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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

Clinical practice guidelines in prehospital pain management for paramedics: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this review is to examine prehospital pain management clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommendations that can be adopted or adapted into paramedic clinical practice. An additional aim is to consider the methodological quality of these CPGs and the recommendations within them. INTRODUCTION: Quality, evidence-based CPGs support clinicians and optimize patient care. However, not all CPGs meet rigorous evidence-based standards, and some may be misleading. As pain is a common reason for patients to access ambulance services, the evaluation of pain management CPGs, their quality, and whether their recommendations can be adopted or adapted into practice is required to increase understanding in this area. INCLUSION CRITERIA: We will include CPGs for pain management intended for prehospital services in civilian communities. CPGs in English published from 2017, and containing clear recommendations addressing pain of any cause will be considered for inclusion. METHODS: This review will combine methodologies, including the PICAR framework (population, intervention, comparison, attributes of eligible CPGs, recommendation characteristics) by Johnston et al. , and the JBI umbrella and scoping review methodologies. The search strategy will cover 12 databases, including PubMed, Embase, and specific CPG databases (eg, GIN Library). Additionally, Google Scholar and Google will be searched, and prehospital organizations without regular publications will be contacted. The AGREE II and AGREE-REX tools will be used to assess the methodological rigor and clinical credibility of the CPGs. The characteristics of both CPGs and the recommendations will be extracted and discussed in the review. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022352951.

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.

Implementation of virtual music therapy in the practice of Czech music therapists: a best practice implementation project.

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: Czech music therapists lacked the skills and knowledge to adapt their practice to virtual music therapy (VMT) at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, when physical contact was restricted. The aims of this project were to implement the best evidence-based recommendations concerning VMT in the practice of Czech music therapists and increase the number of therapists using VMT. METHODS: The project used the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework to promote change in the practice of participants. A baseline audit of 26 practitioners was conducted using questionnaires and interviews. The audit criteria consisted of 8 best practice recommendations, followed by the implementation of targeted strategies and a follow-up audit. RESULTS: Of the 26 music therapists, 18 began practicing VMT following the rollout of the implementation strategies. Strategies included educational workshops, instructional materials, technological support, individual counseling, and interactive training sessions. There was an increase in compliance with all audit criteria. The most critical barriers were lack of knowledge about VMT and lack of technical skills; lack of resources; technological challenges; low confidence of music therapists to provide VMT; and reduced need for VMT after the lockdown restrictions were relaxed. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation project helped to overcome temporary pandemic restrictions, increase the quality of VMT practice, develop strategies for VMT training, and identify reasons for using VMT during the pandemic and beyond.

Providing a scaffold for considering theoretical frameworks in evidence implementation projects: the JBI approach to evidence implementation.

ABSTRACT: There are many theories, models, and frameworks that have been proposed in the field of implementation science. Despite this, many evidence implementation or practice improvement projects do not consider these theories, models, or frameworks in their improvement efforts. The JBI approach is one example of an implementation theory, model, or framework. This approach has been developed particularly with health care professionals in mind and is designed to clearly guide pragmatic evidence implementation efforts based on the best available evidence. In this paper, we discuss how the JBI approach to evidence implementation can interact with and support theory-informed, pragmatic evidence implementation projects.

Experience of having a sibling with autism spectrum disorder: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This qualitative systematic review aims to understand the experiences of neurotypical siblings of a person with autism spectrum disorder. INTRODUCTION: Autism spectrum disorder influences communication and social interaction with other people and has a significant impact on family relationships. The experiences of siblings range from the positive, such as development of increased empathy and ability to cope with challenges, to experiences that are more negative, such as a higher risk of bullying. In many countries, neurotypical siblings are marginalized and don't receive adequate support to cope with the increased challenges. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider qualitative studies exploring the experiences of siblings of a person with autism spectrum disorder. There will be no limitations regarding age, gender, sex, or length of relationship with the sibling. We will consider studies from all countries and contexts. METHODS: This study will be conducted according to the JBI methodology for qualitative reviews. A 3-step search strategy will be used to find published and unpublished studies from the following sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Scopus, SocINDEX, Web of Science, Embase, ERIC, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Open Dissertations, and Google Scholar (first 100 records). There will be no search limitations on the publication period or language, but only studies with an English-language abstract/title will be considered for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, and data synthesis will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers.

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.

Protocol for the development of guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses.

BACKGROUND: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3. CONSENSUS: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4. DISSEMINATION: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations. CONCLUSION: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities.

Effectiveness of dual active ingredient insecticide-treated nets in preventing malaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Malaria vectors have demonstrated resistance to pyrethroid-based insecticides used in insecticide-treated nets, diminishing their effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated two forms of dual active-ingredient (DAI) insecticide-treated nets (ITN(s)) for malaria prevention. A comprehensive search was conducted on July 6th 2022. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, amongst others. Trials were eligible if they were conducted in a region with ongoing malaria transmission. The first DAI ITN investigated were those that combined a pyrethroid with a non-pyrethroid insecticides. The second DAI ITN investigated were that combined a pyrethroid with an insect growth regulator. These interventions were compared against either a pyrethroid-only ITN, or ITNs treated with pyrethroid and piperonyl-butoxide. Assessment of risk of bias was conducted in duplicate using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for cluster-randomised trials. Summary data was extracted using a custom data-extraction instrument. This was conducted by authors THB, JCS and SH. Malaria case incidence was the primary outcome and has been meta-analysed, adverse events were narratively synthesised. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022333044). From 9494 records, 48 reports were screened and 13 reports for three studies were included. These studies contained data from 186 clusters and all reported a low risk of bias. Compared to pyrethroid-only ITNs, clusters that received pyrethroid-non-pyrethroid DAI ITNs were associated with 305 fewer cases per 1000-person years (from 380 fewer cases to 216 fewer cases) (IRR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.44-0.68). However, this trend was not observed in clusters that received pyrethroid-insect growth regulator ITNs compared to pyrethroid-only ITNs (from 280 fewer cases to 135 more) (IRR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.73-1.13). Pyrethroid-non-pyrethroid DAI ITNs demonstrated consistent reductions in malaria case incidence and other outcomes across multiple comparisons. Pyrethroid-non-pyrethroid DAI ITNs may present a novel intervention for the control of malaria.