Search

A cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare are evidence syntheses based on systematic literature searches. Conducting literature searches of high methodological quality requires the informed use of specific search techniques. Beyond text based searching in electronic databases, citation searching can be utilised either as standalone or supplementary technique to identify relevant publications. Despite being used for decades, the terminology, methodology and reporting of citation searching have not been standardised yet. We conducted an evidence guided, four round Delphi consensus study with 27 international methodological experts to develop guidance for citation searching in the context of systematic literature searches. The resulting Terminology, Application, and Reporting of Citation Searching (TARCiS) statement comprises ten recommendations on when and how to conduct and report citation searching, each with a rationale and explanation. In addition, four research priorities are presented. We recommend anyone doing systematic reviews or appraising their reporting to incorporate TARCiS into their standardised workflows.

Background: While different proposals exist for a guideline on reporting Delphi studies, none of them has yet established itself in the health and social sciences and across the range of Delphi variants. This seems critical because empirical studies demonstrate a diversity of modifications in the conduction of Delphi studies and sometimes even errors in the reporting. The aim of the present study is to close this gap and formulate a general reporting guideline. Method: In an international Delphi procedure, Delphi experts were surveyed online in three rounds to find consensus on a reporting guideline for Delphi studies in the health and social sciences. The respondents were selected via publications of Delphi studies. The preliminary reporting guideline, containing 65 items on five topics and presented for evaluation, had been developed based on a systematic review of the practice of Delphi studies and a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines for Delphi studies. Starting in the second Delphi round, the experts received feedback in the form of mean values, measures of dispersion, a summary of the open-ended responses and their own response in the previous round. The final draft of the reporting guideline contains the items on which at least 75% of the respondents agreed by assigning scale points 6 and 7 on a 7-point Likert scale. Results: 1,072 experts were invited to participate. A total of 91 experts completed the first Delphi round, 69 experts the second round, and 56 experts the third round. Of the 65 items in the first draft of the reporting guideline, consensus was ultimately reached for 38 items addressing the five topics: Title and Abstract (n = 3), Context (n = 7), Method (n = 20), Results (n = 4) and Discussion (n = 4). Items focusing on theoretical research and on dissemination were either rejected or remained subjects of dissent. Discussion: We assume a high level of acceptance and interdisciplinary suitability regarding the reporting guideline presented here and referred to as the "Delphi studies in social and health sciences–recommendations for an interdisciplinary standardized reporting" (DELPHISTAR). Use of this reporting guideline can substantially improve the ability to compare and evaluate Delphi studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Technological devices such as smartphones, wearables and virtual assistants enable health data collection, serving as digital alternatives to conventional biomarkers. We aimed to provide a systematic overview of emerging literature on 'digital biomarkers,' covering definitions, features and citations in biomedical research., Methods: We analysed all articles in PubMed that used 'digital biomarker(s)' in title or abstract, considering any study involving humans and any review, editorial, perspective or opinion-based articles up to 8 March 2023. We systematically extracted characteristics of publications and research studies, and any definitions and features of 'digital biomarkers' mentioned. We described the most influential literature on digital biomarkers and their definitions using thematic categorisations of definitions considering the Food and Drug Administration Biomarkers, EndpointS and other Tools framework (ie, data type, data collection method, purpose of biomarker), analysing structural similarity of definitions by performing text and citation analyses., Results: We identified 415 articles using 'digital biomarker' between 2014 and 2023 (median 2021). The majority (283 articles; 68%) were primary research. Notably, 287 articles (69%) did not provide a definition of digital biomarkers. Among the 128 articles with definitions, there were 127 different ones. Of these, 78 considered data collection, 56 data type, 50 purpose and 23 included all three components. Those 128 articles with a definition had a median of 6 citations, with the top 10 each presenting distinct definitions., Conclusions: The definitions of digital biomarkers vary significantly, indicating a lack of consensus in this emerging field. Our overview highlights key defining characteristics, which could guide the development of a more harmonised accepted definition., Competing Interests: Competing interests: RC2NB (Research Center for Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel) is supported by Foundation Clinical Neuroimmunology and Neuroscience Basel. One of the main projects of RC2NB is the development and evaluation of a digital biomarkers which is supported by grants from Novartis, Roche and Innosuisse (Swiss Innovation Agency). All authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Study recruitment of persons with dementia is challenging. We aimed to assess facilitators, barriers, and strategies to identify and approach persons with dementia for recruitment to dementia care studies. We systematically searched MEDLINE/PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, and other sources (ORRCA [Online Resource for Research in Clinical triAls]; pertinent evidence syntheses; citation searching) and narratively summarised the results (PROSPERO CRD42022342600). Facilitators and barriers consisted of "characteristics of participants, researchers, clinical contact persons", "study characteristics", and "communication with participants". The highest number of participants were recruited by study information in electronic and print formats, as well as by networking and collaboration. Advertisements proved to be the most expensive way of recruitment. There is limited evidence on the impact of recruitment strategies to identify persons with dementia for recruitment to dementia care studies. Our analysis of facilitators and barriers may inform research teams in designing strategies to identify persons with dementia for recruitment purposes., Competing Interests: Declaration of Conflicting InterestsThe author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.