Search

Background and Objective: Scoping reviews are a type of evidence synthesis that aims to identify and map the breadth of evidence available on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue, within or across a defined context or contexts. Scoping reviews can contribute to clinical practice guideline development, policy making, reduce research waste by eliminating duplication of research effort, and be a precursor to a systematic review or inform further primary research. This article aims to provide a brief introduction of how to conduct and report scoping reviews., Study Design and Setting: We will discuss the role and value of scoping reviews within the evidence synthesis ecosystem, the differences and similarities between these reviews and other types of evidence syntheses such as systematic reviews, mapping reviews, evidence and gap maps, and overviews, and how to overcome common challenges often associated in the conduct, reporting, and dissemination of scoping reviews., Results: Scoping reviews have a role in the evidence ecosystem; however, we need to acknowledge their challenges., Conclusion: Scoping reviews are a popular form of evidence synthesis, and further research is needed to provide clarity of current methodological challenges., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Andrea Tricco is the co-Editor-in-Chief of JCE but not involved with publication decisions. There are no further declarations of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background and Objective: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE)-ADOLOPMENT methodology has been widely used to adopt, adapt, or de novo develop recommendations from existing or new guideline and evidence synthesis efforts. The objective of this guidance is to refine the operationalization for applying GRADE-ADOLOPMENT., Methods: Through iterative discussions, online meetings, and email communications, the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT project group drafted the updated guidance. We then conducted a review of handbooks of guideline-producing organizations, and a scoping review of published and planned adolopment guideline projects. The lead authors refined the existing approach based on the scoping review findings and feedback from members of the GRADE working group. We presented the revised approach to the group in November 2022 (approximately 115 people), in May 2023 (approximately 100 people), and twice in September 2023 (approximately 60 and 90 people) for approval., Results: This GRADE guidance shows how to effectively and efficiently contextualize recommendations using the GRADE-ADOLOPMENT approach by doing the following: (1) showcasing alternative pathways for starting an adolopment effort; (2) elaborating on the different essential steps of this approach, such as building on existing evidence-to-decision (EtDs), when available or developing new EtDs, if necessary; and (3) providing examples from adolopment case studies to facilitate the application of the approach. We demonstrate how to use contextual evidence to make judgments about EtD criteria, and highlight the importance of making the resulting EtDs available to facilitate adolopment efforts by others., Conclusion: This updated GRADE guidance further operationalizes the application of GRADE-ADOLOPMENT based on over 6 years of experience. It serves to support uptake and application by end users interested in contextualizing recommendations to a local setting or specific reality in a short period of time or with limited resources., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors are members or contributors to the GRADE working group. Zachary Munn is supported by an NHMRC investigator grant APP 1195676. Alexander G. Mathioudakis was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research Manchester Biomedical Research Centre (NIHR Manchester BRC, NIHR203308) and by an NIHR Clinical Lectureship in Respiratory Medicine. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: First Nations Peoples endure disproportionate rates of stillbirth compared with non-First Nations Peoples. Previous interventions have aimed at reducing stillbirth in First Nations Peoples and providing better bereavement care without necessarily understanding the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs that could influence the design of the intervention and implementation., Aim: The aim of this review was to understand the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs about stillbirth prevention and bereavement of First Nations Peoples from the US, Canada, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia., Methods: This review was conducted in accordance with the JBI methodology for a convergent integrated mixed method systematic review. This review was overseen by an advisory board of Aboriginal Elders, researchers, and clinicians. A search of eight databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase, Emcare, Dissertations and Theses and Indigenous Health InfoNet) and grey literature was conducted. All studies were screened, extracted, and appraised for quality by two reviewers and results were categorised, and narratively summarised., Results: Ten studies were included within this review. Their findings were summarised into four categories: safeguarding baby, traditional practices of birthing and grieving, bereavement photography and post-mortem examination. The results indicate a diversity of perceptions, knowledge and beliefs primarily around smoking cessation and bereavement practices after stillbirth. However, there was a paucity of research available., Conclusions: Further research is needed to understand the perceptions, knowledge and beliefs about stillbirth among First Nations Peoples. Without research within this area, interventions to prevent stillbirth and support bereaved parents and their communities after stillbirth may face barriers to implementation., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest None declared., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Scoping reviews can identify a large number of evidence sources. This commentary describes and provides guidance on planning, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. This guidance is informed by experts in scoping review methodology, including JBI (formerly Joanna Briggs Institute) Scoping Review Methodology group members, who have also conducted and reported large scoping reviews. We propose a working definition for large scoping reviews that includes approximately 100 sources of evidence but must also consider the volume of data to be extracted, the complexity of the analyses, and purpose. We pose 6 core questions for scoping review authors to consider when planning, developing, conducting, and reporting large scoping reviews. By considering and addressing these questions, scoping review authors might better streamline and manage the conduct and reporting of large scoping reviews from the planning to publishing stage., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest A.C.T. is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. Z.M. is supported by an NHMRC investigator grant APP1195676., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/)., Study Design and Setting: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group., Results: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs., Conclusion: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests. Barbara Clyne reports financial support was provided by Health Research Board. Dr Tricco (coauthor) is an Editor at the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. If there are other authors, they declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Scoping reviews and evidence map methodologies are increasingly being used by researchers. The objective of this article is to examine how scoping reviews can reduce research waste., Study Design and Setting: This article summarizes the key issues facing the research community regarding research waste and how scoping reviews can make an important contribution to the reduction of research waste in both primary and secondary research., Results: The problem of research waste is an enduring challenge for global health, leading to a waste of human and financial resources and producing research outputs that do not provide answers to the most pressing research questions. Research waste occurs within primary research but also in secondary research such as evidence syntheses. The focus of scoping reviews on characterizing the nature of existing evidence on a topic and including all types of evidence, potentially reduces research waste in five ways: (1) identifying key research gaps on a topic, (2) determining appropriate outcome measures, (3) mapping existing methodological approaches, (4) developing a consistent understanding of terms and concepts used in existing evidence, and (5) ensuring scoping reviews do not exacerbate the issue of research waste., Conclusion: To ensure that scoping reviews do not themselves end up contributing to research waste, it is important to register the scoping review and to ensure that international reporting standards and methodological guidance are followed., (Crown Copyright © 2022. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

In this paper, we describe and discuss evidence implementation as a venture in global human collaboration within the framework of "people, process, evidence, and technology" as a roadmap for navigating implementation. At its core implementation is not a technological, or theoretical process, it is a human process. That health professionals central to implementation activities may not have had formal training in implementation, highlights the need for processes and programs that can be integrated within healthcare organization structures. Audit with feedback is an accessible implementation approach that includes the capacity to embed theory, frameworks, and bottom-up change processes to improve the quality of care. In this third paper in the JBI series, we discuss how four overarching principals necessary for sustainability (Culture, Capacity, Communication, and Collaboration) are combined with evidence, technology, and resources for evidence-based practice change. This approach has been successfully used across hundreds of evidence implementation projects around the globe for over 15 years. We present healthcare practitioner-led evidence-based practice improvement as sustainable and achievable in collaborative environments such as the global JBI network as a primary interest of the practicing professions and provide an overview of the JBI approach to evidence implementation., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Evidence-based health care (EBHC) is a worldwide movement with hundreds of organizations and thousands of individuals working to ensure that health care practice, policy, and decision-making are informed by rigorous research evidence, to improve health outcomes. The success of this global agenda, however, depends on individuals and organizations working together within a functioning evidence ecosystem. Collaborative evidence networks are a key mechanism to facilitate the synthesis, transfer, and implementation of evidence into health care policy and practice. Using the network functions approach as a framework for review, this paper explores the strategic functions and form of the JBI Collaboration to illustrate the role of a collaborative evidence network in promoting and supporting EBHC globally. It illustrates how the functions of a collaborative evidence network enable the development, exchange, and dissemination of knowledge, the building of social capital, mobilization of resources, and amplification and advocacy of members work and ideas, which increase the capacity and effectiveness of members in achieving their unified purpose. Effective and sustainable collaborative evidence networks have innovative ways of relating and mobilizing energy for action and combine formal and informal structures and relationships to successfully work together to address complex global health issues and drive the EBHC agenda forward., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

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., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) is an international research organization and collaborative network hosted in the Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences at the University Of Adelaide, South Australia. Now in its 25th year of activity, JBI is concerned with improving health outcomes in communities globally by promoting and supporting the use of the best available evidence to inform decision making in health policy and practice. The JBI Model of Evidence Based Healthcare, developed in the early 2000s, represents an articulation of the evidence ecosystem and the pragmatic approach required to navigate the complexity of health systems globally to improve health outcomes. The programs of JBI are aligned with the JBI Model and are representative of the supportive structures that facilitate the pragmatic realization of each of the elements of evidence based healthcare., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To establish what GIN guideline community members see as the desirable features of a guidelines library and registry of guidelines in development STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An explorative mixed-methods study was undertaken, including scoping activity and semi-structured interviews with guideline developers and endorsers from nine member organizations of the Guidelines International Network., Results: A small number of desirable features of a guideline library were identified: comprehensiveness; single source of information to avoid searching multiple sites; inclusion of related materials; being up to date; searchability and ease of use. No existing library of guidelines was considered to have all of these features. A number of issues arose out of the desire to have a comprehensive library of guidelines, including inclusion of 'high quality guidelines' and limiting the scope to include only national guidelines. For registries of guidelines in development, the data set should be limited to avoid placing undue burden on those entering information., Conclusion: Our findings identify ongoing issues for the guideline community, including the tension between comprehensiveness and ease of use, which can result in limited uptake, reporting of guideline quality and the need for clarity on the purpose of any library or registry., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Collaboration between groups can facilitate the development of high-quality guidelines. While collaboration is often desirable, misunderstandings can occur. One method to minimize misunderstandings is the pre-specification of terms of engagement in a memorandum of understanding (MOU). This study considered when an MOU may be most helpful, and which key elements should be included., Study Design and Setting: An international panel of representatives from guideline groups was convened. A literature review to identify publications and other documents relevant to the establishment of MOUs between two or more guideline groups, supplemented by available source documents, was used to inform development of a draft MOU resource. This was iteratively refined until consensus was achieved., Results: The level of detail in an MOU may vary based on institutional preferences and the particular collaboration. Elements within an MOU include those pertaining to: (1) scope and purpose; (2) leadership and team; (3) methods and commitment; (4) review and endorsement; and (5) publication and dissemination., Conclusion: Since groups may have different expectations regarding how a collaboration will unfold, an MOU may mitigate preventable misunderstandings. The result may be a higher likelihood of producing a guideline without disruption and delay., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: Prognostic models combine several prognostic factors to provide an estimate of the likelihood (or risk) of future events in individual patients, conditional on their prognostic factor values. A fundamental part of evaluating prognostic models is undertaking studies to determine whether their predictive performance, such as calibration and discrimination, is reproduced across settings. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies evaluating prognostic models' performance are a necessary step for selection of models for clinical practice and for testing the underlying assumption that their use will improve outcomes, including patient's reassurance and optimal future planning., Methods: In this paper, we highlight key concepts in evaluating the certainty of evidence regarding the calibration of prognostic models., Results and Conclusion: Four concepts are key to evaluating the certainty of evidence on prognostic models' performance regarding calibration. The first concept is that the inference regarding calibration may take one of two forms: deciding whether one is rating certainty that a model's performance is satisfactory or, instead, unsatisfactory, in either case defining the threshold for satisfactory (or unsatisfactory) model performance. Second, inconsistency is the critical GRADE domain to deciding whether we are rating certainty in the model performance being satisfactory or unsatisfactory. Third, depending on whether one is rating certainty in satisfactory or unsatisfactory performance, different patterns of inconsistency of results across studies will inform ratings of certainty of evidence. Fourth, exploring the distribution of point estimates of observed to expected ratio across individual studies, and its determinants, will bear on the need for and direction of future research., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: To propose a taxonomy and framework that identifies and presents actionable statements in guidelines., Study Design and Setting: We took an iterative approach reviewing case studies of guidelines produced by the World Health Organization and the American Society of Hematology to develop an initial conceptual framework. We then tested it using randomly selected recommendations from published guidelines addressing COVID-19 from different organizations, evaluated its results, and refined it before retesting. The urgency and availability of evidence for development of these recommendations varied. We consulted with experts in research methodology and guideline developers to improve the final framework., Results: The resulting taxonomy and framework distinguishes five types of actional statements: formal recommendations; research recommendations; good practice statements; implementation considerations, tools and tips; and informal recommendations. These statements should respond to a priori established criteria and require a clear structure and recognizable presentation in a guideline. Most importantly, this framework identifies informal recommendations that differ from formal recommendations by how they consider evidence and in their development process., Conclusion: The identification, standardization and explicit labelling of actionable statements according to the framework may support guideline developers to create actionable statements with clear intent, avoid informal recommendations and improve their understanding and implementation by users., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: We investigated systematic review automation tool use by systematic reviewers, health technology assessors and clinical guideline developerst., Study Design and Setting: An online, 16-question survey was distributed across several evidence synthesis, health technology assessment and guideline development organizations. We asked the respondents what tools they use and abandon, how often and when do they use the tools, their perceived time savings and accuracy, and desired new tools. Descriptive statistics were used to report the results., Results: A total of 253 respondents completed the survey; 89% have used systematic review automation tools - most frequently whilst screening (79%). Respondents' "top 3" tools included: Covidence (45%), RevMan (35%), Rayyan and GRADEPro (both 22%); most commonly abandoned were Rayyan (19%), Covidence (15%), DistillerSR (14%) and RevMan (13%). Tools saved time (80%) and increased accuracy (54%). Respondents taught themselves to how to use the tools (72%); lack of knowledge was the most frequent barrier to tool adoption (51%). New tool development was suggested for the searching and data extraction stages., Conclusion: Automation tools will likely have an increasingly important role in high-quality and timely reviews. Further work is required in training and dissemination of automation tools and ensuring they meet the desirable features of those conducting systematic reviews., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: Bias assessment tools vary in content and detail, and the method used for assessment may produce different assessment results in a study if not carefully considered. Therefore, taking an approach to the assessment of studies that produces a similar result regardless of the tool used for assessment (tool independence) is important., Methods: A preexisting study that used 25 different quality scales was assessed to examine tool dependence of 2 common approaches to bias assessments-absolute value judgments (defined as the qualitative risk of bias judgment based on a threshold across studies) and relative ranks (defined as the relative probability toward bias of a study relative to the best assessed study). Agreement between each of the 25 scales and a composite scale (that includes all unique safeguards across all scales) was computed (using the intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC]; consistency). Tool dependence was considered present when the ICCs were inconsistent across the 25 scales for the same study., Results: We found that using relative ranks for tools with different numbers and types of items produced consistent results, with only small differences in the agreement for the various tools with the composite tool, whereas consistency (measured by the ICC) varied considerably when using absolute judgments. Inconsistency is problematic because it means that the assessment result is linked to the scale and not to the study., Conclusions: Tool independence is an important attribute of a bias assessment tool. On the basis of this study, the use of relative ranks retains tool independence and therefore produces consistent ranks for the same study across tools., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Diagnostic test accuracy studies are performed in order to determine the value of a diagnostic test. Primary studies of diagnostic accuracy describe the accuracy of a test calculated using the number of true and false positive and negative cases of a given diagnosis of interest. Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy are performed to identify accuracy of a test but also to investigate where the test might sit in a diagnostic pathway or determine how different tests compare against each other. This introductory discussion paper aims to give the reader an overview of the various features in primary and secondary diagnostic test accuracy study designs for medical imaging professionals., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: This paper presents a unified framework for assessment of the methodological quality of analytic study designs., Study Design and Setting: A systematic review of 393 methodological quality assessment tools that updated a previous assessment with 100 tools. Tool items were extracted, examined and reworded. Bias domains and finally methodological standards to be fulfilled were defined., Results: There were 36 unique methodological safeguards that were categorized into seven methodological standards to be fulfilled in the MASTER scale. These methodological standards reflect initial and ongoing equivalence in particular areas, including equal recruitment, equal retention, equal ascertainment, equal implementation, equal prognosis, sufficient analysis, and temporal precedence., Conclusion: This approach unifies existing methods for methodological quality assessment and will be useful for (1) clinical researchers when a bias assessment of clinical research studies is required across analytical designs, (2) promoting a unified framework for bias assessment., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objectives: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is accepted methodology to assess the certainty of the evidence included in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines. The GRADE approach is endorsed globally, in Australia, the National Health and Medical Research Council advocated for the use of the GRADE approach in 2011. The purpose of this methodological review was to assess how GRADE has been adopted for Australian practice guidelines., Study Design and Setting: This methodological review searched of the National Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Practice Guidelines Portal from 2011 to 2018, in an effort to retrieve all practice guidelines available via this medium., Results: 240 guidelines were retrieved authored by 51 different organizations. 15 guidelines followed GRADE methodology. Application of GRADE methods varied between guidelines, some misreported and altered aspects of the GRADE process. Guidelines that closely adhered to the guidance from the GRADE Working Group scored higher in domain 3 (rigor of development) of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool, indicating a positive linear relationship between GRADE adherence and rigor of development scores., Conclusion: The results of our project suggest that the use of GRADE in Australian guidelines is increasing, however, strategies to increase uptake and reporting within the guideline community need to be explored., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Scoping reviews are being increasingly used by researchers. The objective of this article was to outline some challenges and potential solutions to improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews., Study Design and Setting: The JBI scoping review methodology group consists of 9 experts in the field of scoping reviews. This article summarizes the key issues facing reviewers who conduct scoping reviews and those who use the results from scoping reviews and may engage in consultations during their development., Results: Several key issues have been identified for reviewers as challenges in conducting scoping reviews. Challenges may be faced throughout the conduct of the review, from developing the a priori protocol to finalizing the review report for publication and developing implications or recommendations for research, policy, and practice from the results of the review. Challenges to publishing scoping reviews may stem from a lack of understanding of scoping reviews by journal editors, authors, and peer reviewers to extending the conclusion drawn from these reviews to generate recommendations for practice and policy., Conclusion: By identifying and overcoming challenges to the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews, reviewers may better ensure that scoping reviews are effective in meeting the objectives of scoping reviews., (Crown Copyright © 2020. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The objective of the study is to identify items and domains applicable for the quality assessment of prevalence studies., Study Design and Setting: We searched databases and the gray literature to identify tools or guides about the quality assessment of prevalence studies. After study selection, we abstracted questions applicable for prevalence studies and classified into at least one of the following domains: 'population and setting', 'condition measurement', 'statistics', and 'other'. PROSPERO registration:CRD42018088437., Results: We included 30 tools: eight (26.7%) specifically designed to appraise prevalence studies and 22 (73.3%) adaptable for this purpose. We identified 12 unique items in the domain "population and setting", 16 in the domain "condition measurement", and 14 in the domain "statistics". Of those, 25 (59.5%) were identified in the eight specific tools. Regarding the domain "other", we identified 77 unique items, mainly related to manuscript writing and reporting (n = 48, 62.3%); of those, 24 (31.2%) were identified in the eight specific tools and 53 (68.8%) in the additional 22 nonspecific tools., Conclusion: We provide a comprehensive set of items classified by domains that can guide the appraisal of prevalence studies, conduction of primary prevalence studies, and update or development of tools to evaluate prevalence studies., (Copyright © 2020 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to provide guidance on the use of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine certainty in estimates of association between prognostic factors and future outcomes., Study Design and Setting: We developed our guidance through an iterative process that involved review of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses of prognostic factors, consultation with members, feedback, presentation, and discussion at the GRADE Working Group meetings., Results: For questions of prognosis, a body of observational evidence (potentially including patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials) begins as high certainty in the evidence. The five domains of GRADE for rating down certainty in the evidence, that is, risk of bias, imprecision, inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias, as well as the domains for rating up, also apply to estimates of associations between prognostic factors and outcomes. One should determine if their ratings do not consider (noncontextualized) or consider (contextualized) the clinical context as this will may result in variable judgments on certainty of the evidence., Conclusions: The same principles GRADE proposed for bodies of evidence addressing treatment and overall prognosis work well in assessing individual prognostic factors, both in noncontextualized and contextualized settings., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The quality of primary research is commonly assessed before inclusion in meta-analyses. Findings are discussed in the context of the quality appraisal by categorizing studies according to risk of bias. The impact of appraised risk of bias on study outcomes is typically judged by the reader; however, several methods have been developed to quantify this risk of bias assessment and incorporate it into the pooled results of meta-analysis, a process known as bias adjustment. The advantages, potential limitations, and applicability of these methods are not well defined., Study Design and Setting: Comparative evaluation of the applicability of the various methods and their limitations are discussed using two examples from the literature. These methods include weighting, stratification, regression, use of empirically based prior distributions, and elicitation by experts., Results: Use of the two examples from the literature suggest that all methods provide similar adjustment. Methods differed mainly in applicability and limitations., Conclusion: Bias adjustment is a feasible process in meta-analysis with several strategies currently available. Quality effects modelling was found to be easily implementable with fewer limitations in comparison to other methods., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: The inconsistency demonstrated across strata when using different scales has been attributed to quality scores, and stratification continues to be done using risk of bias domain judgments. This study examines if restricting primary meta-analyses to studies at low risk of bias or presenting meta-analyses stratified according to risk of bias is indeed the right approach to explore potential methodological bias., Study Design and Setting: Reanalysis of the impact of quality subgroupings in an existing meta-analysis based on 25 different scales., Results: We demonstrate that quality stratification itself is the problem because it induces a spurious association between effect size and precision within stratum. Studies with larger effects or lesser precision tend to be of lower quality-a form of collider-stratification bias (stratum being the common effect of the reasons for these two outcomes) that leads to inconsistent results across scales. We also show that the extent of this association determines the variability in effect size and statistical significance across strata when conditioning on quality., Conclusions: We conclude that stratification by quality leads to a form of selection bias (collider-stratification bias) and should be avoided. We demonstrate consistent results with an alternative method that includes all studies., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This systematic review investigated the effectiveness and safety of intensive insulin therapy (IIT), insulin secretagogues and sensitisers in burn patients. PubMed, Embase, clinicaltrials.gov and Cochrane central were searched from 1990 to 2016. Title/abstract screening, full-text review, critical appraisal and data extraction were carried out by two independent reviewers. Inclusion criteria were hospitalised burn patients, IIT, insulin sensitisers or secretagogues and the outcomes mortality, length of stay, resting energy expenditure, blood glucose, catabolism, or complications. We identified 594 potential studies of which 13 were included. Five studies investigated IIT in paediatric patients, 3 investigated IIT in adults and 5 investigated sensitisers or secretagogues. Glycaemic targets differed with age group - paediatric studies compared IIT to loose glycaemic control while adult studies compared IIT to more moderate control. Meta-analyses were limited by differences in outcome reporting, however mortality was increased in children by loose glycaemic control (OR=3.78, 95%CI 1.19-12.02) but not significantly affected in adults by moderate compared to tight control. Meta-analyses could not be performed for sensitisers or secretagogues. These findings support recommendations that moderate insulin administration (130-150mg/dL) is the prudent approach in burn patients. The evidence is relatively sparse and further research is warranted., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To synthesise client perceptions of the unique characteristics and value of care provided in Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) compared to mainstream/general practitioner services, and implications for improving access to quality, appropriate primary health care for Indigenous Australians., Method: Standardised systematic review methods with modification informed by ethical and methodological considerations in research involving Indigenous Australians., Results: Perceived unique valued characteristics of ACCHOs were: 1) accessibility, facilitated by ACCHOs welcoming social spaces and additional services; 2) culturally safe care; and 3) appropriate care, responsive to holistic needs., Conclusion: Provider-client relationships characterised by shared understanding of clients' needs, Indigenous staff, and relationships between clients who share the same culture, are central to ACCHO clients' perceptions of ACCHOs' unique value. The client perceptions provide insights about how ACCHOs address socio-economic factors that contribute to high levels of chronic disease in Indigenous communities, why mainstream PHC provider care cannot substitute for ACCHO care, and how to improve accessibility and quality of care in mainstream providers. Implications for public health: To increase utilisation of PHC services in Indigenous Australian communities, and help close the gaps between the health status of Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, Indigenous community leaders and Australian governments should prioritise implementing effective initiatives to support quality health care provision by ACCHOs., (© 2017 The Authors.)

Scar management is a recognised key component of rehabilitation following burn. Moisturising often combined with massage is commenced once healing tissue has gained sufficient strength to tolerate surface friction, with the aim being to hydrate the dry scar. The studies on various moisturisers and creams provide some guidance on moisturiser selection, but many are inconclusive., Objective: This survey aimed to determine the current expert opinion regarding moisturiser recommendations, including the basis for these recommendations, across the burns community., Methods: A brief web-based survey was distributed to burn therapists via mailing lists of the Australian and New Zealand Burn Association (ANZBA), and American Burn Association (ABA) 'Occupational and Physical Therapist Burn Special Interest Group'., Results: The fifty three respondents indicated that there were 29 different moisturisers commonly recommended in practice. Three main themes were indicated as influencing recommendations for moisturiser: the perceived effects on the scar/skin (48%); the general properties of the moisturiser (38%); the ingredients (14%). Therapists reported that the principle stimuli determining their recommendations were patient feedback and the choice of the previous burn therapist in their service. Many were also guided by medical staff, pharmacists and sales representatives. Only three respondents were able to provide citations for published evidence supporting their recommendations., Conclusions: There is a paucity of evidence currently to support optimal moisturiser choice. This survey demonstrates that conflicting opinions are held on the ideal moisturiser brand, properties and ingredients. The recommendations made are based on low level evidence. Further research is required to inform clinicians which moisturiser to recommend to their clients. An ideal moisturiser should be one that is conducive to scar maturation, non- or minimally irritant, prevent skin drying, minimise transepidermal water loss and have no negative effect on barrier function., (Crown Copyright © 2017. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Expressed breastmilk may be contaminated by viruses and bacteria, or lose nutritional value due to maternal transmission, storage, or handling. Babies may also unintentionally receive expressed breastmilk from a different mother., Aims: Conduct a systematic review of evidence from countries with incomes comparable to Australia to summarise the evidence around safe management of expressed breastmilk in terms of the risks of pathogen transmission, contamination and nutritional degradation from storage and transport, disinfection and cleaning procedures, and procedures to minimise misdelivery risk., Methods: A search of the international literature sought papers published from 2008 until November 2014. The reference lists of included papers were screened for additional studies. Included papers underwent methodological appraisal and data were extracted., Findings: Few pathogens that cause significant morbidity and mortality in developed countries had clear evidence of transmission through breastmilk. Short term storage (up to 96h) at 6.8°C appeared to be safe. Frozen storage was generally safe but results in immunological component degradation. Expert consensus suggests that several acceptable methods of cleaning, including using warm soapy water, or boiling. Breastmilk management policies appear to reduce misdelivery of breastmilk., Conclusion: While there is a generally low risk of pathogen transmission via breastmilk, benefits must be considered against potential disease severity. Short-term refrigeration is generally acceptable for storage and transport. Freezing is often safe but causes degradation of immunological components. Universally, equipment used for expression and storage of breast milk should be well washed and disinfected. Effective breastmilk management policies can reduce risks of misdelivery., (Copyright © 2016 Australian College of Midwives. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: Patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can experience anxiety and claustrophobia. A multimethod action research study was conducted to determine how patient care was currently being delivered in an MRI department and to determine whether this could be improved., Methods: This action research study used both quantitative and qualitative methods. Changes were introduced into the department after baseline data collection to address areas for improvement. A survey was conducted of patients to establish their level of satisfaction and/or anxiety and to determine whether this improved during the course of the project. Staff practice was qualitatively observed over the course of the project and observations recorded in a field diary. Finally, focus groups were held with staff., Results: The project resulted in improved satisfaction and lower anxiety for patients, and increased the amount of patients receiving information compared with the results of a baseline survey. However, these findings were not statistically significant. Among staff, qualitative observations portrayed a renewed focus on the patient in MRI including changes in their actions such as increased use of touch, improved communication, and focused efforts to maintain privacy., Conclusions: This study was able to achieve a change in practice through an action research cycle in a MRI department. Over the course of the project, improvements were made to the department, and radiographers changed the way they acted and interacted with patients., (Copyright © 2016 Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: The way patients experience health care is largely dependent on the attitudes and actions of the health care professionals they encounter. In medical imaging, the radiographer is often the biggest provider of patient care. Patients undergoing magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) can experience anxiety and claustrophobia. The aim of this study was to determine current levels of anxiety and satisfaction within an MRI unit., Methods: An action research study was conducted in an MRI unit in a large metropolitan hospital. The focus of this study was on improving patient care within the department. The initial phase of this study focused on determining current levels of anxiety and satisfaction within the department. To achieve this, a survey was conducted of patients attending the department for imaging., Results: Surveys were returned from 120 patients. Overall, the mean anxiety was 2.617 on a 10-point scale (0 = no anxiety, 10 = maximum anxiety; 95% confidence interval, 2.075-3.159; standard deviation, 3). Overall, the mean satisfaction was 8.86 (95% confidence interval, 8.459-9.254; standard deviation, 2.15). There was a statistically significant difference between anxiety for patients who received information and those who did not (information = 2.29, no information = 4.0, P = .045)., Conclusions: Although the vast majority of patients are satisfied with the care they receive during MRI, anxiety is still an issue. The provision of information has been linked to lower levels of anxiety with these patients. The findings from this survey provide insight as to how patients perceive the MRI department and can be used as a benchmark for future surveys to determine if any changes can be made to further improve satisfaction and anxiety during MRI., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients undergoing nuclear medicine scans can experience anxiety, claustrophobia, and fear during the scanning experience. Health care professionals working in the field of nuclear medicine require strategies to alleviate this fear and improve patient comfort and satisfaction., Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to determine what strategies are effective in reducing fear, anxiety, and claustrophobia and to improve comfort or satisfaction in persons undergoing nuclear medicine imaging., Methods: A quantitative systematic review, according to the methodology of the Joanna Briggs Institute, was performed. A systematic search of a number of databases was performed. Studies were then screened and critically appraised by two independent reviewers before being included in the review., Results: In total, eight studies met the inclusion criteria for the review, which assessed the following interventions: information, patient positioning devices, and a pediatric preparation booklet. Pediatric preparation booklets and patient positioning devices were found to have some positive effect, whereas the findings for additional information were mixed., Conclusion: Health care professionals working with children or adults undergoing nuclear medicine scans may consider implementing some of the previously mentioned strategies in their practice to reduce anxiety and increase patient comfort., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: There currently exists a need for evidence-based information and tools in burns care. It was therefore the aim of a working party of the Joanna Briggs Institute to establish an evidence based resource to assist professionals in the burns community to practice evidence based healthcare., Methods: After receiving initial funding to create this resource, a steering committee was developed consisting of representatives of the funding agencies and Joanna Briggs Institute staff. This evolved into a tiered international reference group to provide feedback, topic suggestions, and content for the resource. Resources were developed systematically based upon an agreed taxonomy, and included evidence summaries, recommended procedures, audit criteria and information for consumers/patients., Results: As of 2012, the resource is now available online. There are 63 international experts on the reference groups providing feedback on all of the resources available. There are 102 evidence summaries covering a wide range of burns topics online, 55 recommended practices, 13 audit topics and 33 consumer information pamphlets., Conclusion: This paper outlines the details and processes surrounding the development of the JBI Burns Node, and how it has grown from humble beginnings into a resource that can assist in the translation of evidence into practice for burns care professionals., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd and ISBI. All rights reserved.)