Updating Systematic Reviews: An International Survey

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) should be up to date to maintain their importance in informing healthcare policy and practice. However, little guidance is available about when and how to update SRs. Moreover, the updating policies and practices of organizations that commission or produce SRs are unclear. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: The objective was to describe the updating practices and policies of agencies that sponsor or conduct SRs. An Internet-based survey was administered to a purposive non-random sample of 195 healthcare organizations within the international SR community. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The completed response rate was 58% (n = 114) from across 26 countries with 70% (75/107) of participants identified as producers of SRs. Among responders, 79% (84/107) characterized the importance of updating as high or very-high and 57% (60/106) of organizations reported to have a formal policy for updating. However, only 29% (35/106) of organizations made reference to a written policy document. Several groups (62/105; 59%) reported updating practices as irregular, and over half (53/103) of organizational respondents estimated that more than 50% of their respective SRs were likely out of date. Authors of the original SR (42/106; 40%) were most often deemed responsible for ensuring SRs were current. Barriers to updating included resource constraints, reviewer motivation, lack of academic credit, and limited publishing formats. Most respondents (70/100; 70%) indicated that they supported centralization of updating efforts across institutions or agencies. Furthermore, 84% (83/99) of respondents indicated they favoured the development of a central registry of SRs, analogous to efforts within the clinical trials community. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Most organizations that sponsor and/or carry out SRs consider updating important. Despite this recognition, updating practices are not regular, and many organizations lack a formal written policy for updating SRs. This research marks the first baseline data available on updating from an organizational perspective

Mapping randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema - The GREAT database (The Global Resource of Eczema Trials: a collection of key data on randomized controlled trials of treatments for eczema from 2000 to 2010)

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Massive duplication of effort occurs when researchers all over the world undertake extensive searches for randomized controlled trials when preparing systematic reviews, when developing evidence-based guidelines and when applying for research funding for eczema treatments. Such duplication wastes valuable resources.</p> <p>Searching for randomized controlled trials of eczema is a laborious task involving scrutiny of thousands of individual references from diverse electronic databases in order to obtain a few papers of interest. Clinicians and patients who wish to find out more about a particular treatment are at risk of missing the relevant evidence if they are not trained in electronic bibliographic searching. Systematic reviews cannot be relied upon to comprehensively inform current optimal eczema treatments due to incomplete coverage and because many may be out of date.</p> <p>An international, publically available and comprehensive resource which brings together all randomized controlled trials on eczema treatment using a highly sensitive search has the potential to release more filtered knowledge about patient care to those who need it most and to significantly shorten the duration and costs of many clinical eczema research and guideline projects.</p> <p>Description</p> <p>The Global Resource of EczemA Trials brings together information on all randomized controlled trials of eczema treatments published from the beginning of 2000 up to the end of 2010 and will be updated every month.</p> <p>We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials in <it>The Cochrane Library </it>and the Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, AMED and CINHAL databases. We included 268 RCTs (24^thMarch 2011) covering over 70 different treatment interventions.</p> <p>The structure of the Global Resource of Eczema Trials allows the user as much, or as little, specificity when retrieving information on trials as they wish, in an easy to use format. For each trial, the database gives the citation for the published report and also provides enough information to enable a user to decide whether the trial is worth further scrutiny.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The Global Resource of Eczema Trials has been created to facilitate knowledge mobilization into healthcare and to reduce wastage of research time through unnecessary duplication. The collective time saved by research groups around the world can now be used to make strides in optimising the treatment of eczema, in order to further benefit people with eczema. The database can be accessed free of charge at <url>http://www.greatdatabase.org.uk</url></p

Smartphone and medical related App use among medical students and junior doctors in the United Kingdom (UK): a regional survey

Background: Smartphone usage has spread to many settings including that of healthcare with numerous potential and realised benefits. The ability to download custom-built software applications (apps) has created a new wealth of clinical resources available to healthcare staff, providing evidence-based decisional tools to reduce medical errors. Previous literature has examined how smartphones can be utilised by both medical student and doctor populations, to enhance educational and workplace activities, with the potential to improve overall patient care. However, this literature has not examined smartphone acceptance and patterns of medical app usage within the student and junior doctor populations. Methods: An online survey of medical student and foundation level junior doctor cohorts was undertaken within one United Kingdom healthcare region. Participants were asked whether they owned a Smartphone and if they used apps on their Smartphones to support their education and practice activities. Frequency of use and type of app used was also investigated. Open response questions explored participants’ views on apps that were desired or recommended and the characteristics of apps that were useful. Results: 257 medical students and 131 junior doctors responded, equating to a response rate of 15.0% and 21.8% respectively. 79.0% (n=203/257) of medical students and 74.8% (n=98/131) of junior doctors owned a smartphone, with 56.6% (n=115/203) of students and 68.4% (n=67/98) of doctors owning an iPhone. The majority of students and doctors owned 1–5 medical related applications, with very few owning more than 10, and iPhone owners significantly more likely to own apps (Chi sq, p<0.001). Both populations showed similar trends of app usage of several times a day. Over 24hours apps were used for between 1–30 minutes for students and 1–20 minutes for doctors, students used disease diagnosis/management and drug reference apps, with doctors favouring clinical score/calculator apps. Conclusions: This study found a high level of smartphone ownership and usage among medical students and junior doctors. Both groups endorse the development of more apps to support their education and clinical practice

Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports : A comparative study

BACKGROUND: As production of rapid reviews (RRs) increases in healthcare, knowing how to efficiently convey RR evidence to various end-users is important given they are often intended to directly inform decision-making. Little is known about how often RRs are produced in the published or unpublished domains, and what and how information is structured. OBJECTIVES: To compare and contrast report format and content features of journal-published (JP) and non-journal published (NJP) RRs. METHODS: JP RRs were identified from key databases, and NJP RRs were identified from a grey literature search of 148 RR producing organizations and were sampled proportionate to cluster size by organization and product type to match the JP RR group. We extracted and formally compared 'how' (i.e., visual arrangement) and 'what' information was presented. RESULTS: We identified 103 RRs (52 JP and 51 NJP) from 2016. A higher percentage of certain features were observed in JP RRs compared to NJP RRs (e.g., reporting authors; use of a traditional journal article structure; section headers including abstract, methods, discussion, conclusions, acknowledgments, conflict of interests, and author contributions; and use of figures (e.g., Study Flow Diagram) in the main document). For NJP RRs, a higher percentage of features were observed (e.g., use non-traditional report structures; bannering of executive summary sections and appendices; use of typographic cues; and including outcome tables). NJP RRs were more than double in length versus JP RRs. Including key messages was uncommon in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: This comparative study highlights differences between JP and NJP RRs. Both groups may benefit from better use of plain language, and more clear and concise design. Alternative innovative formats and end-user preferences for content and layout should be studied further with thought given to other considerations to ensure better packaging of RR results to facilitate uptake into policy and practice. STUDY REGISTRATION: The full protocol is available at: https://osf.io/29xvk/

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 [version 2; peer review: 2 approved, 2 approved with reservations]

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

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

How residents and interns utilise and perceive the personal digital assistant and UpToDate

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>In this era of evidence-based medicine, doctors are increasingly using information technology to acquire medical knowledge. This study evaluates how residents and interns utilise and perceive the personal digital assistant (PDA) and the online resource UpToDate.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a questionnaire survey of all residents and interns in a tertiary teaching hospital.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Out of 168 doctors, 134 (79.8%) responded to the questionnaire. Only 54 doctors (40.3%) owned a PDA. Although these owners perceived that the PDA was most useful for providing drug information, followed by medical references, scheduling and medical calculators, the majority of them did not actually have medical software applications downloaded on their PDAs. The greatest concerns highlighted for the PDA were the fear of loss and breakage, and the preference for working with desktop computers and paper. Meanwhile, only 76 doctors (56.7%) used UpToDate, even though the hospital had an institutional subscription for it. Although 93.4% of these users would recommend UpToDate to a colleague, only 57.9% stated that the use of UpToDate had led to a change in their management of patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Although UpToDate and various PDA software applications were deemed useful by some of the residents and interns in our study, both digital tools were under-utilised. More should be done to facilitate the use of medical software applications on PDAs, to promote awareness of tools for evidence-based medicine such as UpToDate, and to facilitate the application of evidence-based medicine in daily clinical practice.</p

Mobile Medical Education (MoMEd) - how mobile information resources contribute to learning for undergraduate clinical students - a mixed methods study

BACKGROUND: Mobile technology is increasingly being used by clinicians to access up-to-date information for patient care. These offer learning opportunities in the clinical setting for medical students but the underlying pedagogic theories are not clear. A conceptual framework is needed to understand these further. Our initial questions were how the medical students used the technology, how it enabled them to learn and what theoretical underpinning supported the learning. METHODS: 387 medical students were provided with a personal digital assistant (PDA) loaded with medical resources for the duration of their clinical studies. Outcomes were assessed by a mixed-methods triangulation approach using qualitative and quantitative analysis of surveys, focus groups and usage tracking data. RESULTS: Learning occurred in context with timely access to key facts and through consolidation of knowledge via repetition. The PDA was an important addition to the learning ecology rather than a replacement. Contextual factors impacted on use both positively and negatively. Barriers included concerns of interrupting the clinical interaction and of negative responses from teachers and patients. Students preferred a future involving smartphone platforms. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to describe the learning ecology and pedagogic basis behind the use of mobile learning technologies in a large cohort of undergraduate medical students in the clinical environment. We have developed a model for mobile learning in the clinical setting that shows how different theories contribute to its use taking into account positive and negative contextual factors.The lessons from this study are transferable internationally, to other health care professions and to the development of similar initiatives with newer technology such as smartphones or tablet computer

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) : Checklist and Explanation

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews