Explore the vast range of titles available.

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.

Background Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Results Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Conclusions Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

Evolving publishing practices, including the shift from print to online publication and the increasing demand by authors and national funding agencies for open access models of publishing [1, 2], coupled with the long-standing academic mantra of ‘publish or perish’, have ensured a sustainable environment for an ever-increasing number of predatory journals to appear and also, unfortunately, flourish. Despite their comprehensive and rigorous review of those available, only one identified checklist fulfilled these criteria as recommended [3]. [...]we see the demise of predatory publishing, the immediate goal should be for readers, authors, and editors to be able to easily identify a predatory journal. Despite their independent development, across a diverse range of publication sources and disciplines (including for example nursing, emergency medicine, psychiatry), the majority of checklists directed the user to the same details for assessment of the periodical; with over 75% of the checklists including questions related to journal business operations, editorial and peer review processes and practices, and/or the manner of communication between the journal/publisher and the authors, editors and readers.

Background: Epidemiological research investigating the impact of exposure to plastics, and plastic-associated chemicals, on human health is critical, especially given exponentially increasing plastic production. In parallel with increasing production, academic researchhas also increased exponentially both in terms of the primary literature and ensuing systematic reviews with meta-analysis. However, there are few overviews that capture a broad range of chemical classes to present a state of play regarding impacts on humanhealth. Methods: We undertook an umbrella review to review the systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Given the complex composition of plastic and the large number of identified plastic-associated chemicals, it was not possible to capture all chemicals that may bepresent in, and migrate from, plastic materials. We therefore focussed on a defined set of key exposures related to plastics. These were microplastics, due to their ubiquity and potential for human exposure, and the polymers that form the matrix of consumer plastics. We also included plasticisers and flame retardants as the two classes of functional additive with the highest concentration ranges in plastic. In addition, we included bisphenols and perand polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) as two other major plastic-associated chemicals with significant known exposure through food contact materials. Epistemonikos and PubMed were searched for systematic reviews with meta-analyses, meta-analyses, and pooled analyses evaluating the association of plastic polymers, particles (microplastics) or any of the selected groups of high-volume plastic-associated chemicals above, measured directly in human biospecimens, with human health outcomes. Results: Fifty-two systematic reviews were included, with data contributing 759 metaanalyses. Most meta-analyses (78%) were from reviews of moderate methodological quality. Across all the publications retrieved, only a limited number of plastic-associated chemicals within each of the groups searched had been evaluated in relevant meta-analyses, and there were no meta-analyses evaluating polymers, nor microplastics. Synthesised estimates of the effects of plastic-associated chemical exposure were identified for the following health outcome categories in humans: birth, child and adult reproductive, endocrine, child neurodevelopment, nutritional, circulatory, respiratory, skin-related and cancers. Bisphenol A (BPA) is associated with decreased anoclitoral distance in infants, type 2 diabetes (T2D) in adults, insulin resistance in children and adults, polycystic ovary syndrome, obesity and hypertension in children and adults and cardiovascular disease(CVD); other bisphenols have not been evaluated. Phthalates, the only plasticisers identified, are associated with spontaneous pregnancy loss, decreased anogenital distance in boys, insulin resistance in children and adults, with additional associationsbetween certain phthalates and decreased birth weight, T2D in adults, precocious puberty in girls, reduced sperm quality, endometriosis, adverse cognitive development and intelligence quotient (IQ) loss, adverse fine motor and psychomotor development and elevated blood pressure in children and asthma in children and adults. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs) but not other flame retardants, and some PFAS were identified and are all associated with decreased birth weight. Ingeneral populations, PCBs are associated with T2D in adults and endometriosis, bronchitis in infants, CVD, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma (NHL) and breast cancer. In PCB-poisoned populations, exposure is associated with overall mortality, mortality from hepatic disease(men), CVD (men and women) and several cancers. PBDEs are adversely associated with children’s cognitive development and IQ loss. PBDEs and certain PFAS are associated with changes in thyroid function. PFAS exposure is associated with increased body massindex (BMI) and overweight in children, attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD) in girls and allergic rhinitis. Potential protective associations were found, namely abnormal pubertal timing in boys being less common with higher phthalate exposure, increasedhigh-density lipoprotein (HDL) with exposure to mono(2-ethyl-5-oxohexyl) phthalate (MEOHP) and reduced incidence of chronic lymphocytic lymphoma (a subtype of NHL) with PCB exposure. Conclusions: Exposure to plastic-associated chemicals is associated with adverse outcomes across a wide range of human health domains, and every plastic-associated chemical group is associated with at least one adverse health outcome. Large gapsremain for many plastic-associated chemicals. Recommendations: For research, we recommend that efforts are harmonised globally to pool resources and extend beyond the chemicals included in this umbrella review. Priorities for primary research, with ensuing systematic reviews, could include micro- and nanoplastics as well as emerging plastic-associated chemicals of concern such as bisphenol analogues and replacement plasticisers and flame retardants. With respect to chemical regulation, we propose that safety for plastic-associated chemicals in humans cannot be assumed at market entry. We therefore recommend that improved independent, systematic hazard testing for all plastic-associated chemicals is undertaken before market release of products. In addition because of the limitations of laboratory-based testing for predicting harm from plastic in humans, independent and systematic post-market bio-monitoring and epidemiological studies are essential to detect potential unforeseen harms.

This paper presents a discussion of the literature on animal-assisted interventions and describes limitations surrounding current methodological quality. Benefits to human physical, psychological and social health cannot be empirically confirmed due to the methodological limitations of the existing body of research, and comparisons cannot validly be made across different studies. Without a solid research base animal-assisted interventions will not receive recognition and acceptance as a credible alternative health care treatment. The paper draws on the work of four systematic reviews conducted over April–May 2009, with no date restrictions, focusing exclusively on the use of canine-assisted interventions for older people residing in long-term care. The reviews revealed a lack of good quality studies. Although the literature base has grown in volume since its inception, it predominantly consists of anecdotal accounts and reports. Experimental studies undertaken are often flawed in aspects of design, conduct and reporting. There are few qualitative studies available leading to the inability to draw definitive conclusions. It is clear that due to the complexities associated with these interventions not all weaknesses can be eliminated. However, there are basic methodological weaknesses that can be addressed in future studies in the area. Checklists for quantitative and qualitative research designs to guide future research are offered to help address methodological rigour.

OVERVIEWThis article is the second in a new series on the systematic review from the Joanna Briggs Institute, an international collaborative supporting evidence-based practice in nursing, medicine, and allied health fields. The purpose of the series is to show nurses how to conduct a systematic review—one step at a time. This article details the process of articulating a review question to guide the search for relevant studies and discusses how to define inclusion criteria for the study-selection phase of the review.

Stern talks about the safety and efficacy of the cataract surgery to people with age-related degeneration (AMD). There is no cure for AMD; treatment options include vitamin supplementation, intravitreal injections, laser surgery, and photodynamic therapy. Currently the only treatment strategy for cataracts is surgery involving removal of the lens. Although common practice, cataract surgery may affect the progression of AMD in patients with both conditions, and therefore may be inadvisable in those who already have visual impairment due to AMD. Trials that included participants needing cataract surgery for angle-closure glaucoma, lens subluxation, or clear lens extraction for refractive error were excluded. The primary outcome of interest was visual acuity; secondary outcomes included progression of AMD, vision-related quality of life, and adverse effects.

Evidence synthesis is critical in evidence-based healthcare and is a core program of JBI. JBI evidence synthesis is characterised by a pluralistic view of what constitutes evidence and is underpinned by a pragmatic ethos to facilitate the use of evidence to inform practice and policy. This second paper in this series provides a descriptive overview of the JBI evidence synthesis toolkit with reference to resources for 11 different types of reviews. Unique methodologies such as qualitative syntheses, mixed methods reviews, and scoping reviews are highlighted. Key features include standardised and collaborative processes for development of methodologies and a broad range of tailored resources to facilitate the conduct of a JBI evidence synthesis, including appraisal and data extraction tools, software to support the conduct of a systematic review and an intensive systematic review training program. JBI is one of the leading international protagonists for evidence synthesis, providing those who want to answer health-related questions with a toolkit of resources to synthesize the evidence.

Mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs) combine quantitative and qualitative evidence within a single review. Since the revision of the JBI methodology for MMSRs in 2020, there has been an increasing number of reviews published that claim to follow this approach. A preliminary examination of these indicated that authors frequently deviated from the methodology. This article outlines five common ‘pitfalls’ associated with undertaking MMSR and provides direction for future reviewers attempting MMSR. Forward citation tracking identified 17 reviews published since the revision of the JBI mixed methods methodological guidance. Methods used in these reviews were then examined against the JBI methodology to identify deviations. The issues identified related to the rationale for choosing the methodological approach, an incorrect synthesis and integration approach chosen to answer the review question/s posed, the exclusion of primary mixed methods studies in the review, the lack of detail regarding the process of data transformation, and a lack of ‘mixing’ of the quantitative and qualitative components. This exercise was undertaken to assist systematic reviewers considering conducting an MMSR and MMSR users to identify potential areas where authors tend to deviate from the methodological approach. Based on these findings a series of recommendations are provided. •Common pitfalls in conducting a mixed methods systematic review relate to the justification for undertaking a mixed methods approach to the systematic review, mismatch between the review questions and the synthesis/integration approach used, inadvertent or deliberate exclusion of mixed methods primary research in the review, lack of clarity about data transformation, and the lack of integration of the quantitative and qualitative components of the review.•The review questions inform which mixed methods review approach (i.e., integrated or segregated) should be followed in the conduct of the systematic review.•Regardless of the approach taken, the quantitative and qualitative components of the review should be integrated appropriately.

To assess the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to fecal occult blood testing.To assess the effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening using flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to fecal occult blood testing.