Search

Introduction: The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) is a consensus group method used to synthesize expert opinions. Given the global shift to virtual meetings, the extent to which researchers leveraged virtual platforms is unclear. This scoping review explores the use of the vNGT in healthcare research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: Following the Arksey and O'Malley's framework, eight cross-disciplinary databases were searched (January 2020-July 2022). Research articles that reported all four vNGT stages (idea generation, round robin sharing, clarification, voting) were included. Media Synchronicity Theory informed analysis. Corresponding authors were surveyed for additional information. Results: Of 2,589 citations, 32 references were included. Articles covered healthcare (27/32) and healthcare education (4/32). Platforms used most were Zoom, MS Teams and GoTo but was not reported in 44% of studies. Only 22% commented on the benefits/challenges of moving the NGT virtually. Among authors who responded to our survey (16/32), 80% felt that the vNGT was comparable or superior. Conclusions: The vNGT provides several advantages such as the inclusion of geographically dispersed participants, scheduling flexibility and cost savings. It is a promising alternative to the traditional in-person meeting, but researchers should carefully describe modifications, potential limitations, and impact on results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is increasing recognition of sex/gender differences in health and the importance of identifying differential effects of interventions for men and women. Yet, to whom the research evidence does or does not apply, with regard to sex/gender, is often insufficiently answered. This is also true for systematic reviews which synthesize results of primary studies. A lack of analysis and reporting of evidence on sex/gender raises concerns about the applicability of systematic reviews. To bridge this gap, this pilot study aimed to translate knowledge about sex/gender analysis (SGA) into a user-friendly ‘briefing note’ format and evaluate its potential in aiding the implementation of SGA in systematic reviews. Methods: Our Sex/Gender Methods Group used an interactive process to translate knowledge about sex/gender into briefing notes, a concise communication tool used by policy and decision makers. The briefing notes were developed in collaboration with three Cochrane Collaboration review groups (HIV/AIDS, Hypertension, and Musculoskeletal) who were also the target knowledge users of the briefing notes. Briefing note development was informed by existing systematic review checklists, literature on sex/gender, in-person and virtual meetings, and consultation with topic experts. Finally, we held a workshop for potential users to evaluate the notes. Results: Each briefing note provides tailored guidance on considering sex/gender to reviewers who are planning or conducting systematic reviews and includes the rationale for considering sex/gender, with examples specific to each review group’s focus. Review authors found that the briefing notes provided welcome guidance on implementing SGA that was clear and concise, but also identified conceptual and implementation challenges. Conclusions: Sex/gender briefing notes are a promising knowledge translation tool. By encouraging sex/gender analysis and equity considerations in systematic reviews, the briefing notes can assist systematic reviewers in ensuring the applicability of research evidence, with the goal of improved health outcomes for diverse populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Thousands of systematic reviews have been conducted in all areas of health care. However, the methodological quality of these reviews is variable and should routinely be appraised. AMSTAR is a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews., Methodology: AMSTAR was used to appraise 42 reviews focusing on therapies to treat gastro-esophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease, and other acid-related diseases. Two assessors applied the AMSTAR to each review. Two other assessors, plus a clinician and/or methodologist applied a global assessment to each review independently., Conclusions: The sample of 42 reviews covered a wide range of methodological quality. The overall scores on AMSTAR ranged from 0 to 10 (out of a maximum of 11) with a mean of 4.6 (95% CI: 3.7 to 5.6) and median 4.0 (range 2.0 to 6.0). The inter-observer agreement of the individual items ranged from moderate to almost perfect agreement. Nine items scored a kappa of >0.75 (95% CI: 0.55 to 0.96). The reliability of the total AMSTAR score was excellent: kappa 0.84 (95% CI: 0.67 to 1.00) and Pearson's R 0.96 (95% CI: 0.92 to 0.98). The overall scores for the global assessment ranged from 2 to 7 (out of a maximum score of 7) with a mean of 4.43 (95% CI: 3.6 to 5.3) and median 4.0 (range 2.25 to 5.75). The agreement was lower with a kappa of 0.63 (95% CI: 0.40 to 0.88). Construct validity was shown by AMSTAR convergence with the results of the global assessment: Pearson's R 0.72 (95% CI: 0.53 to 0.84). For the AMSTAR total score, the limits of agreement were -0.19+/-1.38. This translates to a minimum detectable difference between reviews of 0.64 'AMSTAR points'. Further validation of AMSTAR is needed to assess its validity, reliability and perceived utility by appraisers and end users of reviews across a broader range of systematic reviews.