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: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are designed to assist health care professionals in medical decision-making, but they often lack effective integration of shared decision-making (SDM) principles to reflect patient values and preferences, particularly in the context of preference-sensitive CPG recommendations. To address this shortcoming and foster SDM through CPGs, the integration of patient decision aids (PDAs) into CPGs has been proposed as an important strategy. However, methods for systematically identifying and prioritizing CPG recommendations relevant to SDM and related decision support tools are currently lacking., Objective: The aim of the project is to develop (1) a tool for systematically identifying and prioritizing CPG recommendations for which SDM is considered particularly relevant and (2) a platform for PDAs to support practical SDM implementation., Methods: The project consists of 6 work packages (WPs). It is embedded in the German health care context but has an international focus. In WP 1, we will conduct a scoping review in bibliographic databases and gray literature sources to identify methods used to foster SDM via PDAs in the context of CPGs. In WP 2, we will conduct semistructured interviews with CPG experts to better understand the concepts of preference sensitivity and identify strategies for fostering SDM through CPGs. WP 3, a modified Delphi study including surveys and focus groups with SDM experts, aims to define and operationalize preference sensitivity. Based on the results of the Delphi study, we will develop a methodology for prioritizing key questions in CPGs. In WP 4, the tool will be developed. A list of relevant items to identify CPG recommendations for which SDM is most relevant will be created, tested, and iteratively refined, accompanied by the development of a user manual. In WP 5, a platform for creating and digitizing German-language PDAs will be developed to support the practical application of SDM during clinical encounters. WP 6 will conclude the project by testing the tool with newly developed and revised CPGs., Results: The Brandenburg Medical School Ethics Committee approved the project (165122023-ANF). An international multidisciplinary advisory board is involved to guide the tool development on CPGs and SDM. Patient partners are involved throughout the project, considering the essential role of the patient perspective in SDM. As of February 20, 2024, we are currently assessing literature references to determine eligibility for inclusion in the scoping review (WP 1). We expect the project to be completed by December 31, 2026., Conclusions: The tool will enable CPG developers to systematically incorporate aspects of SDM into CPG development, thereby providing guideline-based support for the patient-practitioner interaction. Together, the tool for CPGs and the platform for PDAs will create a systematic link between CPGs, SDM, and PDAs, which may facilitate SDM in clinical practice., International Registered Report Identifier (irrid): DERR1-10.2196/57611., (©Lena Fischer, Fülöp Scheibler, Corinna Schaefer, Torsten Karge, Thomas Langer, Leon Vincent Schewe, Ivan D Florez, Andrew Hutchinson, Sheyu Li, Marta Maes-Carballo, Zachary Munn, Lilisbeth Perestelo-Perez, Livia Puljak, Anne Stiggelbout, Dawid Pieper. Originally published in JMIR Research Protocols (https://www.researchprotocols.org), 04.11.2024.)

Objective: This paper describes several automation tools and software that can be considered during evidence synthesis projects and provides guidance for their integration in the conduct of scoping reviews., Study Design and Setting: The guidance presented in this work is adapted from the results of a scoping review and consultations with the JBI Scoping Review Methodology group., Results: This paper describes several reliable, validated automation tools and software that can be used to enhance the conduct of scoping reviews. Developments in the automation of systematic reviews, and more recently scoping reviews, are continuously evolving. We detail several helpful tools in order of the key steps recommended by the JBI's methodological guidance for undertaking scoping reviews including team establishment, protocol development, searching, de-duplication, screening titles and abstracts, data extraction, data charting, and report writing. While we include several reliable tools and software that can be used for the automation of scoping reviews, there are some limitations to the tools mentioned. For example, some are available in English only and their lack of integration with other tools results in limited interoperability., Conclusion: This paper highlighted several useful automation tools and software programs to use in undertaking each step of a scoping review. This guidance has the potential to inform collaborative efforts aiming at the development of evidence informed, integrated automation tools and software packages for enhancing the conduct of high-quality scoping reviews., (© 2024 The Author(s). Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: Fetal alcohol spectrum disorder (FASD) is a significant public health concern, yet there is no internationally agreed set of diagnostic criteria or summary of underlying evidence to inform diagnostic decision-making. This systematic review assesses associations of prenatal alcohol exposure (PAE) and outcomes of diagnostic assessments, providing an evidence base for the improvement of FASD diagnostic criteria., Methods: Six databases were searched (inception-February 2023). Case-controls or cohort studies examining associations between participants with/without PAE or a FASD diagnosis and the domains of physical size, dysmorphology, functional neurodevelopment and/or brain structure/neurology were included. Excluded studies were non-empirical, sample size < 10, PAE determined via biological markers only, or no suitable comparison group. Summary data were extracted and associations between outcomes and standardised levels of PAE or FASD diagnosis determined using random-effects meta-analyses. Certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE., Results: Of the 306 included studies, 106 reported physical size, 43 dysmorphology, 195 functional neurodevelopment and 110 structural/neurological outcomes, with 292 different outcomes examined. There was a dose-response relationship between PAE and head circumference, as well as measures of physical size, particularly at birth. There was also an association between higher PAE levels and characteristic sentinel facial dysmorphology, as well as many of the current functional neurodevelopmental outcomes considered during diagnosis. However, data were often lacking across the full range of exposures. There was a lack of evidence from studies examining PAE to support inclusion of non-sentinel dysmorphic features, social cognition, speech-sound impairments, neurological conditions, seizures, sensory processing or structural brain abnormalities (via clinical MRI) in diagnostic criteria. GRADE ratings ranged from very low to moderate certainty of evidence., Conclusions: This comprehensive review provides guidance on which components are most useful to consider in the diagnostic criteria for FASD. It also highlights numerous gaps in the available evidence. Future well-designed pregnancy cohort studies should specifically focus on dose-response relationships between PAE and dysmorphology, neurodevelopment and brain structure/neurological outcomes., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO: CRD42021230522., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

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.)

Objective: This scoping review aims to identify, catalogue, and characterize previously reported tools, techniques, methods, and processes that have been recommended or used by evidence synthesizers to detect fraudulent or erroneous data and mitigate its impact., Introduction: Decision-making for policy and practice should always be underpinned by the best available evidence-typically peer-reviewed scientific literature. Evidence synthesis literature should be collated and organized using the appropriate evidence synthesis methodology, best exemplified by the role systematic reviews play in evidence-based health care. However, with the rise of "predatory journals," fraudulent or erroneous data may be invading this literature, which may negatively affect evidence syntheses that use this data. This, in turn, may compromise decision-making processes., Inclusion Criteria: This review will include peer-reviewed articles, commentaries, books, and editorials that describe at least 1 tool, technique, method, or process with the explicit purpose of identifying or mitigating the impact of fraudulent or erroneous data for any evidence synthesis, in any topic area. Manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations, universities, and libraries will also be considered., Methods: This review will be conducted using the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Databases and relevant organizational websites will be searched for eligible studies. Title and abstract, and subsequently full-text screening will be conducted in duplicate using Covidence. Data from identified full texts will be extracted using a pre-determined checklist, while the findings will be summarized descriptively and presented in tables., This Scoping Review Protocol Was Registered in Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/u8yrn., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 JBI.)

Objective: The objective of this qualitative systematic review will be to understand the experiences of mental health practitioners after clients' suicide., Introduction: Mental health practitioners inevitably encounter client suicide during their careers, which can significantly affect their personal lives and professional outcomes. A deeper understanding of mental health practitioners' experiences in the aftermath of clients' suicide is necessary to provide effective support and assist with adaptation to this situation., Inclusion Criteria: This systematic review will consider qualitative studies that explore the experiences of mental health practitioners, including psychotherapists, psychiatrists, psychological counselors, clinical psychologists, psychiatric mental health nurse practitioners, and social workers following clients' suicide. Experiences may include emotional responses, coping strategies, changes in social relationships, and reflections on practice., Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for qualitative systematic reviews. The databases to be searched will include PubMed, CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase, PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), SocINDEX (EBSCOhost), Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Bibliographia Medica Čechoslovaca, and Bibliographia Medica Slovaca. Gray literature sources will include Google Scholar, and ProQuest. Studies in English, Czech, Slovak, and Chinese will be assessed for inclusion regardless of publication date. Studies that are initially selected will be assessed for methodological quality using the JBI critical appraisal tool for qualitative studies. Then, findings with illustrations will be extracted for subsequent meta-aggregation and ConQual assessment. All the above steps will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers., Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42023410523., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on Behalf of JBI.)

Background: Testing for glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase (G6PD) deficiency is an important consideration regarding treatment for malaria. G6PD deficiency may lead to haemolytic anaemia during malaria treatment and, therefore, determining G6PD deficiency in malaria treatment strategies is extremely important., Methods: This report presents the results of a scoping review and evidence and gap map for consideration by the Guideline Development Group for G6PD near patient tests to support radical cure of Plasmodium vivax. This scoping review has investigated common diagnostic tests for G6PD deficiency and important contextual and additional factors for decision-making. These factors include six of the considerations recommended by the World Health Organization (WHO) handbook for guideline development as important to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation, and included 'acceptability', 'feasibility,' 'equity,' 'valuation of outcomes,' 'gender' and 'human rights'. The aim of this scoping review is to inform the direction of future systematic reviews and evidence syntheses, which can then better inform the development of WHO recommendations regarding the use of G6PD deficiency testing as part of malaria treatment strategies., Results: A comprehensive search was performed, including published, peer-reviewed literature for any article, of any study design and methodology that investigated G6PD diagnostic tests and the factors of 'acceptability', 'feasibility,' 'equity,' 'valuation of outcomes,' 'gender' and 'human rights'. There were 1152 studies identified from the search, of which 14 were determined to be eligible for inclusion into this review. The studies contained data from over 21 unique countries that had considered G6PD diagnostic testing as part of a malaria treatment strategy. The relationship between contextual and additional factors, diagnostic tests for G6PD deficiency and study methodology is presented in an overall evidence and gap, which showed that majority of the evidence was for the contextual factors for diagnostic tests, and the 'Standard G6PD (SD Biosensor)' test., Conclusions: This scoping review has produced a dynamic evidence and gap map that is reactive to emerging evidence within the field of G6PD diagnostic testing. The evidence and gap map has provided a comprehensive depiction of all the available literature that address the contextual and additional factors important for decision-making, regarding specific G6PD diagnostic tests. The majority of data available investigating the contextual factors of interest relates to quantitative G6PD diagnostic tests. While a formal qualitative synthesis of this data as part of a systematic review is possible, the data may be too heterogenous for this to be appropriate. These results can now be used to inform future direction of WHO Guideline Development Groups for G6PD near patient tests to support radical cure of P. vivax malaria., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Cohort studies are a robust analytical observational study design that explore the difference between two different cohorts on an outcome, differentiated by their exposure status. Despite being observational in nature, they are often included in systematic reviews of effectiveness, particularly when randomized controlled trials are limited or not feasible. Like all studies included in a systematic review, cohort studies must undergo a critical appraisal process to assess the extent to which a study has considered potential bias in its design, conduct, or analysis. Critical appraisal tools facilitate this evaluation. This paper introduces the revised critical appraisal tool for cohort studies, completed by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group (EMG), who are currently revising the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs. The revised tool responds to updates in methodological guidance from the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group and reporting guidance from PRISMA 2020, providing a robust framework for evaluating risk of bias in a cohort study. Transparent and rigorous assessment using this tool will assist reviewers in understanding the validity and relevance of the results and conclusions drawn from a systematic review that includes cohort studies. This may contribute to better evidence-based decision-making in health care. This paper discusses the key changes made to the tool, justifications for these changes, and provides practical guidance on how this tool should be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers., Competing Interests: EA, JS, and NH are paid employees of JBI, The University of Adelaide. THB, EA, JS, and ZM are members of the JBI Scientific Committee. THB, EA, JCS, JLB, KS, SH, MK, and ZM are members of the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group. EA is editor in chief; JLB is a senior associate editor; and THB, MK, and SM are associate editors of JBI Evidence Synthesis. None of the authors were involved in the editorial processing of the manuscript. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2024 JBI.)

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.)

Introduction: Hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (HDP) affect up to 10% of all pregnancies annually and are associated with an increased risk of maternal and fetal morbidity and mortality. This guideline represents an update of the Society of Obstetric Medicine of Australia and New Zealand (SOMANZ) guidelines for the management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy 2014 and has been approved by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) under section 14A of the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992. In approving the guideline recommendations, NHMRC considers that the guideline meets NHMRC's standard for clinical practice guidelines., Main Recommendations: A total of 39 recommendations on screening, preventing, diagnosing and managing HDP, especially preeclampsia, are presented in this guideline. Recommendations are presented as either evidence-based recommendations or practice points. Evidence-based recommendations are presented with the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. Practice points were generated where there was inadequate evidence to develop specific recommendations and are based on the expertise of the working group., Changes in Management Resulting From the Guideline: This version of the SOMANZ guideline was developed in an academically robust and rigorous manner and includes recommendations on the use of combined first trimester screening to identify women at risk of developing preeclampsia, 14 pharmacological and two non-pharmacological preventive interventions, clinical use of angiogenic biomarkers and the long term care of women who experience HDP. The guideline also includes six multilingual patient infographics which can be accessed through the main website of the guideline. All measures were taken to ensure that this guideline is applicable and relevant to clinicians and multicultural women in regional and metropolitan settings in Australia and New Zealand., (© 2024 The Authors. Medical Journal of Australia published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of AMPCo Pty Ltd.)

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.)

This scoping review aims to identify and systematically review published mapping reviews to assess their commonality and heterogeneity and determine whether additional efforts should be made to standardise methodology and reporting. The following databases were searched; Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Campbell collaboration database, Social Science Abstracts, Library and Information Science Abstracts (LISA). Following a pilot-test on a random sample of 20 citations included within title and abstracts, two team members independently completed all screening. Ten articles were piloted at full-text screening, and then each citation was reviewed independently by two team members. Discrepancies at both stages were resolved through discussion. Following a pilot-test on a random sample of five relevant full-text articles, one team member abstracted all the relevant data. Uncertainties in the data abstraction were resolved by another team member. A total of 335 articles were eligible for this scoping review and subsequently included. There was an increasing growth in the number of published mapping reviews over the years from 5 in 2010 to 73 in 2021. Moreover, there was a significant variability in reporting the included mapping reviews including their research question, priori protocol, methodology, data synthesis and reporting. This work has further highlighted the gaps in evidence synthesis methodologies. Further guidance developed by evidence synthesis organisations, such as JBI and Campbell, has the potential to clarify challenges experienced by researchers, given the magnitude of mapping reviews published every year., (© 2024 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objective: This systematic review will investigate the effectiveness of the ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block as an analgesic technique for patients with rib fractures compared with all other standard management techniques. Comparisons will be made with both nerve blocks (neuraxial techniques and peripheral nerve blocks) and systemic treatment (with patient-controlled analgesia and/or per required need analgesia for breakthrough pain)., Introduction: Erector spinae plane block is a well-established rescue analgesia option for patients with rib fractures. The use of ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block in clinical practice has been largely based on observational data, with recent randomized controlled trials examining it against several other options for analgesic management. This review will compare the erector spinae against all other management techniques used in practice for rib fractures to determine whether this is the most effective analgesic technique., Inclusion Criteria: The review will include all randomized controlled and pseudo-randomized controlled trials examining ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for the analgesic management of traumatic rib fractures. All other study designs will be excluded., Methods: MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR), ClinicalTrials.gov, and the ISRCTN registry will be searched to identify all relevant ongoing clinical trials. Study selection, critical appraisal, and data extraction will be performed by 2 independent reviewers. Data will be extracted into software for statistical analysis (including meta-analysis where possible)., Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023414849., Competing Interests: The authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Objective: This scoping review will identify existing literature regarding contextual factors relevant to vector-control interventions to prevent malaria. We will use the findings of the scoping review to produce an interactive evidence and gap map. The map will assist in the priority setting, development, and conduct of targeted systematic reviews. These systematic reviews seek to assist the Vector Control and Insecticide Resistance Unit of the World Health Organization's Global Malaria Programme by informing recommendation development by their Guidelines Development Group., Introduction: Malaria contributes substantially to the global burden of disease, with an estimated 247 million cases and 619,000 deaths in 2021. Vector-control is key in reducing malaria transmission. Vector-control interventions directly target the mosquito, reducing the potential for parasite infections. These interventions commonly include insecticides used in indoor residual spraying or insecticide-treated nets and larval source management. Several new vector-control interventions are under evaluation to complement these. In addition to estimating the effects of interventions on health outcomes, it is critical to understand how populations at risk of malaria consider them in terms of their feasibility, acceptability, and values., Inclusion Criteria: Eligible studies will have assessed the contextual factors of feasibility or acceptability of the interventions of interest, or the valuation of the outcomes of interests. These assessments will be from the perspective of people who receive (residents) or deliver (workers or technicians) the vector-control intervention for the purpose of preventing malaria., Methods: We will conduct this scoping review in accordance with the JBI methodology for scoping reviews and report in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will construct the evidence and gap map following guidance from the Campbell Collaboration., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The findings and conclusions in this report are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the World Health Organization. The authors alone are responsible for the views expressed in this article and they do not necessarily represent the views, decisions, or policies of the institutions with which they are affiliated., (Copyright: © 2024 Barker TH et al.)

Objectives: The purpose of this review is to examine prehospital pain management clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) to identify recommendations that can be adopted or adapted into paramedic clinical practice. An additional aim is to consider the methodological quality of these CPGs and the recommendations within them., Introduction: Quality, evidence-based CPGs support clinicians and optimize patient care. However, not all CPGs meet rigorous evidence-based standards, and some may be misleading. As pain is a common reason for patients to access ambulance services, the evaluation of pain management CPGs, their quality, and whether their recommendations can be adopted or adapted into practice is required to increase understanding in this area., Inclusion Criteria: We will include CPGs for pain management intended for prehospital services in civilian communities. CPGs in English published from 2017, and containing clear recommendations addressing pain of any cause will be considered for inclusion., Methods: This review will combine methodologies, including the PICAR framework (population, intervention, comparison, attributes of eligible CPGs, recommendation characteristics) by Johnston et al. , and the JBI umbrella and scoping review methodologies. The search strategy will cover 12 databases, including PubMed, Embase, and specific CPG databases (eg, GIN Library). Additionally, Google Scholar and Google will be searched, and prehospital organizations without regular publications will be contacted. The AGREE II and AGREE-REX tools will be used to assess the methodological rigor and clinical credibility of the CPGs. The characteristics of both CPGs and the recommendations will be extracted and discussed in the review., Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42022352951., Competing Interests: The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Objective: The aim of this scoping review is to identify and examine risk of bias tools, critical appraisal tools, and/or assessment of methodological quality tools (including their items and domains) developed to assess all types of evidence syntheses., Introduction: Evidence synthesis is often the basis for policies, procedures, decisions, and evidence-based practice. It is imperative that evidence syntheses are of good quality, reproducible, and reliable. Despite methodological advancements, there remains a substantial risk that bias is present in the conduct of an evidence synthesis project, hindering the validity and reliability of the findings. One way to assess bias is through formal tools and assessments for assessing the risk of bias and/or methodological quality., Inclusion Criteria: Published and unpublished papers presenting a risk of bias, critical appraisal, or methodological quality assessment tool for assessing an evidence synthesis will be included. Individual umbrella reviews proposing a de novo tool or modified tool will be excluded from the review, as will texts that do not present a tool., Methods: A 3-step search strategy will be conducted to locate both published and unpublished documents. An initial search of PubMed was developed with a librarian, which identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Compendex will follow. Websites and databases, including Google, Cochrane, and JBI, will be searched for difficult-to-locate and unpublished literature. Documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by 2 researchers, and the data will be presented narratively and in tables., Review Registration: Open Science Framework osf.io/mjcfy., Competing Interests: TB is an associate editor of JBI Evidence Synthesis , but was not involved in the editorial processing of the manuscript. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

GRADE is a methodological approach used to establish certainty in a body of evidence and is now widely adopted among the evidence synthesis and guideline development community. JBI is an international evidence-based health care organization that provides guidance for a range of evidence synthesis approaches. The GRADE approach is currently endorsed for use in a subset of JBI systematic reviews; however, there is some uncertainty regarding when (and how) GRADE may be implemented in reviews that follow JBI methodology., (Copyright © 2024 JBI.)

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals., (© 2023 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

There are numerous tools available to assess the risk of bias in individual studies in a systematic review. These tools have different structures, including scales and checklists, which may or may not separate their items by domains. There are also various approaches and guides for the process, scoring, and interpretation of risk of bias assessments, such as value judgments, quality scores, and relative ranks. The objective of this commentary, which is part of the JBI Series on Risk of Bias, is to discuss some of the distinctions among different tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment and the implications of these approaches for systematic reviewers., (Copyright © 2024 JBI.)

Systematic reviews of effectiveness offer a rigorous synthesis of the best evidence available regarding the effects of interventions or treatments. Randomized controlled trials are considered the optimal study design for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and are the ideal study design for inclusion in a systematic review of effectiveness. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies may be relied on to provide information on treatment or intervention effectiveness. However, such studies are subject to unique considerations regarding their internal validity and, consequently, the assessment of the risk of bias of these studies needs to consider these features of design and conduct. The JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group has recently commenced updating the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs to align with the latest advancements in risk of bias assessment. This paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for risk of bias assessment of quasi-experimental studies; offers practical guidance for its use; provides examples for interpreting the results of risk of bias assessment; and discusses major changes from the previous version, along with the justifications for those changes., (Copyright © 2024 JBI.)

Introduction and Aims: Czech music therapists lacked the skills and knowledge to adapt their practice to virtual music therapy (VMT) at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, when physical contact was restricted. The aims of this project were to implement the best evidence-based recommendations concerning VMT in the practice of Czech music therapists and increase the number of therapists using VMT., Methods: The project used the JBI Evidence Implementation Framework to promote change in the practice of participants. A baseline audit of 26 practitioners was conducted using questionnaires and interviews. The audit criteria consisted of 8 best practice recommendations, followed by the implementation of targeted strategies and a follow-up audit., Results: Of the 26 music therapists, 18 began practicing VMT following the rollout of the implementation strategies. Strategies included educational workshops, instructional materials, technological support, individual counseling, and interactive training sessions. There was an increase in compliance with all audit criteria. The most critical barriers were lack of knowledge about VMT and lack of technical skills; lack of resources; technological challenges; low confidence of music therapists to provide VMT; and reduced need for VMT after the lockdown restrictions were relaxed., Conclusions: The implementation project helped to overcome temporary pandemic restrictions, increase the quality of VMT practice, develop strategies for VMT training, and identify reasons for using VMT during the pandemic and beyond., (Copyright © 2023 JBI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)

Objective: This qualitative systematic review aims to understand the experiences of neurotypical siblings of a person with autism spectrum disorder., Introduction: Autism spectrum disorder influences communication and social interaction with other people and has a significant impact on family relationships. The experiences of siblings range from the positive, such as development of increased empathy and ability to cope with challenges, to experiences that are more negative, such as a higher risk of bullying. In many countries, neurotypical siblings are marginalized and don't receive adequate support to cope with the increased challenges., Inclusion Criteria: This review will consider qualitative studies exploring the experiences of siblings of a person with autism spectrum disorder. There will be no limitations regarding age, gender, sex, or length of relationship with the sibling. We will consider studies from all countries and contexts., Methods: This study will be conducted according to the JBI methodology for qualitative reviews. A 3-step search strategy will be used to find published and unpublished studies from the following sources: MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, Scopus, SocINDEX, Web of Science, Embase, ERIC, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Open Dissertations, and Google Scholar (first 100 records). There will be no search limitations on the publication period or language, but only studies with an English-language abstract/title will be considered for inclusion. Screening, data extraction, and data synthesis will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers., Competing Interests: MK is an associate editor of JBI Evidence Synthesis , but was not involved in the editorial processing of this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Abstract: There are many theories, models, and frameworks that have been proposed in the field of implementation science. Despite this, many evidence implementation or practice improvement projects do not consider these theories, models, or frameworks in their improvement efforts. The JBI approach is one example of an implementation theory, model, or framework. This approach has been developed particularly with health care professionals in mind and is designed to clearly guide pragmatic evidence implementation efforts based on the best available evidence. In this paper, we discuss how the JBI approach to evidence implementation can interact with and support theory-informed, pragmatic evidence implementation projects., (Copyright © 2023 JBI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)

Objective: The objective of this review is to investigate First Nations populations' perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and myths about stillbirth., Introduction: First Nations populations experience disproportionate rates of stillbirth compared with non-First Nations populations. There has been a surge of interventions aimed at reducing stillbirth and providing better bereavement care, but these are not necessarily appropriate for First Nations populations. As a first step toward developing appropriate interventions for these populations, this review will examine current perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and myths about stillbirth held by First Nations people from the United States, Canada, Aotearoa/New Zealand, and Australia., Inclusion Criteria: The review will consider studies that include individuals of any age (bereaved or non-bereaved) who identify as belonging to First Nations populations. Eligible studies will include the perceptions, knowledge, attitudes, beliefs, and myths about stillbirth among First Nations populations., Methods: This review will follow the JBI methodology for convergent mixed methods systematic reviews. The review is supported by an advisory panel of Aboriginal elders, lived-experience stillbirth researchers, Aboriginal researchers, and clinicians. PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Emcare (Ovid), PsycINFO (EBSCOhost), Indigenous Health InfoNet, Trove, Informit, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses will be searched for relevant information. Titles and abstracts of potential studies will be screened and examined for eligibility. After critical appraisal, quantitative and qualitative data will be extracted from included studies, with the former "qualitized" and the data undergoing a convergent integrated approach., Review Registration: PROSPERO CRD42023379627., Competing Interests: DP, ZM, SH, CV, and CS are paid employees of JBI, The University of Adelaide. CS is deputy editor in chief of JBI Evidence Synthesis , but was not involved in the editorial processing of this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Introduction: The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) evidence to decision (EtD) framework provides a structured and transparent approach for clinical guideline developers to use when formulating recommendations. Understanding how stakeholders use the EtD framework will inform how best to provide future training and support. This scoping review objective is to identify the key characteristics of how the GRADE EtD framework is used and identify studies on perception of use by those involved in developing clinical guidelines. Methods: JBI methodology for scoping reviews will be followed. This scoping review will consider both peer review published literature and grey literature. This will include empirical studies on the use of EtDs (including both quantitative, qualitative, and mixed methods primary research articles) and discussion papers/ commentaries on the experience of using the EtD. It will also include a random sample of publicly available populated EtDs identified from databases and repositories of GRADE guidelines. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents. First, we will conduct an exploratory search of MEDLINE and Embase (Elsevier), supplemented with citation analysis of included articles. Populated EtDs will be identified through searches of databases and repositories of GRADE guidelines. Two researchers will independently screen, select, and extract identified documents. Data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively. Conclusion: This scoping review will identify the key characteristics of how the GRADE EtD framework is currently being used in clinical guidelines. Review findings can be used to inform future guidance and requirements for using GRADE EtD, as well as training on how to consider the criteria in developing recommendations. Results will be disseminated through publications in peer - reviewed journals and conference presentations. We will present our findings to relevant stakeholders via the networks of the co-author team at a one-day workshop., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BC, MON, MR, RM, SMS are members of HRB-CICER, who independently review evidence and provide scientific support for the development, by guideline development groups, of the National Clinical Guidelines in Ireland. RL is Head of Clinical Effectiveness and Antimicrobial Resistance, Department of Health, Ireland. HS is co-chair of the GRADE Working Group and PAC, ZM are key contributors. AR, BH, MKS, KRM have no competing interests., (Copyright: © 2023 Murray R et al.)

Malaria vectors have demonstrated resistance to pyrethroid-based insecticides used in insecticide-treated nets, diminishing their effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated two forms of dual active-ingredient (DAI) insecticide-treated nets (ITN(s)) for malaria prevention. A comprehensive search was conducted on July 6th 2022. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, amongst others. Trials were eligible if they were conducted in a region with ongoing malaria transmission. The first DAI ITN investigated were those that combined a pyrethroid with a non-pyrethroid insecticides. The second DAI ITN investigated were that combined a pyrethroid with an insect growth regulator. These interventions were compared against either a pyrethroid-only ITN, or ITNs treated with pyrethroid and piperonyl-butoxide. Assessment of risk of bias was conducted in duplicate using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for cluster-randomised trials. Summary data was extracted using a custom data-extraction instrument. This was conducted by authors THB, JCS and SH. Malaria case incidence was the primary outcome and has been meta-analysed, adverse events were narratively synthesised. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022333044). From 9494 records, 48 reports were screened and 13 reports for three studies were included. These studies contained data from 186 clusters and all reported a low risk of bias. Compared to pyrethroid-only ITNs, clusters that received pyrethroid-non-pyrethroid DAI ITNs were associated with 305 fewer cases per 1000-person years (from 380 fewer cases to 216 fewer cases) (IRR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.44-0.68). However, this trend was not observed in clusters that received pyrethroid-insect growth regulator ITNs compared to pyrethroid-only ITNs (from 280 fewer cases to 135 more) (IRR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.73-1.13). Pyrethroid-non-pyrethroid DAI ITNs demonstrated consistent reductions in malaria case incidence and other outcomes across multiple comparisons. Pyrethroid-non-pyrethroid DAI ITNs may present a novel intervention for the control of malaria., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist., (Copyright: © 2023 Barker et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)

Background: Involving collaborators and partners in research may increase relevance and uptake, while reducing health and social inequities. Collaborators and partners include people and groups interested in health research: health care providers, patients and caregivers, payers of health research, payers of health services, publishers, policymakers, researchers, product makers, program managers, and the public. Evidence syntheses inform decisions about health care services, treatments, and practice, which ultimately affect health outcomes. Our objectives are to: A. Identify, map, and synthesize qualitative and quantitative findings related to engagement in evidence syntheses B. Explore how engagement in evidence synthesis promotes health equity C. Develop equity-oriented guidance on methods for conducting, evaluating, and reporting engagement in evidence syntheses METHODS: Our diverse, international team will develop guidance for engagement with collaborators and partners throughout multiple sequential steps using an integrated knowledge translation approach: 1. Reviews. We will co-produce 1 scoping review, 3 systematic reviews and 1 evidence map focusing on (a) methods, (b) barriers and facilitators, (c) conflict of interest considerations, (d) impacts, and (e) equity considerations of engagement in evidence synthesis. 2. Methods study, interviews, and survey. We will contextualise the findings of step 1 by assessing a sample of evidence syntheses reporting on engagement with collaborators and partners and through conducting interviews with collaborators and partners who have been involved in producing evidence syntheses. We will use these findings to develop draft guidance checklists and will assess agreement with each item through an international survey. 3., Consensus: The guidance checklists will be co-produced and finalised at a consensus meeting with collaborators and partners. 4., Dissemination: We will develop a dissemination plan with our collaborators and partners and work collaboratively to improve adoption of our guidance by key organizations., Conclusion: Our international team will develop guidance for collaborator and partner engagement in health care evidence syntheses. Incorporating partnership values and expectations may result in better uptake, potentially reducing health inequities., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Early assessment and diagnosis of FASD are crucial in providing therapeutic interventions that aim to enhance meaningful participation and quality of life for individuals and their families, while reducing psychosocial difficulties that may arise during adolescence and adulthood. Individuals with lived experience of FASD have expertise based on their own lives and family needs. Their insights into the assessment and diagnostic process are valuable for improving service delivery and informing the provision of meaningful, person- and family-centered care. To date, reviews have focused broadly on the experiences of living with FASD. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize qualitative evidence on the lived experiences of the diagnostic assessment process for FASD. Six electronic databases, including PubMed, the Cochrane Library, CINAH, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and Web of Science Core Collection were searched from inception until February 2021, and updated in December 2022. A manual search of reference lists of included studies identified additional studies for inclusion. The quality of included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Checklist for Qualitative Studies. Data from included studies were synthesized using a thematic analysis approach. GRADE-CERQual was used to assess confidence in the review findings. Ten studies met the selection criteria for inclusion in the review. Thematic analysis identified 10 first-level themes relating to four over-arching topics: (1) pre-assessment concerns and challenges, (2) the diagnostic assessment process, (3) receipt of the diagnosis, and (4) post-assessment adaptations and needs. GRADE-CERQual confidence ratings for each of the review themes were moderate to high. The findings from this review have implications for referral pathways, client-centered assessment processes, and post-diagnostic recommendations and support., (© 2023 The Authors. Alcohol: Clinical and Experimental Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of Research Society on Alcohol.)

Introduction: Malaria presents a significant global public health burden, although substantial progress has been made, with vector control initiatives such as indoor residual surface spraying with insecticides and insecticide-treated nets. There now exists many different approaches to apply residual insecticide to indoor and outdoor surfaces in malaria-endemic settings, although no comprehensive systematic reviews exist evaluating these interventions. This manuscript outlines the protocol for a systematic review which aims to synthesise the best available evidence regarding full or partial indoor or outdoor residual insecticide surface treatment for preventing malaria., Methods and Analysis: This review will comprehensively search the literature (both published and unpublished) for any studies investigating the effectiveness of residual insecticide surface treatment for malaria. Studies will be screened to meet the inclusion criteria by a minimum of two authors, followed by assessment of risk of bias (using appropriate risk-of-bias tools for randomised and non-randomised studies) and extraction of relevant information using structured forms by two independent authors. Meta-analysis will be carried out where possible for epidemiological outcomes such as malaria, anaemia, malaria-related mortality, all-cause mortality and adverse effects. Certainty in the evidence will be established with GRADE assessments., Ethics and Dissemination: A full review report will be submitted to the Vector Control & Insecticide Resistance Unit, Global Malaria Program, WHO. A version of this report will be submitted for publication in an open access peer-reviewed journal. The report will inform the development of WHO recommendations regarding residual insecticide treatment for malaria. This systematic review does not require ethics approval as it is a review of primary studies., Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO 293194., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: This review will explore the impact of educational and psychological interventions on educational, social, behavioral, and mental health outcomes in students with autism spectrum disorder in tertiary education., Introduction: This systematic review will inform a new guideline on support for students with autism spectrum disorder in the tertiary education environment. These students face multiple educational, behavioral, social, and health-related problems that require effective interventions., Inclusion Criteria: Participants are students with autism spectrum disorder in a tertiary education study program. Educational and psychological interventions will be included, such as accommodations, meta-cognitive and self-regulation training, psychological counseling, social skills training, and peer-mentoring/academic coaching. The comparator will be standard care. The study outcomes will include academic drop-out rates and evaluations, learning skills, social skills and social engagement, behavior, mental health (including anxiety, stress, and depression), and employment after graduation. This review will consider quantitative studies only., Methods: A 3-step search strategy will be used to find both published and unpublished studies in MEDLINE, CINAHL, APA PsycINFO, SocINDEX, Web of Science, Clinical Trials, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Open Dissertations, ERIC, WHO ICRTP, and Google Scholar. There will be no date or language limitations. All stages of article screening, critical appraisal, and data extraction will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers with the resolution of any disagreements done via consensus or through a senior reviewer. If possible, the included studies will be pooled using meta-analysis. The degree of certainty of the evidence will be assessed according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach., Systematic Review Registration Number: PROSPERO CRD42022323554., Competing Interests: MK is an associate editor for JBI Evidence Synthesis. ZM is a paid employee of JBI, The University of Adelaide. MK and ZM were not involved in the editorial processing of this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of JBI.)

An evidence-based approach is considered the gold standard for health decision-making. Sometimes, a guideline panel might judge the certainty that the desirable effects of an intervention clearly outweigh its undesirable effects as high, but the body of supportive evidence is indirect. In such cases, the application of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) approach for grading the strength of recommendations is inappropriate. Instead, the GRADE Working Group has recommended developing ungraded best or good practice statement (GPS) and developed guidance under which circumsances they would be appropriate.Through an evaluation of COVID-1- related recommendations on the eCOVID Recommendation Map (COVID-19.recmap.org), we found that recommendations qualifying a GPS were widespread. However, guideline developers failed to label them as GPS or transparently report justifications for their development. We identified ways to improve and facilitate the operationalisation and implementation of the GRADE guidance for GPS.Herein, we propose a structured process for the development of GPSs that includes applying a sequential order for the GRADE guidance for developing GPS. This operationalisation considers relevant evidence-to-decision criteria when assessing the net consequences of implementing the statement, and reporting information supporting judgments for each criterion. We also propose a standardised table to facilitate the identification of GPS and reporting of their development. This operationalised guidance, if endorsed by guideline developers, may palliate some of the shortcomings identified. Our proposal may also inform future updates of the GRADE guidance for GPS., Competing Interests: Competing interests: This work was supported by grants from Canadian Institutes of Health (FRN VR4-172741 and GA3-177732) and WHO during the conduct of the study. EA, HJS and PA-C report contribution to the development of the original five criteria for assessing the appropriateness of issuing good practice statements. The remaining authors have nothing else to declare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: ZM is employed by JBI, an evidence-based healthcare research and development organisation situated within the University of Adelaide and is supported by an NHMRC Investigator Grant 1195676. ACT is funded by the Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis.

Synthesizers of evidence are increasingly likely to encounter studies published in predatory journals during the evidence synthesis process. The evidence synthesis discipline is uniquely positioned to encounter novel concerns associated with predatory journals. The objective of this research was to explore the attitudes, opinions, and experiences of experts in the synthesis of evidence regarding predatory journals. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences. Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%). While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project., (© 2022 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background and Purpose: Assessing peri-acetabular bone quality is valuable for optimizing the outcomes of primary total hip arthroplasty (THA) as preservation of good quality bone stock likely affects implant stability. The aim of this study was to perform a meta-analysis of peri-acetabular bone mineral density (BMD) changes over time measured using quantitative computer tomography (CT) and, second, to investigate the influence of age, sex, and fixation on the change in BMD over time., Methods: A systematic search of Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, and PubMed databases identified 19 studies that measured BMD using CT following THA. The regions of interest (ROI), reporting of BMD results, and scan protocols were extracted. A meta-analysis of BMD was performed on 12 studies that reported measurements immediately postoperatively and at follow-up., Results: The meta-analysis determined that periacetabular BMD around both cemented and uncemented components decreases over time. The amount of BMD loss increased relative to proximity of the acetabular component. There was a greater decrease in cortical BMD over time in females and cancellous BMD for young patients of any sex., Conclusion: Peri-acetabular BMD decreases at different rates relative to its proximity to the acetabular component. Cancellous BMD decreases more in young patients and cortical bone decreases more in females. Standardized reporting parameters and suggested ROI to measure peri-acetabular BMD are proposed, to enable comparison between implant and patient variables in the future.

Scoping reviews, mapping reviews, and evidence and gap maps are evidence synthesis methodologies that address broad research questions, aiming to describe a bigger picture rather than address a specific question about intervention effectiveness. They are being increasingly used to support a range of purposes including guiding research priorities and decision making. There is however a confusing array of terminology used to describe these different approaches. In this commentary, we aim to describe where there are differences in terminology and where this equates to differences in meaning. We demonstrate the different theoretical routes that underpin these differences. We suggest ways in which the approaches of scoping and mapping reviews may differ in order to guide consistency in reporting and method. We propose that mapping and scoping reviews and evidence and gap maps have similarities that unite them as a group but also have unique differences. Understanding these similarities and differences is important for informing the development of methods used to undertake and report these types of evidence synthesis., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: The objective of this methodological review is to evaluate the adherence of systematic reviews of effectiveness published in JBI Evidence Synthesis to reporting guidelines and methodological quality., Introduction: Systematic reviews of effectiveness are essential tools for health practitioners and policy-makers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool are used to ensure maintenance of high reporting standards and methodological quality, respectively. This review will utilize these tools to identify strengths and shortfalls in the reporting quality of JBI systematic reviews of effectiveness., Inclusion Criteria: This review will include the 20 most recent systematic reviews of effectiveness published in JBI Evidence Synthesis ., Methods: This review will search MEDLINE (PubMed) for effectiveness reviews published in JBI Evidence Synthesis . Abstract and full-text screening will be performed by 2 independent reviewers, and the most recent 20 studies will be selected for inclusion. Data regarding adherence to PRISMA 2020 and ROBIS will be extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Data will be presented descriptively with tables and synthesized narratively., Competing Interests: ZM, JCS, and THB are paid employees of JBI, The University of Adelaide. They are also members of the JBI Scientific Committee and the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Abstract: In this paper, we provide an overview of JBI's approach to evidence implementation and describe the supporting process model that aligns with this approach. The central tenets of JBI's approach to implementing evidence into practice include the use of evidence-based audit and feedback, identification of the context in which evidence is being implemented, facilitation of any change, and an evaluation process. A pragmatic and practical seven-phased approach is outlined to assist with the 'planning' and 'doing' of getting evidence into practice, focusing on clinicians as change agents for implementing evidence in clinical and policy settings. Further research and development is required to formally evaluate the robustness of the approach to better understand the complex nature of evidence implementation., (Copyright © 2022 JBI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)

The foundations for critical appraisal of literature have largely progressed through the development of epidemiologic research methods and the use of research to inform medical teaching and practice. This practical application of research is referred to as evidence-based medicine and has delivered a standard for the health care profession where clinicians are equally as engaged in conducting scientific research as they are in the practice of delivering treatments. Evidence-based medicine, now referred to as evidence-based health care, has generally been operationalized through empirically supported treatments, whereby the choice of treatments is substantiated by scientific support, usually by means of an evidence synthesis. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term "risk of bias" assessment., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Objective: This study aimed to assess the utility of a unified tool (MASTER) for bias assessment against design-specific tools in terms of content and coverage., Methods: Each of the safeguards in the design-specific tools was compared and matched to safeguards in the unified MASTER scale. The design-specific tools were the JBI, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN), and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) tools for analytic study designs. Duplicates, safeguards that could not be mapped to the MASTER scale, and items not applicable as safeguards against bias were flagged and described., Results: Many safeguards across the JBI, SIGN, and NOS tools were common, with a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 23 unique safeguards across various tools. These 3 design-specific toolsets were missing 14 to 26 safeguards from the MASTER scale. The MASTER scale had complete coverage of safeguards within the 3 toolsets for analytic designs., Conclusions: The MASTER scale provides a unified framework for bias assessment of analytic study designs, has good coverage, avoids duplication, has less redundancy, and is more convenient when used for methodological quality assessment in evidence synthesis. It also allows assessment across designs that cannot be done using a design-specific tool., Competing Interests: JCS and ZM are paid employees of JBI, The University of Adelaide, and were involved in the development and review process for some of the JBI tools. JCS and ZM are members of the JBI Scientific Committee, as well as members of the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group. PT is a member of the JBI Evidence Synthesis editorial advisory board but was not involved in the editorial processing of this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

A key step in the systematic review process is the assessment of the methodological quality (or risk of bias) of the included studies. At JBI, we have developed several tools to assist with this evaluation. As evidence synthesis methods continue to evolve, it has been necessary to revise and reflect on JBI's current approach to critical appraisal and to plan a strategy for the future. In this first paper of a series focusing on risk of bias assessment, we introduce our vision for risk of bias assessment for JBI. In future papers in this series, the methodological approach taken for this revision process will be discussed, along with the revised tools and guidance for using these tools., (Copyright © 2022 JBI.)

Abstract: Since its emergence in the 1990s, evidence-based healthcare (EBHC) has made great strides in locating, synthesizing, summarizing, and disseminating evidence, but sustainable mechanisms for getting trustworthy evidence into policy and practice continues to be less well understood. We propose that there is an EBHC 'Flywheel' that begins and ends with culture and the development of adaptive but disciplined approaches that generate new 'norms' in relation to EBHC. In mechanics, a flywheel is a device that uses momentum to create rotational energy. The concept of a 'flywheel effect' has been adopted in management fields to demonstrate how change in organizations or practices rarely happen in one fell swoop; rather, sustainable change requires energy and persistent effort.This energy might be exemplified by leadership to get the wheel moving, but it needs to be guided, channelled, harnessed and supported throughout the rest of the organization. To achieve sustainable momentum, it is necessary to communicate with transparency the EBHC principles, practices, and perspectives that are considered of broad organizational value to generate cohesion and understanding about practice expectations. With a common vision, cooperation and collective identity in place, true multidisciplinary collaboration underpinned by EBHC is possible. The final component in the EBHC flywheel, capacity, is self-generating (i.e. you do not need 'more time' or 'more resource' for EBHC as EBHC is embedded in the fabric and fibre of the organization). This shifts the notion of EBHC initiatives from being 'in addition to' or being singular one-off initiatives or projects to being part of the lifeblood of how the organization functions. EBHC is, ultimately, a human-to-human endeavour. It relates to individuals connecting and committing to a common purpose. The 'four C's' that underpin the JBI Model (culture, communication, collaboration, and capacity) are the organizational navigational instruments and roadmaps required to provide the human focus/lens that is needed., (Copyright © 2022 JBI. Unauthorized reproduction of this article is prohibited.)

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis., Introduction: Evidence synthesis is a constantly evolving field. There is now a plethora of evidence synthesis approaches used across many different disciplines. Historically, there have been numerous attempts to organize the types and methods of evidence synthesis in the form of classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies. This scoping review will seek to identify all the available classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies; how they were developed; their characteristics; and the types of evidence syntheses included within them., Inclusion Criteria: This scoping review will include discussion papers, commentaries, books, editorials, manuals, handbooks, and guidance from major organizations that describe multiple approaches to evidence synthesis in any discipline., Methods: The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative will support this scoping review. The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents utilizing a three-step search strategy. An exploratory search of MEDLINE has identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL with Full Text, ERIC, Scopus, Compendex, and JSTOR will be conducted. The websites of relevant evidence synthesis organizations will be searched. Identified documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by two researchers, and the data will be presented in tables and summarized descriptively., Details of This Review Project Are Available at: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/qwc27., Competing Interests: ZM, DP, EA, CS, JCS, THB, and ZJ are paid employees of JBI, The University of Adelaide. EA is editor in chief, CS is a senior associate editor, and ACT is a member of the editorial advisory board of JBI Evidence Synthesis . No authors were involved in the editorial processing of this manuscript. The other authors declare no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

JBI recently began the process of updating and revising its suite of critical appraisal tools to ensure that these tools remain compatible with recent developments within risk of bias science. Following a rigorous development process led by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, this paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. This paper also presents practical guidance on how the questions of this tool are to be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers, while providing topical examples. We also discuss the major changes made to this tool compared to the previous version and justification for why these changes facilitate best-practice methodologies in this field., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)

Objective: The aim of this scoping review is to locate, identify, and understand the extent and type of evidence in relation to the development of quality indicators within evidence implementation health care programs., Introduction: Health care organizations evaluate care using quality improvement initiatives, which are based on quality indicators that are clearly defined and measure what they are intended to, based on structures, processes, or outcomes of care. However, the development of quality indicators is an area plagued by inconsistency and issues in terms of their pragmatic use in the health care context. Inconsistency when using terminology related to quality improvement has highlighted issues with distinct definitions, and many terms appear to be used interchangeably. This leads to confusion and a lack of clarity in what these terms are actually describing with regard to measures of quality in health care., Inclusion Criteria: The proposed review will consider studies, guidelines, manuals, evidence syntheses, and other relevant literature that examine the key concepts, terms, or definitions used in the development of quality indicators and that identify the methods or frameworks used in the development approaches across the international health care setting., Methods: The search strategy will aim to locate both published and unpublished documents, using a 3-step search strategy. Results of the search, study inclusion, data extraction, and analysis and presentation of results will be conducted by 2 independent reviewers, in accordance with JBI's methodology for conducting scoping reviews.Findings will be presented in tables or visual charts, accompanied by a narrative summary., Details of This Review Project Are Available at: Open Science Framework https://osf.io/54q8j., (Copyright © 2023 JBI.)