Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 96, Issue , 2018, Pages 133-142

  Tricco, Andrea C ^a,b   Zarin, Wasifa ^a   Ghassemi, Marco ^a   Nincic, Vera ^a   Lillie, Erin ^a   Page, Matthew J ^c,d   Shamseer, Larissa ^e   Antony, Jesmin ^a   Rios, Patricia ^a   Hwee, Jeremiah ^b   Veroniki, Areti Angeliki ^a   Moher, David ^e   Hartling, Lisa ^f   Pham, Ba' ^g   Straus, Sharon E ^a,b  

^a ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^c MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^e OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^f UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

Knowledge synthesis; Network meta analysis; Overview of reviews; Rapid review; Scoping review; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

A MEASUREMENT TOOL TO ASSESS SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; INFORMATION PROCESSING; KNOWLEDGE; KNOWLEDGE SYNTHESIS; METHODOLOGY; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; OVERVIEW OF REVIEWS; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; RAPID REVIEW; RETROSPECTIVE STUDY; REVIEW; SCOPING REVIEW; SCORING SYSTEM; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; HUMAN; OBSERVER VARIATION; RESEARCH;

BIAS; DATABASES, BIBLIOGRAPHIC; HUMANS; KNOWLEDGE; NETWORK META-ANALYSIS; OBSERVER VARIATION; RESEARCH DESIGN; RESEARCH REPORT; RETROSPECTIVE STUDIES; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85034953309     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.014     Document Type: Review

References (49)

1. Grimshaw, J.A., A Guide to Knowledge Synthesis: A Knowledge Synthesis Chapter. 2010, Canadian Institute of Health Research, Ottawa, Canada.
2. Higgins, J., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0, 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration [updated March 2011]. Available at http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed August 23, 2017.
3. Straus, S.E., Kastner, M., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., Tricco, A.C., Introduction: Engaging researchers on developing, using, and improving knowledge synthesis methods: a series of articles describing the results of a scoping review on emerging knowledge synthesis methods. J Clin Epidemiol 73 (2016), 15–18.
4. Tricco, A.C., Soobiah, C., Antony, J., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., Lillie, E., et al. A scoping review identifies multiple emerging knowledge synthesis methods, but few studies operationalize the method. J Clin Epidemiol 73 (2016), 19–28.
5. Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Kastner, M., MacDonald, H., Cogo, E., et al. Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: a scoping review reveals poor operationalization of the methodological steps. J Clin Epidemiol 73 (2016), 29–35.
6. Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Kastner, M., Cogo, E., MacDonald, H., et al. Knowledge synthesis methods for generating or refining theory: a scoping review reveals that little guidance is available. J Clin Epidemiol 73 (2016), 36–42.
7. Kastner, M., Antony, J., Soobiah, C., Straus, S.E., Tricco, A.C., Conceptual recommendations for selecting the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to answer research questions related to complex evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 73 (2016), 43–49.
8. Perrier, L., Lightfoot, D., Kealey, M.R., Straus, S.E., Tricco, A.C., Knowledge synthesis research: a bibliometric analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 73 (2016), 50–57.
9. Arksey, H., O'Malley, L., Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol 8:1 (2005), 19–32.
10. Hartling, L., Chisholm, A., Thomson, D., Dryden, D.M., A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One, 7, 2012, e49667.
11. Ballard, M., Montgomery, P., Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Res Synth Methods 8 (2017), 92–108.
12. Moja, L., Fernandez del Rio, M.P., Banzi, R., Cusi, C., D'Amico, R., Liberati, A., et al. Multiple systematic reviews: methods for assessing discordances of results. Intern Emerg Med 7:6 (2012), 563–568.
13. Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., Moher, D., Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev, 1(1), 2012, 1.
14. Ismail, S.A., Abbara, A., Collin, S.M., Orcutt, M., Coutts, A.P., Maziak, W., et al. Communicable disease surveillance and control in the context of conflict and mass displacement in Syria. Int J Infect Dis 47 (2016), 15–22.
15. Bucher, H.C., Guyatt, G.H., Griffith, L.E., Walter, S.D., The results of direct and indirect treatment comparisons in meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 50 (1997), 683–691.
16. Moher, D., Stewart, L., Shekelle, P., All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev, 4, 2015, 183.
17. World Health Organization. Frequently Asked questions. 2017 Available at http://www.who.int/suggestions/faq/en/. Accessed August 23, 2017.
18. Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K., Colquhoun, H., Kastner, M., et al. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 16, 2016, 15.
19. Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med, 13, 2015, 224.
20. Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A.C., et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of Biomedical research: a Cross-Sectional study. PLoS Med, 13(5), 2016, e1002028.
21. Petropoulou, M., Nikolakopoulou, A., Veroniki, A.A., Rios, P., Vafaei, A., Zarin, W., et al. Bibliographic study showed improving statistical methodology of network meta-analyses published between 1999 and 2015. J Clin Epidemiol 82 (2017), 20–28.
22. Zarin, W., Veroniki, A.A., Nincic, V., Vafaei, A., Reynen, E., Motiwala, S.S., et al. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review. BMC Med, 15(1), 2017, 3.
23. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, 2015, g7647.
24. Pollock, M., Fernandes, R.M., Becker, L.A., Featherstone, R., Hartling, L., What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Syst Rev, 5(1), 2016, 190.
25. International Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems 10th Revision, 2016, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.
26. Shea, B.J., Hamel, C., Wells, G.A., Bouter, L.M., Kristjansson, E., Grimshaw, J., et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1013–1020.
27. Schuit, E., Ioannidis, J.P., Network meta-analyses performed by contracting companies and commissioned by industry. Syst Rev, 5(1), 2016, 198.
28. R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. 2016, R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria.
29. Wickham, H., Chang, W., R Studio. Package ‘ggplot2’. An implementation of the grammar of graphics. 2.1.0. 2016 Available at https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/ggplot2/ggplot2.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2017.
30. Knowledge Translation Program. The KT program. 2016 Available at http://knowledgetranslation.net/. Accessed August 23, 2017.
31. Emilsson, L., Holme, O., Bretthauer, M., Cook, N.R., Buring, J.E., Loberg, M., et al. Systematic review with meta-analysis: the comparative effectiveness of aspirin vs. screening for colorectal cancer prevention. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 45:2 (2017), 193–204.
32. Saborido, C.M., Hockenhull, J., Bagust, A., Boland, A., Dickson, R., Todd, D., Systematic review and cost-effectiveness evaluation of 'pill-in-the-pocket' strategy for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation compared to episodic in-hospital treatment or continuous antiarrhythmic drug therapy. Health Technol Assess 14 (2010), 1–75.
33. Best, A., Greenhalgh, T., Lewis, S., Saul, J.E., Carroll, S., Bitz, J., Large-system transformation in health care: a realist review. Milbank Q 90:3 (2012), 421–456.
34. Jepson, R., Di Blasi, Z., Wright, K., Ter Riet, G., Scoping review of the effectiveness of mental health services. 2001, University of York, York, UK.
35. Futamura, M., Thomas, K.S., Grindlay, D.J., Doney, E.J., Torley, D., Williams, H.C., Mapping systematic reviews on atopic eczema–an essential resource for dermatology professionals and researchers. PLoS One, 8, 2013, e58484.
36. Jaana, M., Vartak, S., Ward, M.M., Evidence-based health care management: what is the research evidence available for health care managers?. Eval Health Prof 37:3 (2014), 314–334.
37. Knight, R., Small, W., Pakula, B., Thomson, K., Shoveller, J., A scoping study to identify opportunities to advance the ethical implementation and scale-up of HIV treatment as prevention: priorities for empirical research. BMC Med Ethics, 15, 2014, 54.
38. McKinstry, C., Brown, T., Gustafsson, L., Scoping reviews in occupational therapy: the what, why, and how to. Aust Occup Ther J 61:2 (2014), 58–66.
39. Mickan, S., Tilson, J.K., Atherton, H., Roberts, N.W., Heneghan, C., Evidence of effectiveness of health care professionals using handheld computers: a scoping review of systematic reviews. J Med Internet Res, 15(10), 2013, e212.
40. Samaan, Z., Mbuagbaw, L., Kosa, D., Borg Debono, V., Dillenburg, R., Zhang, S., et al. A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature. J Multidiscip Healthc 6 (2013), 169–188.
41. Sarrami-Foroushani, P., Travaglia, J., Debono, D., Braithwaite, J., Key concepts in consumer and community engagement: a scoping meta-review. BMC Health Serv Res, 14, 2014, 250.
42. van de Glind, E.M., van Enst, W.A., van Munster, B.C., Olde Rikkert, M.G., Scheltens, P., Scholten, R.J., et al. Pharmacological treatment of dementia: a scoping review of systematic reviews. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 36:3–4 (2013), 211–228.
43. Foster, C., Amir, Z., Jarrett, N., Stamataki, Z., Brearley, S., Scott, I., Determining research priorities for cancer survivorship: consultation and evidence review. 2009, National Cancer Survivorship Initiative, UK.
44. Parker, G., Arksey, H., Harden, M., Meta-review of international evidence on interventions to support carers. 2010, Social Policy Research Unit, University of York, Heslington, England.
45. MacDougall, A.C., Cobban, S.J., Compton, S.M., Is periodontal disease related to adverse pregnancy outcomes? A scoping review. Can J Dent Hyg 45:1 (2011), 53–60.
46. Boyd, A., Chambers, N., French, S., King, R., Shaw, D., Whitehead, A., A scoping study of emergency planning and management in health care: What further research is needed. Final report. 2012, NIHR Health Services and Delivery Research programme.
47. Macpherson, K., Screening hips of newborns in Scotland. 2006, National Health Services (NHS) Quality Improvement, Scotland.
48. Tricco, A., Rios, P., Ashoor, H., Thomas, S., Zarin, W., Cardoso, R., et al. Systematic prospective assessment of rapid knowledge synthesis – SPARKS study. 2017 Available at https://osf.io/986pc/. Accessed August 23, 2017.
49. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151 (2009), 264–269.