GRADE guidance 37: rating imprecision in a body of evidence on test accuracy.

OBJECTIVES: To provide guidance on rating imprecision in a body of evidence assessing the accuracy of a single test. This guide will clarify when Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) users should consider rating down the certainty of evidence by one or more levels for imprecision in test accuracy. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A project group within the GRADE working group conducted iterative discussions and presentations at GRADE working group meetings to produce this guidance. RESULTS: Before rating the certainty of evidence, GRADE users should define the target of their certainty rating. GRADE recommends setting judgment thresholds defining what they consider a very accurate, accurate, inaccurate, and very inaccurate test. These thresholds should be set after considering consequences of testing and effects on people-important outcomes. GRADE's primary criterion for judging imprecision in test accuracy evidence is considering confidence intervals (i.e., CI approach) of absolute test accuracy results (true and false, positive, and negative results in a cohort of people). Based on the CI approach, when a CI appreciably crosses the predefined judgment threshold(s), one should consider rating down certainty of evidence by one or more levels, depending on the number of thresholds crossed. When the CI does not cross judgment threshold(s), GRADE suggests considering the sample size for an adequately powered test accuracy review (optimal or review information size [optimal information size (OIS)/review information size (RIS)]) in rating imprecision. If the combined sample size of the included studies in the review is smaller than the required OIS/RIS, one should consider rating down by one or more levels for imprecision. CONCLUSION: This paper extends previous GRADE guidance for rating imprecision in single test accuracy systematic reviews and guidelines, with a focus on the circumstances in which one should consider rating down one or more levels for imprecision.

Choosing and accessing COVID-19 treatment options: a qualitative study with patients, caregivers, and health care providers in Lebanon.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has strained healthcare systems globally, particularly in terms of access to medicines. Lebanon has been greatly affected by the pandemic, having faced concomitant financial and economic crises. The objective of the study was to understand the experiences of patients with COVID-19 in Lebanon, as well as those of their families, and healthcare providers, with regards to their treatment decisions and accessibility to COVID-19 medicines. METHODS: For this qualitative study, we conducted 28 semi-structured interviews. We used purposive sampling to recruit participants with a diverse range of perspectives. The data collection phase spanned from August to November 2021 and was conducted virtually. After transcribing and translating the interviews, we employed thematic analysis to identify recurring themes and patterns. RESULTS: In total, 28 individuals participated in this study. Participants highlighted challenges owing to the COVID-19 pandemic and economic crisis. Accessing COVID-19 medicines posed major hurdles for physicians and patients, given limited availability, global shortages, local circumstances, community hoarding and stockpiling by pharmacies. Providers based treatment decisions on research, local and international practice guidelines, experiences and expert feedback. Patients sought information from social media, community members and physicians, as well as through word of mouth. Accessing medicines involved navigating the healthcare system, the black market, charities, personal networks and political parties and sourcing from abroad. The medicines were either free, subsidized or at inflated costs. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the diversity and complexity of factors influencing decision-making and accessing medicines during the COVID-19 pandemic in Lebanon. Future research should explore strategies for ensuring medicine access during crises, drawing insights from comparative studies across different countries.

A tool to assess risk of bias in non-randomized follow-up studies of exposure effects (ROBINS-E).

BACKGROUND: Observational epidemiologic studies provide critical data for the evaluation of the potential effects of environmental, occupational and behavioural exposures on human health. Systematic reviews of these studies play a key role in informing policy and practice. Systematic reviews should incorporate assessments of the risk of bias in results of the included studies. OBJECTIVE: To develop a new tool, Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Exposures (ROBINS-E) to assess risk of bias in estimates from cohort studies of the causal effect of an exposure on an outcome. METHODS AND RESULTS: ROBINS-E was developed by a large group of researchers from diverse research and public health disciplines through a series of working groups, in-person meetings and pilot testing phases. The tool aims to assess the risk of bias in a specific result (exposure effect estimate) from an individual observational study that examines the effect of an exposure on an outcome. A series of preliminary considerations informs the core ROBINS-E assessment, including details of the result being assessed and the causal effect being estimated. The assessment addresses bias within seven domains, through a series of 'signalling questions'. Domain-level judgements about risk of bias are derived from the answers to these questions, then combined to produce an overall risk of bias judgement for the result, together with judgements about the direction of bias. CONCLUSION: ROBINS-E provides a standardized framework for examining potential biases in results from cohort studies. Future work will produce variants of the tool for other epidemiologic study designs (e.g. case-control studies). We believe that ROBINS-E represents an important development in the integration of exposure assessment, evidence synthesis and causal inference.

User-experience testing of an evidence-to-decision framework for selecting essential medicines.

Essential medicine lists (EMLs) are important medicine prioritization tools used by the World Health Organization (WHO) EML and over 130 countries. The criteria used by WHO's Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines has parallels to the GRADE Evidence-to-Decision (EtD) frameworks. In this study, we explored the EtD frameworks and a visual abstract as adjunctive tools to strengthen the integrate evidence and improve the transparency of decisions of EML applications. We conducted user-experience testing interviews of key EML stakeholders using Morville's honeycomb model. Interviews explored multifaceted dimensions (e.g., usability) on two EML applications for the 2021 WHO EML-long-acting insulin analogues for diabetes and immune checkpoint inhibitors for lung cancer. Using a pre-determined coding framework and thematic analysis we iteratively improved both the EtD framework and the visual abstract. We coded the transcripts of 17 interviews with 13 respondents in 103 locations of the interview texts across all dimensions of the user-experience honeycomb. Respondents felt the EtD framework and visual abstract presented complementary useful and findable adjuncts to the traditional EML application. They felt this would increase transparency and efficiency in evidence assessed by EML committees. As EtD frameworks are also used in health practice guidelines, including those by the WHO, respondents articulated that the adoption of the EtD by EML applications represents a tangible mechanism to align EMLs and guidelines, decrease duplication of work and improve coordination. Improvements were made to clarify instructions for the EtD and visual abstract, and to refine the design and content included. 'Availability' was added as an additional criterion for EML applications to highlight this criterion in alignment with WHO EML criteria. EtD frameworks and visual abstracts present additional important tools to communicate evidence and support decision-criteria in EML applications, which have global health impact. Access to essential medicines is important for achieving universal health coverage, and the development of essential medicine lists should be as evidence-based and trustworthy as possible.

A multimethods randomized trial found that plain language versions improved adults understanding of health recommendations.

OBJECTIVES: To make informed decisions, the general population should have access to accessible and understandable health recommendations. To compare understanding, accessibility, usability, satisfaction, intention to implement, and preference of adults provided with a digital "Plain Language Recommendation" (PLR) format vs. the original "Standard Language Version" (SLV). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An allocation-concealed, blinded, controlled superiority trial and a qualitative study to understand participant preferences. An international on-line survey. 488 adults with some English proficiency. 67.8% of participants identified as female, 62.3% were from the Americas, 70.1% identified as white, 32.2% had a bachelor's degree as their highest completed education, and 42% said they were very comfortable reading health information. In collaboration with patient partners, advisors, and the Cochrane Consumer Network, we developed a plain language format of guideline recommendations (PLRs) to compare their effectiveness vs. the original standard language versions (SLVs) as published in the source guideline. We selected two recommendations about COVID-19 vaccine, similar in their content, to compare our versions, one from the World Health Organization (WHO) and one from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The primary outcome was understanding, measured as the proportion of correct responses to seven comprehension questions. Secondary outcomes were accessibility, usability, satisfaction, preference, and intended behavior, measured on a 1-7 scale. RESULTS: Participants randomized to the PLR group had a higher proportion of correct responses to the understanding questions for the WHO recommendation (mean difference [MD] of 19.8%, 95% confidence interval [CI] 14.7-24.9%; P < 0.001) but this difference was smaller and not statistically significant for the CDC recommendation (MD of 3.9%, 95% CI -0.7% to 8.3%; P = 0.096). However, regardless of the recommendation, participants found the PLRs more accessible, (MD of 1.2 on the seven-point scale, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001) and more satisfying (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.9-1.4%; P < 0.001). They were also more likely to follow the recommendation if they had not already followed it (MD of 1.2, 95% CI 0.7-1.8%; P < 0.001) and share it with other people they know (MD of 1.9, 95% CI 0.5-1.2%; P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the preference between the two formats (MD of -0.3, 95% CI -0.5% to 0.03%; P = 0.078). The qualitative interviews supported and contextualized these findings. CONCLUSION: Health information provided in a PLR format improved understanding, accessibility, usability, and satisfaction and thereby has the potential to shape public decision-making behavior.

Development of Systematic Reviews to Inform WHO's Recommendations for Elimination and Prevention of Re-Establishment of Malaria: Methodology.

The basis for an evidence-based recommendation is a well-conducted systematic review that synthesizes the primary literature relevant to the policy or program question of interest. In 2020, the WHO commissioned 10 systematic reviews of potential interventions in elimination or post-elimination settings to summarize their impact on malaria transmission. This paper describes the general methods used to conduct this series of systematic reviews and notes where individual reviews diverged from the common methodology. The paper also presents lessons learned from conducting the systematic reviews to make similar future efforts more efficient, standardized, and streamlined.

GRADE Concept 7: Issues and Insights Linking Guideline Recommendations to Trustworthy Essential Medicine Lists.

OBJECTIVES: Guidelines and essential medicine lists (EMLs) bear similarities and differences in the process that lead to decisions. Access to essential medicines is central to achieve universal health coverage. The World Health Organization (WHO) EML has guided prioritization of essential medicines globally for nearly 50 years, and national EMLs (NEMLs) exist in over 130 countries. Guideline and EML decisions, at WHO or national levels, are not always coordinated and aligned. We sought to explore challenges, and potential solutions, for decision-making to support trustworthy medicine selection for EMLs from a Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) Working Group perspective. We primarily focus on the WHO EML; however, our findings may be applicable to NEML decisions as well. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We identified key challenges in connecting the EML to health guidelines by involving a broad group of stakeholders and assessing case studies including real applications to the WHO EML, South Africa NEML, and a multiple sclerosis guideline connected to a WHO EML application for multiple sclerosis treatments. To address challenges, we utilized the results of a survey and feedback from the stakeholders, and iteratively met as a project group. We drafted a conceptual framework of challenges and potential solutions. We presented a summary of the results for feedback to all attendees of the GRADE Working Group meetings in November 2022 (approximately 120 people) and in May 2023 (approximately 100 people) before finalizing the framework. RESULTS: We prioritized issues and insights/solutions that addressed the connections between the EML and health guidelines. Our suggested solutions include early planning alignment of guideline groups and EMLs, considering shared participation to strengthen linkage, further clarity on price/cost considerations, and using explicit shared criteria to make guideline and EML decisions. We also provide recommendations to strengthen the connection between WHO EML and NEMLs including through contextualization methods. CONCLUSION: This GRADE concept article, jointly developed by key stakeholders from the guidelines and EMLs field, identified key conceptual issues and potential solutions to support the continued advancement of trustworthy EMLs. Adopting structured decision criteria that can be linked to guideline recommendations bears the potential to advance health equity and gaps in availability of essential medicines within and between countries.

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance. METHODS: A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word. RESULTS: Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR. CONCLUSION: Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.

The lived experiences of patients with cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

Background: The objective of this study was to explore the impact of COVID-19 on the lived experiences of patients with cancer in Lebanon. Methods: We adopted a descriptive phenomenological approach. We included adults who had been diagnosed with cancer before the pandemic and undergoing treatment at the American University of Beirut Medical Centre. We conducted virtual, semi-structured in-depth interviews with either video or audio recordings. Two team members coded the transcripts independently and identified common themes and patterns. Results: We recruited 11 participants for the study. The analysis identified the following six themes: perceived seriousness of COVID-19, fear of COVID-19 versus fear of cancer, coping mechanisms, treatment availability and accessibility, compliance with public health and social measures and precautionary measures in the healthcare system. The coping mechanisms included staying positive, seeking normalcy, using family support, religiosity and fatalism. Conclusion: Faced with many challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, patients with cancer resorted to a range of coping strategies.

Antibiotic prescribing guideline recommendations in COVID-19: a systematic survey.

Background: COVID-19 and antimicrobial resistance (AMR) are two intersecting public health crises. Antimicrobial overuse in patients with COVID-19 threatens to worsen AMR. Guidelines are fundamental in encouraging antimicrobial stewardship. We sought to assess the quality of antibiotic prescribing guidelines and recommendations in the context of COVID-19, and whether they incorporate principles of antimicrobial stewardship. Methods: We performed a systematic survey which included a search using the concepts "antibiotic/antimicrobial" up to November 15, 2022 of the eCOVID-19 living map of recommendations (RecMap) which aggregates guidelines across a range of international sources and all languages. Guidelines providing explicit recommendations regarding antibacterial use in COVID-19 were eligible for inclusion. Guideline and recommendation quality were assessed using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX instruments, respectively. We extracted guideline characteristics including panel representation and the presence or absence of explicit statements related to antimicrobial stewardship (i.e., judicious antibiotic use, antimicrobial resistance or adverse effects as a consequence of antibiotic use). We used logistic regression to evaluate the relationship between guideline characteristics including quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. Protocol registration (OSF): https://osf.io/4pgtc. Findings: Twenty-eight guidelines with 63 antibiotic prescribing recommendations were included. Recommendations focused on antibiotic initiation (n = 52, 83%) and less commonly antibiotic selection (n = 13, 21%), and duration of therapy (n = 15, 24%). Guideline and recommendation quality varied widely. Twenty (71%) guidelines incorporated at least one concept relating to antimicrobial stewardship. Including infectious diseases expertise on the guideline panel (OR 9.44, 97.5% CI: 1.09-81.59) and AGREE-REX score (OR 3.26, 97.5% CI: 1.14-9.31 per 10% increase in overall score) were associated with a higher odds of guidelines addressing antimicrobial stewardship. Interpretation: There is an opportunity to improve antibiotic prescribing guidelines in terms of both quality and incorporation of antimicrobial stewardship principles. These findings can help guideline developers better address antibiotic stewardship in future recommendations beyond COVID-19. Funding: This project was funded by Michael G. DeGroote Cochrane Canada and McMaster GRADE centres.

Methodology for the adolopment of recommendations for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there are no guidelines for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) tailored to the context of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). Adaptation of guidelines accounts for contextual factors and becomes more efficient than de novo guideline development when relevant, good quality, and up-to-date guidelines are available. The objective of this study is to describe the methodology used for the adolopment of the 2021 American College of Rheumatology (ACR) guidelines for the treatment of RA in the KSA. METHODS: We followed the 'Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation' (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology. The adolopment KSA panel included relevant stakeholders and leading contributors to the original guidelines. We developed a list of five adaptation-relevant prioritization criteria that the panelists applied to the original recommendations. We updated the original evidence profiles with newly published studies identified by the panelists. We constructed Evidence to Decision (EtD) tables including contextual information from the KSA setting. We used the PanelVoice function of GRADEPro Guideline Development Tool (GDT) to obtain the panel's judgments on the EtD criteria ahead of the panel meeting. Following the meeting, we used the PANELVIEW instrument to obtain the panel's evaluation of the process. RESULTS: The KSA panel prioritized five recommendations, for which one evidence profile required updating. Out of five adoloped recommendations, two were modified in terms of direction, and one was modified in terms of certainty of the evidence. Criteria driving the modifications in direction were valuation of outcomes, balance of effects, cost, and acceptability. The mean score on the 7-point scale items of the PANELVIEW instrument had an average of 6.47 (SD = 0.18) across all items. CONCLUSION: The GRADE-ADOLOPMENT methodology proved to be efficient. The panel assessed the process and outcome positively. Engagement of stakeholders proved to be important for the success of this project.

GRADE GUIDANCE 38: Updated guidance for rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient.

INTRODUCTION: This updated guidance from the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation addresses rating up certainty of evidence due to a dose-response gradient (DRG) observed in synthesis of intervention and exposure studies. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This guidance was developed using iterative discussions and consensus in multiple meetings and was presented to attendees of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Working Group meeting for feedback in November 2022 and for final approval in May 2023. RESULTS: The guidance consists of two steps. The first is to determine whether the DRG is credible. We describe five items for assessing credibility: a) is DRG identified using a proper analytical approach; b) is confounding the cause of the DRG; c) is there serious concern about ecological bias; d) is the DRG consistent across studies; and e) is there indirect evidence supporting the DRG. The first two of these items are the most critical. If the DRG was judged to be credible, then the second step is to apply the DRG domain and consider rating up, but only by one level due to the concern about residual confounding. CONCLUSION: Systematic review authors should only rate up certainty in evidence when a DRG is deemed credible.

Conflict of interest and funding in health communication on social media: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To synthesise the available evidence on the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) by individuals posting health messages on social media, and on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE (OVID) (2005-March 2022), Embase (2005-March 2022) and Google Scholar (2005-August 2022), supplemented with a review of reference lists and forward citation tracking. DESIGN: Reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We appraised the quality of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We summarised the results in both narrative and tabular formats. We followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting our study. RESULTS: Of a total of 16 645 retrieved citations, we included 17 eligible studies. The frequency of reporting of conflicts of interest varied between 0% and 60%, but it was mostly low. In addition, a significant proportion, ranging between 15% and 80%, of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry. However, three studies assessed the proportion of conflicts of interest of physicians identified through Open Payment Database but not reported by the authors. It was found that 98.7-100% of these relationships with industry are not reported when communicating health-related information. Also, two studies showed that there is evidence of a potential association between COI and the content of posting. No data was found on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. CONCLUSIONS: While a significant proportion of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry, lack of reporting on COI and undisclosed COI are common. We did not find studies on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media. TRIAL REGISTRATION: dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.5jyl8jj4rg2w/v1.

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.

Defining Misinformation and Related Terms in Health-Related Literature: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Misinformation poses a serious challenge to clinical and policy decision-making in the health field. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified interest in misinformation and related terms and witnessed a proliferation of definitions. OBJECTIVE: We aim to assess the definitions of misinformation and related terms used in health-related literature. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of systematic reviews by searching Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Epistemonikos databases for articles published within the last 5 years up till March 2023. Eligible studies were systematic reviews that stated misinformation or related terms as part of their objectives, conducted a systematic search of at least one database, and reported at least 1 definition for misinformation or related terms. We extracted definitions for the terms misinformation, disinformation, fake news, infodemic, and malinformation. Within each definition, we identified concepts and mapped them across misinformation-related terms. RESULTS: We included 41 eligible systematic reviews, out of which 32 (78%) reviews addressed the topic of public health emergencies (including the COVID-19 pandemic) and contained 75 definitions for misinformation and related terms. The definitions consisted of 20 for misinformation, 19 for disinformation, 10 for fake news, 24 for infodemic, and 2 for malinformation. "False/inaccurate/incorrect" was mentioned in 15 of 20 definitions of misinformation, 13 of 19 definitions of disinformation, 5 of 10 definitions of fake news, 6 of 24 definitions of infodemic, and 0 of 2 definitions of malinformation. Infodemic had 19 of 24 definitions addressing "information overload" and malinformation had 2 of 2 definitions with "accurate" and 1 definition "used in the wrong context." Out of all the definitions, 56 (75%) were referenced from other sources. CONCLUSIONS: While the definitions of misinformation and related terms in the health field had inconstancies and variability, they were largely consistent. Inconstancies related to the intentionality in misinformation definitions (7 definitions mention "unintentional," while 5 definitions have "intentional"). They also related to the content of infodemic (9 definitions mention "valid and invalid info," while 6 definitions have "false/inaccurate/incorrect"). The inclusion of concepts such as "intentional" may be difficult to operationalize as it is difficult to ascertain one's intentions. This scoping review has the strength of using a systematic method for retrieving articles but does not cover all definitions in the extant literature outside the field of health. This scoping review of the health literature identified several definitions for misinformation and related terms, which showed variability and included concepts that are difficult to operationalize. Health practitioners need to exert caution before labeling a piece of information as misinformation or any other related term and only do so after ascertaining accurateness and sometimes intentionality. Additional efforts are needed to allow future consensus around clear and operational definitions.

Exploring the concordance of recommendations across guidelines on chest imaging for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19: A proposed methodological approach based on a case study.

OBJECTIVE: To describe a methodological approach to explore the concordance of recommendations across guidelines and its application to the case of the WHO recommendations on chest imaging for the diagnosis and management of COVID-19. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We followed a methodological approach applied to a case study that included: defining the 'reference guideline' (i.e., the WHO guidance) and the 'reference recommendations'; searching for 'related guidelines' and identifying 'related recommendations'; constructing the PICO for the recommendations; assessing the matching of the PICO of each related recommendation to the PICO corresponding reference recommendation; and assessing the concordance between the PICO-matching recommendations. RESULTS: We identified a total of 89 related recommendations from 22 related guidelines. Out of the 89 related recommendations, 43 partly matched and 1 entirely matched one of the reference recommendations, and out of these, 8 were concordant with one of the reference recommendations. When considering the seven reference recommendations, they had a median of 12 related recommendations (range 3-17), a median of 7 PICO-matching recommendations (range 0-13), and a median of 1 concordant recommendation (range 0-4). CONCLUSION: Following a detailed methodological approach, we were able to explore the concordance between our reference recommendations and related recommendations from other guidelines. A relatively low percentage of recommendations was concordant.

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

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

Conflict of interest in the peer review process: A survey of peer review reports.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors address study funding and authors' conflicts of interests (COI). Also, we aimed to assess the extent to which peer reviewers and journals editors reported and commented on their own or each other's COI. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: We conducted a systematic survey of original studies published in open access peer reviewed journals that publish their peer review reports. Using REDCap, we collected data in duplicate and independently from journals' websites and articles' peer review reports. RESULTS: We included a sample of original studies (N = 144) and a second one of randomized clinical trials (N = 115) RCTs. In both samples, and for the majority of studies, reviewers reported absence of COI (70% and 66%), while substantive percentages of reviewers did not report on COI (28% and 30%) and only small percentages reported any COI (2% and 4%). For both samples, none of the editors whose names were publicly posted reported on COI. The percentages of peer reviewers commenting on the study funding, authors' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 2% in either one of the two samples. 25% and 7% of editors respectively in the two samples commented on study funding, while none commented on authors' COI, peer reviewers' COI, or their own COI. The percentages of authors commenting in their response letters on the study funding, peer reviewers' COI, editors' COI, or their own COI ranged between 0 and 3% in either one of the two samples. CONCLUSION: The percentages of peer reviewers and journals editors who addressed study funding and authors' COI and were extremely low. In addition, peer reviewers and journal editors rarely reported their own COI, or commented on their own or on each other's COI.