How to properly use the PRISMA Statement

EditorialN

Assessing the quality of health research from an Indigenous perspective: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander quality appraisal tool

2020 The Author(s). Background: The lack of attention to Indigenous epistemologies and, more broadly, Indigenous values in primary research, is mirrored in the standardised critical appraisal tools used to guide evidence-based practice and systematic reviews and meta-syntheses. These critical appraisal tools offer no guidance on how validity or contextual relevance should be assessed for Indigenous populations and cultural contexts. Failure to tailor the research questions, design, analysis, dissemination and knowledge translation to capture understandings that are specific to Indigenous peoples results in research of limited acceptability and benefit and potentially harms Indigenous peoples. A specific Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool is needed to address this gap. Method: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Quality Appraisal Tool (QAT) was developed using a modified Nominal Group and Delphi Techniques and the tool\u27s validity, reliability, and feasibility were assessed over three stages of independent piloting. National and international research guidelines were used as points of reference. Piloting of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and non-Indigenous experts led to refinement of the tool. Results: The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT consists of 14 questions that assess the quality of health research from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander perspective. The questions encompass setting appropriate research questions; community engagement and consultation; research leadership and governance; community protocols; intellectual and cultural property rights; the collection and management of research material; Indigenous research paradigms; a strength-based approach to research; the translation of findings into policy and practice; benefits to participants and communities involved; and capacity strengthening and two-way learning. Outcomes from the assessment of the tool\u27s validity, reliability, and feasibility were overall positive. Conclusion: This is the first tool to appraise research quality from the perspective of Indigenous peoples. Through the uptake of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander QAT we hope to improve the quality and transparency of research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, with the potential for greater improvements in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health and wellbeing

Assessing the risk of bias of quantitative analytical studies: introducing the vision for critical appraisal within JBI systematic reviews

A key step in the systematic review process is the assessment of the methodological quality (or risk of bias) of the included studies. At JBI, we have developed several tools to assist with this evaluation. As evidence synthesis methods continue to evolve, it has been necessary to revise and reflect on JBI’s current approach to critical appraisal and to plan a strategy for the future. In this first paper of a series focusing on risk of bias assessment, we introduce our vision for risk of bias assessment for JBI. In future papers in this series, the methodological approach taken for this revision process will be discussed, along with the revised tools and guidance for using these tools

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.</p

Pharmacology of the CIC-1 chloride channel.

Clinical studies reported side effects of muscular spasms and muscle stiffness following the administration of clofibrate, a drug once used to treat hyperlipidaemia in patients. Experiments with clofibrate and its analogues in animal models showed it produced these myotonic symptoms in muscle by reducing the chloride conductance of the muscle membrane. The effects of 2-(4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid, an analogue of clofibric acid, was assessed on the rat ClC-1 channel (rClC-1). Racemic 2-(4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid shifted the voltage dependence of rClC-1 activation to more depolarising potentials, a mechanism accounting for myotonic symptoms previously reported. Experiments with resolved enantiomers revealed that the effects recorded were due exclusively to S-(–) 2-(4- chlorophenoxy)propionic acid. The R-(+) enantiomer was ineffective at the concentrations tested. Further experiments with the compound at differing Cl- concentrations in the extracellular solution suggested that S-(–) 2-(4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid altered the gating of ClC-1 by decreasing the affinity of the binding site where Cl- normally acts to ‘gate’ the channel. Similarities in the effects reported for most dominant mutations in the CLCN1 gene that lead to myotonia congenita and 2-(4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid prompted experiments that introduced these point mutations in the human ClC-1 (hClC-1) gene to compare their mode of action to that of the drug. These mutations, F307S and A313T, predominantly altered the slow, or common, gate of the channel. Conversely, the effect of 2-(4-chlorophenoxy)propionic acid was predominantly on the fast gating process of hClC-1. A macroscopically similar effect therefore, can be produced by two different modes of action. Results suggested that both drug and mutations exert their action by affecting the transition of the channel from its closed to open state subsequent to Cl- binding. Investigation of the interaction between rClC-1 gating and a further 25 compounds structurally related to clofibric acid identified a number of compounds effective at shifting the open probability of fast gating to depolarising potentials. Fewer were identified that influence slow gating. Some compounds affected both gating processes, however, none were identified which influenced slow gating alone. Ability to displace the voltage dependent activation of the fast gate appeared to depend largely on the lipophilicity of the molecules tested, indicating the importance of hydrophobic interactions between drug and channel protein.Thesis (Ph.D.) -- University of Adelaide, School of Molecular and Biomedical Science, 200

Methodology for JBI umbrella reviews

Every year the Joanna Briggs Institute publishes a Reviewers\u27 Manual, which is designed to support individuals who are undertaking systematic reviews following JBI methodologies and methods. This chapter represents the latest work and methodological development of the Institute that was not ready for inclusion in the 2014 edition of the Reviewers\u27 Manual that was published in January. As with the Reviewers\u27 Manual we recommend that this chapter be utilised in conjunction with the JBI SUMARI User Guide. Please note that this chapter makes reference to forthcoming analytical modules that do not currently exist in the JBI SUMARI software suite, but should be available in 2015. For advice on how to best apply the current software to accommodate this new methodology please contact the Synthesis Science Unit of the Institute at [email protected]

Systematic review to inform prevention and management of chronic disease for Indigenous Australians: overview and priorities

Objective: To describe the main characteristics of systematic reviews addressing questions of chronic disease and related risk factors for Indigenous Australians. Methods: We searched databases for systematic reviews meeting inclusion criteria. Two reviewers assessed quality and extracted characteristics using pre‐defined tools. Results: We identified 14 systematic reviews. Seven synthesised evidence about health intervention effectiveness; four addressed chronic disease or risk factor prevalence; and six conducted critical appraisal as per current best practice. Only three reported steps to align the review with standards for ethical research with Indigenous Australians and/or capture Indigenous‐specific knowledge. Most called for more high‐quality research. Conclusion: Systematic review is an under‐utilised method for gathering evidence to inform chronic disease prevention and management for Indigenous Australians. Relevance of future systematic reviews could be improved by: 1) aligning questions with community priorities as well as decision maker needs; 2) involvement of, and leadership by, Indigenous researchers with relevant cultural and contextual knowledge; iii) use of critical appraisal tools that include traditional risk of bias assessment criteria and criteria that reflect Indigenous standards of appropriate research. Implications: Systematic review method guidance, tools and reporting standards are required to ensure alignment with ethical obligations and promote rigor and relevance

What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences

Abstract Background Systematic reviews have been considered as the pillar on which evidence-based healthcare rests. Systematic review methodology has evolved and been modified over the years to accommodate the range of questions that may arise in the health and medical sciences. This paper explores a concept still rarely considered by novice authors and in the literature: determining the type of systematic review to undertake based on a research question or priority. Results Within the framework of the evidence-based healthcare paradigm, defining the question and type of systematic review to conduct is a pivotal first step that will guide the rest of the process and has the potential to impact on other aspects of the evidence-based healthcare cycle (evidence generation, transfer and implementation). It is something that novice reviewers (and others not familiar with the range of review types available) need to take account of but frequently overlook. Our aim is to provide a typology of review types and describe key elements that need to be addressed during question development for each type. Conclusions In this paper a typology is proposed of various systematic review methodologies. The review types are defined and situated with regard to establishing corresponding questions and inclusion criteria. The ultimate objective is to provide clarified guidance for both novice and experienced reviewers and a unified typology with respect to review types