Search

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are invaluable evidence syntheses, widely used in biomedicine and other scientific areas. Tremendous resources are being spent on the production and updating of SRs. There is a continuous need to automatize the process and use the workforce and resources to make it faster and more efficient. Methods Information gathered by previous EVBRES research was used to construct a questionnaire for round 1 which was partly quantitative, partly qualitative. Fifty five experienced SR authors were invited to participate in a Delphi study (DS) designed to identify the most promising areas and methods to improve the efficient production and updating of SRs. Topic questions focused on which areas of SRs are most time/effort/resource intensive and should be prioritized in further research. Data were analysed using NVivo 12 plus, Microsoft Excel 2013 and SPSS. Thematic analysis findings were used on the topics on which agreement was not reached in round 1 in order to prepare the questionnaire for round 2. Results Sixty percent (33/55) of the invited participants completed round 1; 44% (24/55) completed round 2. Participants reported average of 13.3 years of experience in conducting SRs (SD 6.8). More than two thirds of the respondents agreed/strongly agreed the following topics should be prioritized: extracting data, literature searching, screening abstracts, obtaining and screening full texts, updating SRs, finding previous SRs, translating non-English studies, synthesizing data, project management, writing the protocol, constructing the search strategy and critically appraising. Participants have not considered following areas as priority: snowballing, GRADE-ing, writing SR, deduplication, formulating SR question, performing meta-analysis. Conclusions Data extraction was prioritized by the majority of participants as an area that needs more research/methods development. Quality of available language translating tools has dramatically increased over the years (Google translate, DeepL). The promising new tool for snowballing emerged (Citation Chaser). Automation cannot substitute human judgement where complex decisions are needed (GRADE-ing). Trial registration Study protocol was registered at https://osf.io/bp2hu/.

Die osterreichische Vorsorgeuntersuchung (VU) wurde 1974 als Kassenleistung eingefuhrt und im Jahr 2005 zum letzten Mal neu gestaltet. Ziel dieser Arbeit war daher, die wissenschaftlichen Grundlagen der VU unter Verwendung des GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Ansatzes zu aktualisieren. Die wissenschaftliche Evidenz fur Untersuchungen und Beratungen, die derzeit Teil der VU sind, wurde aktualisiert und um weitere potentiell relevante Untersuchungen erweitert. Vertreter/innen der Bevolkerung diskutierten in drei Fokusgruppen ihre Erwartungen an die VU. In einem strukturierten Prozess wurden von einem Beratungsgremium evidenzbasierte Empfehlungen erarbeitet, welche Untersuchungen/Beratungen Teil der VU sein sollen. Das Beratungsgremium formulierte insgesamt 26 Empfehlungen zu 20 Zielerkrankungen oder Risikofaktoren. Es empfahl erstmals Screening auf abdominales Aortenaneurysma, osteoporotisches Frakturrisiko und chronische Nierenerkrankungen. Screening auf asymptomatische Bakteriurie, Screening auf Eisen‑/Vitamin B12-Mangelanamie und die Identifizierung von Personen mit erhohtem Risiko fur ein Glaukom sollen zukunftig auf Basis der Erkenntnisse nicht mehr in der VU enthalten sein.

Background Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice. Methods We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere. Results Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read. Conclusions Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored. Protocol availability The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7

Background Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews—they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. Methods We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. Results All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). Conclusion Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.

Background Periodontal diseases are responsible for a vast burden of disease globally and are associated with other severe illnesses such as cardiovascular diseases or diabetes. Tests for early diagnosis of periodontal diseases and effective treatments are available. The effectiveness of screening for periodontal diseases to detect periodontal diseases at an early stage during periodic health examinations at primary care facilities, however, is unclear. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the benefits and risks of screening for periodontal diseases in adults during the periodic health examinations. Methods We will use two methodological approaches: (1) a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of screening for periodontal diseases during periodic health examinations and (2) an overview of systematic reviews to determine the effectiveness of treatment approaches for early periodontal disease. We will search electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com, the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, PubMed (non-MEDLINE content)) for published studies as well as sources for grey literature to detect unpublished studies. Two authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts using pre-defined eligibility criteria, select studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias of included studies or reviews. In general, we will conduct a systematic narrative synthesis. Criteria for conducting meta-analyses were defined a priori. Our primary outcomes of interest are tooth loss, loosening of teeth, and depletion of bone tissue. Secondary outcomes are gingivitis/gum inflammation, pocket depths, dental hygiene, lifestyle modifications (e.g., smoking, alcohol, nutrition), and toothache. We consulted a panel of experts and patient representatives to prioritize these outcomes. Two investigators will assess independently the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach. Discussion We anticipate that our review will highlight the gaps in the available evidence about the effectiveness of screening for periodontal diseases during periodic health examinations. Implications for screening programs may be based on linked evidence about the validity of available screening tools and the effectiveness of early treatment. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017081150 Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-0977-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Systematic reviews offer the most reliable and valid support for health policy decision-making, patient information, and guideline development. However, they are labor intensive and frequently take longer than 1 year to complete. Consequently, they often do not meet the needs of those who need to make decisions quickly. Rapid reviews have therefore become a pragmatic alternative to systematic reviews. They are knowledge syntheses that abbreviate certain methodological aspects of systematic reviews to produce information more quickly. Methodological shortcuts often take place in literature identification. A potential drawback is less reliable results. To date, the impact of abbreviated searches on estimates of treatment effects and subsequent conclusions has not been analyzed systematically across multiple bodies of evidence. We aim to answer the research question: Do bodies of evidence that are based on abbreviated literature searches lead to different conclusions about benefits and harms of interventions compared with bodies of evidence that are based on comprehensive, systematic literature searches? Methods We will use a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic design. The primary outcome is the proportion of discordant conclusions based on different search approaches. Drawing of a pool of Cochrane reports published between 2012 and 2016, we will randomly select 60 reports. Eligible reports are those that present a summary-of-findings table, draw a clear conclusion, present data for meta-analyses, and document the search strategy clearly. We will conduct several abbreviated searches to detect whether included studies in these Cochrane reviews could be detected. If searches could not detect all studies, we will revise the original summary-of-findings table and ask review authors whether the missed evidence would change conclusions of their report. We will determine the proportion of discordant conclusions for each abbreviated search approach. We will consider an abbreviated search as non-inferior if the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval of the proportion of discordant conclusions is below the non-inferiority margin, which is determined based on results of a survey for clinical and public health scenarios. Discussion This will be the first study to assess whether the reduced sensitivity of abbreviated searches has an impact on conclusions across multiple bodies of evidence, not only on effect estimates.