Social and economical evaluation of innovative alley coppice systems mixing timber trees with bioenergy wood crops in agroforestry systems

PosterAlley coppice (AC) is an innovative agroforestry system where high value timber trees in lines are intercropped with bioenergy short rotation coppice (SRC). AC potentially provides several production and environmental benefits, although so far these are poorly investigated. Thus, research on farmer interest in AC systems, and preliminary economic evaluations, have been made on the AgroCop European project (www.agrocop.com). A questionnaire was conducted with farmers in Italy to identify and assess their interests and concerns regarding AC systems. Farmers appeared to be familiar with managing forest plantations as species mixtures and the value of fuelwood. However, the value of the timber and biomass produced during the rotation appeared to be farmers’ main source of uncertainty, with no clear idea of what demand there would be for both wood products, and they assigned a higher rank to the importance of environmental benefits (biodiversity, landscape, soil fertility improvement). This indicated that there was a need to study the economic performance of the AC system developing two tools: a simplified economic calculator for stakeholders, that can estimate and compare net present value (NPV) of different AC systems, and a more complex model, adapting FarmSAFE. Biophysical data was generated using LERSAFE. Wood chips from the SRC component were found to have a low market value, and AC profitability depends mostly on the timber trees, with the essential need to optimize revenue from the valuable timber, especially by maximizing its quality. Therefore, the SRC component has an important role to play in increasing the quality of the valuable timber by improving timber tree form, reducing the costs of management operations and for giving a revenue during the growth of standard trees. AC could be an innovative option for timber and bioenergy production, integrating some of the advantages that are characteristic of agroforestry systems into mixed tree plantations

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same question: protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

Introduction An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (1) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (2) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency and comprehensiveness, and (3) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs. Methods and analysis We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called discordant reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors' Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors' assessment. Ethics and dissemination No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

This is the final version of the article. Available from BioMed Central via the DOI in this record.Background Overviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed. Methods Methods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus. Results Methodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews. Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified. Conclusions Overviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.The overview conducted by Pollock [19] was supported by a project grant from the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. The overview conducted by McClurg [21] was supported by a project grant by the Physiotherapy Research Foundation. The overview by Hunt [22] was supported as part of doctoral programme funding by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care South West Peninsula (PenCLAHRC). The overview conducted by Estcourt [20] was supported by an NIHR Cochrane Programme Grant for the Safe and Appropriate Use of Blood Components. The overview conducted by Brunton [23] was commissioned by the Department of Health as part of an ongoing programme of work on health policy research synthesis. Alex Pollock is employed by the Nursing, Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, which is supported by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government. Pauline Campbell is supported by the Chief Nurses Office of the Scottish Government

A methodological review to develop a list of bias items used to assess reviews incorporating network meta-analysis : protocol and rationale

INTRODUCTION Systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA; ie, multiple treatment comparisons, indirect comparisons) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The methodological review aims to develop a list of items relating to biases in reviews with NMA. Such a list will inform a new tool to assess the risk of bias in NMAs, and potentially other reporting or quality checklists for NMAs which are being updated. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will include articles that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, articles assessing the methodological quality of reviews with NMA, or papers presenting methods for NMAs. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and difficult to locate/unpublished literature. Once all items have been extracted, we will combine conceptually similar items, classifying them as referring to bias or to other aspects of quality (eg, reporting). When relevant, reporting items will be reworded into items related to bias in NMA review conclusions, and then reworded as signalling questions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION No ethics approval was required. We plan to publish the full study open access in a peer-reviewed journal, and disseminate the findings via social media (Twitter, Facebook and author affiliated websites). Patients, healthcare providers and policy-makers need the highest quality evidence to make decisions about which treatments should be used in healthcare practice. Being able to critically appraise the findings of systematic reviews that include NMA is central to informed decision-making in patient care

Knowledge user survey and Delphi process to inform development of a new risk of bias tool to assess systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (RoB NMA tool)

Background: Network meta-analysis (NMA) is increasingly used in guideline development and other aspects of evidence-based decision-making. We aimed to develop a risk of bias (RoB) tool to assess NMAs (RoB NMA tool). An international steering committee recommended that the RoB NMA tool to be used in combination with the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool (i.e. because it was designed to assess biases only) or other similar quality appraisal tools (eg, A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 [AMSTAR 2]) to assess quality of systematic reviews. The RoB NMA tool will assess NMA biases and limitations regarding how the analysis was planned, data were analysed and results were presented, including the way in which the evidence was assembled and interpreted. Objectives: Conduct (a) a Delphi process to determine expert opinion on an item's inclusion and (b) a knowledge user survey to widen its impact. Design: Cross-sectional survey and Delphi process. Methods: Delphi panellists were asked to rate whether items should be included. All agreed-upon item were included in a second round of the survey (defined as 70% agreement). We surveyed knowledge users' views and preferences about the importance, utility and willingness to use the RoB NMA tool to evaluate evidence in practice and in policymaking. We included 12 closed and 10 open-ended questions, and we followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks. Results: 22 items were entered into a Delphi survey of which 28 respondents completed round 1, and 22 completed round 2. Seven items did not reach consensus in round 2. A total of 298 knowledge users participated in the survey (14% respondent rate). 75% indicated that their organisation produced NMAs, and 78% showed high interest in the tool, especially if they had received adequate training (84%). Most knowledge users and Delphi panellists preferred a tool to assess both bias in individual NMA results and authors' conclusions. Response bias in our sample is a major limitation as knowledge users working in high-income countries were more represented. One of the limitations of the Delphi process is that it depends on the purposive selection of experts and their availability, thus limiting the variability in perspectives and scientific disciplines. Conclusions: This Delphi process and knowledge user survey informs the development of the RoB NMA tool

Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool)

INTRODUCTION: Network meta-analyses (NMAs) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide estimates of the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The aim of this study is to conduct a methodological review to compile a preliminary list of concepts related to bias in NMAs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We included papers that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, papers assessing the quality of NMAs, or method papers. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and unpublished literature (up to July 2020). We extracted items related to bias in NMAs. An item was excluded if it related to general systematic review quality or bias and was included in currently available tools such as ROBIS or AMSTAR 2. We reworded items, typically structured as questions, into concepts (i.e. general notions). RESULTS: One hundred eighty-one articles were assessed in full text and 58 were included. Of these articles, 12 were tools, checklists or journal standards; 13 were guidance documents for NMAs; 27 were studies related to bias or NMA methods; and 6 were papers assessing the quality of NMAs. These studies yielded 99 items of which the majority related to general systematic review quality and biases and were therefore excluded. The 22 items we included were reworded into concepts specific to bias in NMAs. CONCLUSIONS: A list of 22 concepts was included. This list is not intended to be used to assess biases in NMAs, but to inform the development of items to be included in our tool