Andrea C Tricco1, Wasifa Zarin2, Marco Ghassemi2, Vera Nincic2, Erin Lillie2, Matthew J Page3, Larissa Shamseer4, Jesmin Antony2, Patricia Rios2, Jeremiah Hwee5, Areti Angeliki Veroniki2, David Moher4, Lisa Hartling6, Ba' Pham7, Sharon E Straus8. 1. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. Electronic address: triccoa@smh.ca. 2. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada. 3. School of Public Health & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, Victoria 3004, Australia; School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Canynge Hall, 39 Whatley Road, Bristol BS8 2PS, UK. 4. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, 501 Smyth Road, PO BOX 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada. 5. Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. 6. School of Public Health, University of Alberta, 116 St & 85 Ave, Edmonton, Alberta T6G 2R3, Canada. 7. Toronto Health Economics and Technology Assessment, University of Toronto, 27 Kings College Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada. 8. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 Kings College Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to characterize methodological conduct, reporting, and quality of five knowledge synthesis (KS) approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis of a convenience sample of five published databases of KS approaches: overview of reviews (n = 74), scoping reviews (n = 494), rapid reviews (n = 84), systematic reviews (n = 300), and network meta-analyses (NMAs; n = 456). Data in the five published databases were abstracted by two reviewers independently, any missing data for this retrospective analysis were abstracted by one experienced reviewer. Methods were appraised using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Reporting the use of a protocol ranged from 4% for rapid reviews to 32% for systematic reviews. The use of two reviewers for citation and full-text screening ranged from 20% for scoping reviews to 60% for NMAs. Data abstraction was performed in duplicate for 11% of rapid reviews and 54% of NMAs, and for risk of bias appraisal, this ranged from 6% for scoping reviews to 41% for NMAs. NMAs had the highest median percentage of maximum obtainable AMSTAR score (64%; Q1-Q3:45-73%), while scoping reviews had the lowest (25%; Q1-Q3:13-38%). CONCLUSION: NMAs consistently scored the highest on the AMSTAR tool likely because the purpose is to estimate treatment effects statistically. Scoping reviews scored the lowest (even after adjusting the score for not relevant items) likely because the purpose is to characterize the literature.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to characterize methodological conduct, reporting, and quality of five knowledge synthesis (KS) approaches. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Retrospective analysis of a convenience sample of five published databases of KS approaches: overview of reviews (n = 74), scoping reviews (n = 494), rapid reviews (n = 84), systematic reviews (n = 300), and network meta-analyses (NMAs; n = 456). Data in the five published databases were abstracted by two reviewers independently, any missing data for this retrospective analysis were abstracted by one experienced reviewer. Methods were appraised using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Reporting the use of a protocol ranged from 4% for rapid reviews to 32% for systematic reviews. The use of two reviewers for citation and full-text screening ranged from 20% for scoping reviews to 60% for NMAs. Data abstraction was performed in duplicate for 11% of rapid reviews and 54% of NMAs, and for risk of bias appraisal, this ranged from 6% for scoping reviews to 41% for NMAs. NMAs had the highest median percentage of maximum obtainable AMSTAR score (64%; Q1-Q3:45-73%), while scoping reviews had the lowest (25%; Q1-Q3:13-38%). CONCLUSION: NMAs consistently scored the highest on the AMSTAR tool likely because the purpose is to estimate treatment effects statistically. Scoping reviews scored the lowest (even after adjusting the score for not relevant items) likely because the purpose is to characterize the literature.
Authors: Danielle Pollock; Ellen L Davies; Micah D J Peters; Andrea C Tricco; Lyndsay Alexander; Patricia McInerney; Christina M Godfrey; Hanan Khalil; Zachary Munn Journal: J Adv Nurs Date: 2021-02-04 Impact factor: 3.187
Authors: Micah D J Peters; Casey Marnie; Heather Colquhoun; Chantelle M Garritty; Susanne Hempel; Tanya Horsley; Etienne V Langlois; Erin Lillie; Kelly K O'Brien; Ӧzge Tunçalp; Michael G Wilson; Wasifa Zarin; Andrea C Tricco Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-10-08