demographics' (n = 730 studies), followed by 'cognition' (n = 496 studies) and determinants categorised as 'other' (n = 447). These included factors such as 'beliefs', 'culture' and 'access to resources'. Less evidence is available for some determinants such as 'interventions' (n = 99 studies), 'information' (n = 101 studies), and 'behaviour' (149 studies). Authors' Conclusions: This EGM provides a valuable resource for researchers, policy-makers and the public to access the available evidence on the determinants of various COVID-19 health-related behaviours. The map can also be used to help guide research commissioning, by evidence synthesis teams and evidence intermediaries to inform policy during the ongoing pandemic and potential future outbreaks of COVID-19 or other respiratory infections. Evidence included in the map will be explored further through a series of systematic reviews examining the strength of the associations between malleable determinants and the uptake and maintenance of individual protective behaviours.

PROTOCOL: Education and Covid-19: An evidence and gap map.

This is the protocol for a Campbell evidence and gap map. The objectives are as follows: identify and map all existing primary studies, systematic reviews (published and unpublished), guidelines and policies on education during the Covid-19 pandemic, creating a live, searchable and publicly available evidence and gap map.

Involving men and boys in family planning: A systematic review of the effective components and characteristics of complex interventions in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: Involving men and boys as both users and supporters of Family Planning (FP) is now considered essential for optimising maternal and child health outcomes. Evidence on how to engage men and boys to meet FP needs is therefore important. Objectives: The main objective of this review was to assess the strength of evidence in the area and uncover the effective components and critical process- and system-level characteristics of successful interventions. Search Methods: We searched nine electronic databases, seven grey literature databases, organisational websites, and the reference lists of systematic reviews relating to FP. To identify process evaluations and qualitative papers associated with the included experimental studies, we used Connected Papers and hand searches of reference lists. Selection Criteria: Experimental and quasi-experimental studies of behavioural and service-level interventions involving males aged 10 years or over in low- and middle-income countries to increase uptake of FP methods were included in this review. Data Collection and Analysis: Methodology was a causal chain analysis involving the development and testing of a logic model of intervention components based on stakeholder consultation and prior research. Qualitative and quantitative data relating to the evaluation studies and interventions were extracted based on the principles of 'effectiveness-plus' reviews. Quantitative analysis was undertaken using r with robust variance estimation (RVE), meta-analysis and meta-regression. Qualitative analysis involved 'best fit' framework synthesis. Results: We identified 8885 potentially relevant records and included 127 in the review. Fifty-nine (46%) of these were randomised trials, the remainder were quasi-experimental studies with a comparison group. Fifty-four percent of the included studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias. A meta-analysis of 72 studies (k = 265) showed that the included group of interventions had statistically significantly higher odds of improving contraceptive use when compared to comparison groups (odds ratio = 1.38, confidence interval = 1.21 to 1.57, prediction interval = 0.36 to 5.31, p < 0.0001), but there were substantial variations in the effect sizes of the studies (Q = 40,647, df = 264, p < 0.0001; I 2 = 98%) and 73% was within cluster/study. Multi-variate meta-regression revealed several significant intervention delivery characteristics that moderate contraceptive use. These included community-based educational FP interventions, interventions delivered to women as well as men and interventions delivered by trained facilitators, professionals, or peers in community, home and community, or school settings. None of the eight identified intervention components or 33 combinations of components were significant moderators of effects on contraceptive use. Qualitative analysis highlighted some of the barriers and facilitators of effective models of FP that should be considered in future practice and research. Authors' Conclusions: FP interventions that involve men and boys alongside women and girls are effective in improving uptake and use of contraceptives. The evidence suggests that policy should continue to promote the involvement of men and boys in FP in ways that also promote gender equality. Recommendations for research include the need for evaluations during conflict and disease outbreaks, and evaluation of gender transformative interventions which engage men and boys as contraceptive users and supporters in helping to achieve desired family size, fertility promotion, safe conception, as well as promoting equitable family planning decision-making for women and girls.

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

OBJECTIVES: A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions. RESULTS: Patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results. CONCLUSION: The results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.

The evidence synthesis and meta-analysis in R conference (ESMARConf): levelling the playing field of conference accessibility and equitability.

Rigorous evidence is vital in all disciplines to ensure efficient, appropriate, and fit-for-purpose decision-making with minimised risk of unintended harm. To date, however, disciplines have been slow to share evidence synthesis frameworks, best practices, and tools amongst one another. Recent progress in collaborative digital and programmatic frameworks, such as the free and Open Source software R, have significantly expanded the opportunities for development of free-to-use, incrementally improvable, community driven tools to support evidence synthesis (e.g. EviAtlas, robvis, PRISMA2020 flow diagrams and metadat). Despite this, evidence synthesis (and meta-analysis) practitioners and methodologists who make use of R remain relatively disconnected from one another. Here, we report on a new virtual conference for evidence synthesis and meta-analysis in the R programming environment (ESMARConf) that aims to connect these communities. By designing an entirely free and online conference from scratch, we have been able to focus efforts on maximising accessibility and equity-making these core missions for our new community of practice. As a community of practice, ESMARConf builds on the success and groundwork of the broader R community and systematic review coordinating bodies (e.g. Cochrane), but fills an important niche. ESMARConf aims to maximise accessibility and equity of participants across regions, contexts, and social backgrounds, forging a level playing field in a digital, connected, and online future of evidence synthesis. We believe that everyone should have the same access to participation and involvement, and we believe ESMARConf provides a vital opportunity to push for equitability across disciplines, regions, and personal situations.

PROTOCOL: Psychological and psychosocial determinants of COVID Health Related Behaviours (COHeRe): A suite of systematic reviews and an evidence and gap map.

This is the protocol for a Campbell systematic review. The objectives are as follows: we intend to identify and synthesise the existing evidence (published and unpublished) on malleable psychological and psychosocial factors that determine uptake and adherence to behaviours that can reduce the risk of infection or transmission of COVID-19.

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol.

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders' perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Strategies to improve retention in randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: Poor retention of participants in randomised trials can lead to missing outcome data which can introduce bias and reduce study power, affecting the generalisability, validity and reliability of results. Many strategies are used to improve retention but few have been formally evaluated. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the effect of strategies to improve retention of participants in randomised trials and to investigate if the effect varied by trial setting. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Scopus, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science Core Collection (SCI-expanded, SSCI, CPSI-S, CPCI-SSH and ESCI) either directly with a specified search strategy or indirectly through the ORRCA database. We also searched the SWAT repository to identify ongoing or recently completed retention trials. We did our most recent searches in January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included eligible randomised or quasi-randomised trials of evaluations of strategies to increase retention that were embedded in 'host' randomised trials from all disease areas and healthcare settings. We excluded studies aiming to increase treatment compliance. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We extracted data on: the retention strategy being evaluated; location of study; host trial setting; method of randomisation; numbers and proportions in each intervention and comparator group. We used a risk difference (RD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) to estimate the effectiveness of the strategies to improve retention. We assessed heterogeneity between trials. We applied GRADE to determine the certainty of the evidence within each comparison. MAIN RESULTS: We identified 70 eligible papers that reported data from 81 retention trials. We included 69 studies with more than 100,000 participants in the final meta-analyses, of which 67 studies evaluated interventions aimed at trial participants and two evaluated interventions aimed at trial staff involved in retention. All studies were in health care and most aimed to improve postal questionnaire response. Interventions were categorised into broad comparison groups: Data collection; Participants; Sites and site staff; Central study management; and Study design. These intervention groups consisted of 52 comparisons, none of which were supported by high-certainty evidence as determined by GRADE assessment. There were four comparisons presenting moderate-certainty evidence, three supporting retention (self-sampling kits, monetary reward together with reminder or prenotification and giving a pen at recruitment) and one reducing retention (inclusion of a diary with usual follow-up compared to usual follow-up alone). Of the remaining studies, 20 presented GRADE low-certainty evidence and 28 presented very low-certainty evidence. Our findings do provide a priority list for future replication studies, especially with regard to comparisons that currently rely on a single study. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Most of the interventions we identified aimed to improve retention in the form of postal questionnaire response. There were few evaluations of ways to improve participants returning to trial sites for trial follow-up. None of the comparisons are supported by high-certainty evidence. Comparisons in the review where the evidence certainty could be improved with the addition of well-done studies should be the focus for future evaluations.

PROTOCOL: Searching and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews: An assessment of current methods.

This is the protocol for a Campbell review. The aim of this study is to comprehensively assess the quality and nature of the search methods and reporting across Campbell systematic reviews. The search methods used in systematic reviews provide the foundation for establishing the body of literature from which conclusions are drawn and recommendations made. Searches should be comprehensive and reporting of search methods should be transparent and reproducible. Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews strive to adhere to the best methodological guidance available for this type of searching. The current work aims to provide a comprehensive assessment of the quality of the search methods and reporting in Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews. Our specific objectives include the following: To examine how searches are currently conducted in Campbell systematic reviews. To identify any machine learning or automation methods used, or emerging and less commonly used approaches to web searching. To examine how search strategies, search methods and search reporting adhere to the Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews (MECCIR) and PRISMA guidelines. The findings will be used to identify opportunities for advancing current practices in Campbell reviews through updated guidance, peer review processes and author training and support.

PROTOCOL: Video-based interventions for promoting positive social behaviour in children with autism spectrum disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

This is the protocol for a Campbell review. The primary objective for this review is summarising the effectiveness of video-based interventions (VBI) in promoting prosocial behaviours in a population of young people with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The research questions employed to fulfil this objective include: (1) Do VBI improve prosocial behaviours in children with ASD? (2) Which social skills and interactive behaviours are most successful? (3) Do VBI generally have successful rates of skill generalisation and response maintenance? (4) Do demographic characteristics (age, gender) of participants influence the effectiveness of VBI's?

Accommodation-based interventions for individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness.

Background: Globally, almost 1.6 billion individuals lack adequate housing. Many accommodation-based approaches have evolved across the globe to incorporate additional support and services beyond delivery of housing. Objectives: This review examines the effectiveness of accommodation-based approaches on outcomes including housing stability, health, employment, crime, wellbeing, and cost for individuals experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness. Search Methods: The systematic review is based on evidence already identified in two existing EGMs commissioned by the Centre for Homelessness Impact (CHI) and built by White et al. The maps were constructed using a comprehensive three stage search and mapping process. Stage one mapped included studies in an existing systematic review on homelessness, stage two was an extensive search of 17 academic databases, three EGM databases, and eight systematic review databases. Finally stage three included web searches for grey literature, scanning reference lists of included studies and consultation with experts to identify additional literature. We identified 223 unique studies across 551 articles from the effectiveness map on 12th April 2019. Selection Criteria: We include research on all individuals currently experiencing, or at risk of experiencing homelessness irrespective of age or gender, in high-income countries. The Network Meta-Analysis (NMA) contains all study designs where a comparison group was used. This includes randomised controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental designs, matched comparisons and other study designs that attempt to isolate the impact of the intervention on homelessness. The NMA primarily addresses how interventions can reduce homelessness and increase housing stability for those individuals experiencing, or at risk of experiencing, homelessness. Additional outcomes are examined and narratively described. These include: access to mainstream healthcare; crime and justice; employment and income; capabilities and wellbeing; and cost of intervention. These outcomes reflect the domains used in the EGM, with the addition of cost. Data Collection and Analysis: Due to the diverse nature of the literature on accommodation-based approaches, the way in which the approaches are implemented in practice, and the disordered descriptions of the categories, the review team created a novel typology to allow meaningful categorisations for functional and useful comparison between the various intervention types. Once these eligible categories were identified, we undertook dual data extraction, where two authors completed data extraction and risk of bias (ROB) assessments independently for each study. NMA was conducted across outcomes related to housing stability and health.Qualitative data from process evaluations is included using a "Best Fit" Framework synthesis. The purpose of this synthesis is to complement the quantitative evidence and provide a better understanding of what factors influenced programme effectiveness. All included Qualitative data followed the initial framework provided by the five main analytical categories of factors of influence (reflected in the EGM), namely: contextual factors, policy makers/funders, programme administrators/managers/implementing agencies, staff/case workers and recipients of the programme. Main Results: There was a total of 13,128 people included in the review, across 51 reports of 28 studies. Most of the included studies were carried out in the United States of America (25/28), with other locations including Canada and the UK. Sixteen studies were RCTs (57%) and 12 were nonrandomised (quasi-experimental) designs (43%). Assessment of methodological quality and potential for bias was conducted using the second version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for Randomised controlled trials. Nonrandomised studies were coded using the ROBINS- I tool. Out of the 28 studies, three had sufficiently low ROB (11%), 11 (39%) had moderate ROB, and five (18%) presented serious problems with ROB, and nine (32%) demonstrated high, critical problems with their methodology. A NMA on housing stability outcomes demonstrates that interventions offering the highest levels of support alongside unconditional accommodation (High/Unconditional) were more effective in improving housing stability compared to basic support alongside unconditional housing (Basic/Unconditional) (ES=1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI] [0.39, 1.82]), and in comparison to a no-intervention control group (ES=0.62, 95% CI [0.19, 1.06]). A second NMA on health outcomes demonstrates that interventions categorised as offering Moderate/Conditional (ES= 0.36, 95% CI [0.03, 0.69]) and High/Unconditional (ES = 0.22, 95% CI [0.01, 0.43]) support were effective in improving health outcomes compared to no intervention. These effects were smaller than those observed for housing stability. The quality of the evidence was relatively low but varied across the 28 included studies. Depending on the context, finding accommodation for those who need it can be hindered by supply and affordability in the market. The social welfare approach in each jurisdiction can impact heavily on support available and can influence some of the prejudice and stigma surrounding homelessness. The evaluations emphasised the need for collaboration and a shared commitment between policymakers, funders and practitioners which creates community and buy in across sectors and agencies. However, co-ordinating this is difficult and requires sustainability to work. For those implementing programmes, it was important to invest time in developing a culture together to build trust and solid relationships. Additionally, identifying sufficient resources and appropriate referral routes allows for better implementation planning. Involving staff and case workers in creating processes helps drive enthusiasm and energy for the service. Time should be allocated for staff to develop key skills and communicate engage effectively with service users. Finally, staff need time to develop trust and relationships with service users; this goes hand in hand with providing information that is up to date and useful as well making themselves accessible in terms of location and time. Authors' Conclusions: The network meta-analysis suggests that all types of accommodation which provided support are more effective than no intervention or Basic/Unconditional accommodation in terms of housing stability and health. The qualitative evidence synthesis raised a primary issue in relation to context: which was the lack of stable, affordable accommodation and the variability in the rental market, such that actually sourcing accommodation to provide for individuals who are homeless is extremely challenging. Collaboration between stakeholders and practitioners can be fruitful but difficult to coordinate across different agencies and organisations.

A Systematic Review of COVID-19 and Kidney Transplantation.

INTRODUCTION: Kidney transplant recipients are at increased susceptibility to many viral infections leading to justifiable anxiety about the effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). METHODS: We performed literature searches from multiple resources in April and August 2020 for relevant English and Chinese literature. Abstracts were screened, followed by full-text review with data extraction of reports that included at least 20 kidney transplant recipients with confirmed severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and completed outcomes. RESULTS: Twenty studies had sufficient data, which we have summarized. Studies were predominantly descriptive and came from France, Italy, Spain, Turkey, United Kingdom, and United States. Quality assessment demonstrated limitations in selection of comparison groups and controlling for additional factors. Mortality rates from published studies were variable. Based on early data early from Spain, 46% of patients who developed COVID-19 within 60 days of transplantation died. Acute kidney injury was common, and mycophenolate was discontinued in most patients. CONCLUSION: Given the rapid global spread of COVID-19, reliable evidence is needed to inform public health policies. Hospitalized kidney transplant recipients with COVID-19 are at a high risk of death in early reports but interpretation of these data requires caution, as studies were susceptible to period effects. Reassuringly, the quality of observational data is improving. Detailed and comprehensive data collection through linked registries will be necessary to conduct accurate analyses of risk factors for adverse outcomes, not least given the risks of stopping imunosuppression. This report highlights the early mortality excess in transplant recipients but medium- and longer-term outcomes remain uncertain and merit careful investigation.

Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews.

BACKGROUND: A growing body of primary study and systematic review literature evaluates interventions and phenomena in applied and health psychology. Reviews of reviews (i.e., meta-reviews) systematically synthesise and utilise this vast and often overwhelming literature; yet, currently there are few practical guidelines for meta-review authors to follow. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the best practice guidelines for all research synthesis and to detail additional specific considerations and methodological details for the best practice of conducting a rigorous meta-review. METHODS: This article provides readers with six systematic and practical steps along with accompanying examples to address with rigor the unique challenges that arise when authors familiar with systematic review methods begin a meta-review: (a) detailing a clear scope, (b) identifying synthesis literature through strategic searches, (c) considering datedness of the literature, (d) addressing overlap among included reviews, (e) choosing and applying review quality tools, and (f) appropriate options for handling the synthesis and reporting of the vast amount of data collected in a meta-review. CONCLUSIONS: We have curated best practice recommendations and practical tips for conducting a meta-review. We anticipate that assessments of meta-review quality will ultimately formalise best-method guidelines.