Explore the vast range of titles available.

To examine and compare preferences of knowledge users for two different formats of summarizing results from systematic reviews: infographics and critical appraisals. Cross-sectional. Annual members' meeting of a Network of Centres of Excellence in Knowledge Mobilization called TREKK (Translating Emergency Knowledge for Kids). TREKK is a national network of researchers, clinicians, health consumers, and relevant organizations with the goal of mobilizing knowledge to improve emergency care for children. Members of the TREKK Network attending the annual meeting in October 2013. Overall preference for infographic vs. critical appraisal format. Members' rating of each format on a 10-point Likert scale for clarity, comprehensibility, and aesthetic appeal. Members' impressions of the appropriateness of the two formats for their professional role and for other audiences. Among 64 attendees, 58 members provided feedback (91%). Overall, their preferred format was divided with 24/47 (51%) preferring the infographic to the critical appraisal. Preference varied by professional role, with 15/22 (68%) of physicians preferring the critical appraisal and 8/12 (67%) of nurses preferring the infographic. The critical appraisal was rated higher for clarity (mean 7.8 vs. 7.0; p = 0.03), while the infographic was rated higher for aesthetic appeal (mean 7.2 vs. 5.0; p<0.001). There was no difference between formats for comprehensibility (mean 7.6 critical appraisal vs. 7.1 infographic; p = 0.09). Respondents indicated the infographic would be most useful for patients and their caregivers, while the critical appraisal would be most useful for their professional roles. Infographics are considered more aesthetically appealing for summarizing evidence; however, critical appraisal formats are considered clearer and more comprehensible. Our findings show differences in terms of audience-specific preferences for presentation of research results. This study supports other research indicating that tools for knowledge dissemination and translation need to be targeted to specific end users' preferences and needs.

Background Machine learning tools can expedite systematic review (SR) processes by semi-automating citation screening. Abstrackr semi-automates citation screening by predicting relevant records. We evaluated its performance for four screening projects. Methods We used a convenience sample of screening projects completed at the Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Edmonton, Canada: three SRs and one descriptive analysis for which we had used SR screening methods. The projects were heterogeneous with respect to search yield (median 9328; range 5243 to 47,385 records; interquartile range (IQR) 15,688 records), topic (Antipsychotics, Bronchiolitis, Diabetes, Child Health SRs), and screening complexity. We uploaded the records to Abstrackr and screened until it made predictions about the relevance of the remaining records. Across three trials for each project, we compared the predictions to human reviewer decisions and calculated the sensitivity, specificity, precision, false negative rate, proportion missed, and workload savings. Results Abstrackr’s sensitivity was > 0.75 for all projects and the mean specificity ranged from 0.69 to 0.90 with the exception of Child Health SRs, for which it was 0.19. The precision (proportion of records correctly predicted as relevant) varied by screening task (median 26.6%; range 14.8 to 64.7%; IQR 29.7%). The median false negative rate (proportion of records incorrectly predicted as irrelevant) was 12.6% (range 3.5 to 21.2%; IQR 12.3%). The workload savings were often large (median 67.2%, range 9.5 to 88.4%; IQR 23.9%). The proportion missed (proportion of records predicted as irrelevant that were included in the final report, out of the total number predicted as irrelevant) was 0.1% for all SRs and 6.4% for the descriptive analysis. This equated to 4.2% (range 0 to 12.2%; IQR 7.8%) of the records in the final reports. Conclusions Abstrackr’s reliability and the workload savings varied by screening task. Workload savings came at the expense of potentially missing relevant records. How this might affect the results and conclusions of SRs needs to be evaluated. Studies evaluating Abstrackr as the second reviewer in a pair would be of interest to determine if concerns for reliability would diminish. Further evaluations of Abstrackr’s performance and usability will inform its refinement and practical utility.

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are an important source of information about healthcare interventions. A key component of a well-conducted SR is a comprehensive literature search. There is limited evidence on the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies, and dissertations and their impact on results of meta-analyses. Methods Our sample included SRs from three Cochrane Review Groups: Acute Respiratory Infections (ARI), Infectious Diseases (ID), Developmental Psychosocial and Learning Problems (DPLP) ( n  = 129). Outcomes included: 1) proportion of reviews that searched for and included each study type; 2) proportion of relevant studies represented by each study type; and 3) impact on results and conclusions of the primary meta-analysis for each study type. Results Most SRs searched for non-English studies; however, these were included in only 12% of reviews and represented less than 5% of included studies. There was a change in results in only four reviews (total sample = 129); in two cases the change did not have an impact on the statistical or clinical significance of results. Most SRs searched for unpublished studies but the majority did not include these (only 6%) and they represented 2% of included studies. In most cases the impact of including unpublished studies was small; a substantial impact was observed in one case that relied solely on unpublished data. Few reviews in ARI (9%) and ID (3%) searched for dissertations compared to 65% in DPLP. Overall, dissertations were included in only nine SRs and represented less than 2% of included studies. In the majority of cases the change in results was negligible or small; in the case where a large change was noted, the estimate was more conservative without dissertations. Conclusions The majority of SRs searched for non-English and unpublished studies; however, these represented a small proportion of included studies and rarely impacted the results and conclusions of the review. Inclusion of these study types may have an impact in situations where there are few relevant studies, or where there are questionable vested interests in the published literature. We found substantial variation in whether SRs searched for dissertations; in most reviews that included dissertations, these had little impact on results.

Background Overviews of reviews (overviews) provide an invaluable resource for healthcare decision-making by combining large volumes of systematic review (SR) data into a single synthesis. The production of high-quality overviews hinges on the availability of practical evidence-based guidance for conduct and reporting. Objectives Within the broad purpose of informing the development of a reporting guideline for overviews, we aimed to provide an up-to-date map of existing guidance related to the conduct of overviews, and to identify common challenges that authors face when undertaking overviews. Methods We updated a scoping review published in 2016 using the search methods that had produced the highest yield: ongoing reference tracking (2014 to March 2020 in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar), hand-searching conference proceedings and websites, and contacting authors of published overviews. Using a qualitative meta-summary approach, one reviewer extracted, organized, and summarized the guidance and challenges presented within the included documents. A second reviewer verified the data and synthesis. Results We located 28 new guidance documents, for a total of 77 documents produced by 34 research groups. The new guidance helps to resolve some earlier identified challenges in the production of overviews. Important developments include strengthened guidance on handling primary study overlap at the study selection and analysis stages. Despite marked progress, several areas continue to be hampered by inconsistent or lacking guidance. There is ongoing debate about whether, when, and how supplemental primary studies should be included in overviews. Guidance remains scant on how to extract and use appraisals of quality of the primary studies within the included SRs and how to adapt GRADE methodology to overviews. The challenges that overview authors face are often related to the above-described steps in the process where evidence-based guidance is lacking or conflicting. Conclusion The rising popularity of overviews has been accompanied by a steady accumulation of new, and sometimes conflicting, guidance. While recent guidance has helped to address some of the challenges that overview authors face, areas of uncertainty remain. Practical tools supported by empirical evidence are needed to assist authors with the many methodological decision points that are encountered in the production of overviews.

Objective To conduct a systematic review of the association between chorioamnionitis (CA) and bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD) in preterm infants. Methods The authors searched Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Science Citation Index and PubMed, reviewed reference lists and contacted the primary authors of relevant studies. Studies were included if they had a comparison group, examined preterm or low birthweight infants, and provided primary data. Two reviewers independently screened the search results, applied inclusion criteria and assessed methodological quality. One reviewer extracted data and a second reviewer checked data extraction. Studies were combined with an OR using a random effects model. Meta-regression was used to explore potential confounders. Results 3587 studies were identified; 59 studies (15 295 patients) were included. The pooled unadjusted OR showed that CA was significantly associated with BPD (OR 1.89, 95% CI 1.56 to 2.3). Heterogeneity was substantial (I2=66.2%) and may be partially explained by the type of CA. Infants exposed to CA were significantly younger and lighter at birth. The pooled adjusted OR was 1.58 (95% CI 1.11 to 2.24); heterogeneity was substantial (I2=65.1%) which may be due to different variables being controlled in each study. There was strong evidence of publication bias which suggests potential overestimation of the measure of association between CA and BPD. Conclusions Unadjusted and adjusted analyses showed that CA was significantly associated with BPD; however, the adjusted results were more conservative in the magnitude of association. The authors found strong evidence of publication bias. Despite a large body of evidence, CA cannot be definitively considered a risk factor for BPD.

To assess inter-rater reliability and validity of the Newcastle Ottawa Scale (NOS) used for methodological quality assessment of cohort studies included in systematic reviews. Two reviewers independently applied the NOS to 131 cohort studies included in eight meta-analyses. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using kappa (κ) statistics. To assess validity, within each meta-analysis, we generated a ratio of pooled estimates for each quality domain. Using a random-effects model, the ratios of odds ratios for each meta-analysis were combined to give an overall estimate of differences in effect estimates. Inter-rater reliability varied from substantial for length of follow-up (κ = 0.68, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.47, 0.89) to poor for selection of the nonexposed cohort and demonstration that the outcome was not present at the outset of the study (κ = −0.03, 95% CI = −0.06, 0.00; κ = −0.06, 95% CI = −0.20, 0.07). Reliability for overall score was fair (κ = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.10, 0.47). In general, reviewers found the tool difficult to use and the decision rules vague even with additional information provided as part of this study. We found no association between individual items or overall score and effect estimates. Variable agreement and lack of evidence that the NOS can identify studies with biased results underscore the need for revisions and more detailed guidance for systematic reviewers using the NOS.

Background Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. It is recommended that authors assess and report the methodological quality of SRs in overviews—for example, using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). Currently, there is variation in whether and how overview authors assess and report SR quality, and limited guidance is available. Our objectives were to: examine methodological considerations involved in using AMSTAR to assess the quality of Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs in overviews of healthcare interventions; identify challenges (and develop potential decision rules) when using AMSTAR in overviews; and examine the potential impact of considering methodological quality when making inclusion decisions in overviews. Methods We selected seven overviews of healthcare interventions and included all SRs meeting each overview’s inclusion criteria. For each SR, two reviewers independently conducted AMSTAR assessments with consensus and discussed challenges encountered. We also examined the correlation between AMSTAR assessments and SR results/conclusions. Results Ninety-five SRs were included (30 Cochrane, 65 non-Cochrane). Mean AMSTAR assessments (9.6/11 vs. 5.5/11; p  < 0.001) and inter-rater reliability (AC1 statistic: 0.84 vs. 0.69; “almost perfect” vs. “substantial” using the Landis & Koch criteria) were higher for Cochrane compared to non-Cochrane SRs. Four challenges were identified when applying AMSTAR in overviews: the scope of the SRs and overviews often differed; SRs examining similar topics sometimes made different methodological decisions; reporting of non-Cochrane SRs was sometimes poor; and some non-Cochrane SRs included other SRs as well as primary studies. Decision rules were developed to address each challenge. We found no evidence that AMSTAR assessments were correlated with SR results/conclusions. Conclusions Results indicate that the AMSTAR tool can be used successfully in overviews that include Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, though decision rules may be useful to circumvent common challenges. Findings support existing recommendations that quality assessments of SRs in overviews be conducted independently, in duplicate, with a process for consensus. Results also suggest that using methodological quality to guide inclusion decisions (e.g., to exclude poorly conducted and reported SRs) may not introduce bias into the overview process.

Background Overviews of reviews (i.e., overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for healthcare decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there are currently no systematically developed reporting guidelines for overviews. This is problematic because the reporting of published overviews varies considerably and is often substandard. Our objective is to use explicit, systematic, and transparent methods to develop an evidence-based and agreement-based reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (PRIOR, Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews). Methods We will develop the PRIOR reporting guideline in four stages, using established methods for developing reporting guidelines in health research. First, we will establish an international and multidisciplinary expert advisory board that will oversee the conduct of the project and provide methodological support. Second, we will use the results of comprehensive literature reviews to develop a list of prospective checklist items for the reporting guideline. Third, we will use a modified Delphi exercise to achieve a high level of expert agreement on the list of items to be included in the PRIOR reporting guideline. We will identify and recruit a group of up to 100 international experts who will provide input into the guideline in three Delphi rounds: the first two rounds will occur via online survey, and the third round will occur during a smaller (8 to 10 participants) in-person meeting that will use a nominal group technique. Fourth, we will produce and publish the PRIOR reporting guideline. Discussion A systematically developed reporting guideline for overviews could help to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of overviews. This, in turn, could help maximize the value and impact of overviews by allowing more efficient interpretation and use of their research findings.

Overviews of systematic reviews compile data from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) and are a new method of evidence synthesis. To describe the methodological approaches in overviews of interventions. Descriptive study. We searched 4 databases from 2000 to July 2011; we handsearched Evidence-based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. We defined an overview as a study that: stated a clear objective; examined an intervention; used explicit methods to identify SRs; collected and synthesized outcome data from the SRs; and intended to include only SRs. We did not restrict inclusion by population characteristics (e.g., adult or children only). Two researchers independently screened studies and applied eligibility criteria. One researcher extracted data with verification by a second. We conducted a descriptive analysis. From 2,245 citations, 75 overviews were included. The number of overviews increased from 1 in 2000 to 14 in 2010. The interventions were pharmacological (n = 20, 26.7%), non-pharmacological (n = 26, 34.7%), or both (n = 29, 38.7%). Inclusion criteria were clearly stated in 65 overviews. Thirty-three (44%) overviews searched at least 2 databases. The majority reported the years and databases searched (n = 46, 61%), and provided key words (n = 58, 77%). Thirty-nine (52%) overviews included Cochrane SRs only. Two reviewers independently screened and completed full text review in 29 overviews (39%). Methods of data extraction were reported in 45 (60%). Information on quality of individual studies was extracted from the original SRs in 27 (36%) overviews. Quality assessment of the SRs was performed in 28 (37%) overviews; at least 9 different tools were used. Quality of the body of evidence was assessed in 13 (17%) overviews. Most overviews provided a narrative or descriptive analysis of the included SRs. One overview conducted indirect analyses and the other conducted mixed treatment comparisons. Publication bias was discussed in 18 (24%) overviews. This study shows considerable variation in the methods used for overviews. There is a need for methodological rigor and consistency in overviews, as well as empirical evidence to support the methods employed.

Background: Providing parents with resources that aid in the identification and management of acute childhood illnesses helps those parents feel better equipped to assess their children’s health and significantly changes parental health-seeking behaviors. Some of these resources are limited by accessibility and scalability. Remote locations and staffing limitations create challenges for parents aiming to access their child’s health information. Mobile health apps offer a scalable, accessible solution for improving health literacy by enabling access to health information through mobile devices. Objective: The aim of our study is to create an inventory of acute childhood illness apps that are available to North American parents and caregivers, assess their quality, and identify the areas in which future apps can be improved. Methods: We conducted an environmental scan to identify and summarize app information for parents and digital health researchers. The Google and Apple app marketplaces were used as search platforms. We built a list of search terms and searched the platforms for apps targeted at parents and related to acute pediatric illnesses in the United States and Canada. We assessed apps meeting the inclusion criteria using the Mobile App Rating Scale (MARS), a validated tool for assessing the quality of health apps. The MARS examines apps on 5 subscales: engagement, functionality, aesthetics, information quality, and subjective quality. Data were analyzed by MARS subscale averages and individual item scores. Results: Overall, 650 unique apps were screened, and 53 (8.2%) were included. On a scale of 1-5, apps had an average engagement score of 2.82/5 (SD 0.86), functionality score of 3.98/5 (SD 0.72), aesthetics score of 3.09/5 (SD 0.87), information quality score of 2.73/5 (SD 1.32), and subjective quality score of 2.20/5 (SD 0.79). On the same scale of 1-5, app scores ranged from 2.2/5 to 4.5/5 (mean 3.2, SD 0.6). The top 3 MARS-scored apps were Baby and Child First Aid (4.5/5), Ada (4.5/5), and HANDi Paediatric (4.2/5). Taken together, the top 3 apps covered topics of emergency pediatric first aid, identification of (and appropriate response to) common childhood illnesses, a means of checking symptoms, and a means of responding to emergency situations. There was a lack of Canadian-based app content available to parents in both marketplaces; this space was filled with content originating primarily in the United Kingdom and the United States. In addition, published evidence of the impact of the included apps was poor: of 53 apps, only 5 (9%) had an evidence base showing that the app had been trialed for usability or efficacy. Conclusions: There is a need for evidence-based acute childhood illness apps of Canadian origin. This environmental scan offers a comprehensive picture of the health app landscape by examining trends in acute childhood illness apps that are readily available to parents and by identifying gaps in app design.