Search

Your search keyword '"Zarin, Wasifa"' showing total 44 results
Start Over Author "Zarin, Wasifa"
44 results on '"Zarin, Wasifa"'

10. Engaging KUs in KS (WHO)

Author

Tricco, Andrea and Zarin, Wasifa

Subjects
knowledge translation, Scoping Review, stakeholder engagement, Protocol, health policy, Pre-Data Collection, knowledge synthesis, Methods Research, policy-maker
Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

11. Social Media for Pharmacovigilance

Author

Tricco, Andrea and Zarin, Wasifa

Subjects
Clinical/Health Services Research, social media, Scoping Review, social listening, adverse event, Protocol, surveillance, data analytics
Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

12. Systematic Prospective Assessment of Rapid Knowledge Synthesis – SPARKS Study

Author

Tricco, Andrea, Rios, Patricia, Ashoor, Huda, Thomas, Sonia, Zarin, Wasifa, Cardoso, Roberta, Watt, Jennifer, and Darvesh, Nazia

Subjects
Knowledge User, Rapid Review, Knowledge Synthesis, Knowledge Translation, Protocol, Prospective Study, Pre-Data Collection, Systematic Review, Methods Research
Abstract

The protocol for a prospective controlled study that will compare rapid reviews to systematic reviews conducted concurrently on the same topic, to understand the balance between quality (strength of evidence), efficiency (time, cost), and the impact on decisions.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

14. An inclusive and diverse governance structure of the strategy for patient-oriented research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance

Author

Lunny, Carole, primary, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, Chaudhry, Sabrina, additional, Thomas, Sonia M., additional, LeBlanc, Annie, additional, Desroches, Sophie, additional, Horsley, Tanya, additional, Colquhoun, Heather, additional, Sanon, Priscille-Nice, additional, Downey, Minnie, additional, Goodarzi, Zahra, additional, Baxter, Nancy N., additional, English, Kelly, additional, PausJenssen, Elliot, additional, McQuitty, Shanon, additional, Wilhelm, Linda, additional, McKinnon, Annette, additional, Hoens, Alison M., additional, Li, Linda C., additional, Clement, Fiona, additional, Curran, Janet A., additional, Abou-Setta, Ahmed M., additional, Godfrey, Christina, additional, Moher, David, additional, Moffitt, Pertice, additional, Walker, Jennifer, additional, Jull, Janet, additional, Koehn, Cheryl, additional, Isaranuwatchai, Wanrudee, additional, Straus, Sharon E., additional, and Tricco, Andrea C., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

15. A Canadian model for providing high-quality, timely and relevant evidence to meet health system decision-maker needs: the SPOR Evidence Alliance

Author

Zarin, Wasifa, primary, Lunny, Carole, additional, Chaudhry, Sabrina, additional, Thomas, Sonia M., additional, LeBlanc, Annie, additional, Clement, Fiona, additional, Abou-Setta, Ahmed M., additional, Curran, Janet A., additional, Hutton, Brian, additional, Florez, Ivan D., additional, Li, Linda C., additional, Bornstein, Stephen, additional, Hamilton, Clayon B., additional, Moffitt, Pertice, additional, Godfrey, Christina, additional, Zitzelsberger, Louise, additional, Gardiner, Leanne, additional, Fahim, Christine, additional, Straus, Sharon E., additional, and Tricco, Andrea C., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Introducing the Strategy for Patient Oriented Research (SPOR) Evidence Alliance: a partnership between researchers, patients and health system decision-makers to support rapid-learning and responsive health systems in Canada and beyond

Author

Tricco, Andrea C., primary, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, Clement, Fiona, additional, Abou-Setta, Ahmed M., additional, Curran, Janet A., additional, LeBlanc, Annie, additional, Li, Linda C, additional, Godfrey, Christina, additional, Moffitt, Pertice, additional, Moher, David, additional, Colquhoun, Heather, additional, Graham, Ian D., additional, Florez, Ivan D., additional, Wilhelm, Linda, additional, Isaranuwatchaia, Wanrudee, additional, Mann, Jackie, additional, Hamilton, Marina, additional, Srinivasan, Vasanthi, additional, Bornstein, Stephen, additional, and Straus, Sharon E., additional

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

19. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

Author

Peters, Micah D. J., primary, Marnie, Casey, additional, Colquhoun, Heather, additional, Garritty, Chantelle M., additional, Hempel, Susanne, additional, Horsley, Tanya, additional, Langlois, Etienne V., additional, Lillie, Erin, additional, O’Brien, Kelly K., additional, Tunçalp, Ӧzge, additional, Wilson, Michael G., additional, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, and Tricco, Andrea C., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

21. Reporting scoping reviews—PRISMA ScR extension

Author

McGowan, Jessie, Straus, Sharon, Moher, David, Langlois, Etienne V., O'Brien, Kelly K., Horsley, Tanya, Aldcroft, Adrian, Zarin, Wasifa, Garitty, Chantelle Marie, Hempel, Susanne, Lillie, Erin, Tunçalp, Ӧzge, and Tricco, Andrea C.

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. Patient engagement in the SPOR Evidence Alliance: Reflection and learnings

Author

Li, Linda C., Hoens, Alison M., Wilhelm, Linda, Bubber, Vikram, PausJenssen, Elliot, McKinnon, Annette, Leese, Jenny, Otamendi, Thalia, Hamilton, Clayon B., Zarin, Wasifa, and Tricco, Andrea C.

Abstract

The Evidence Alliance (EA) is a Canada-wide multi-stakeholder organization providing national-level support in knowledge synthesis, clinical practice guidelines development, and knowledge translation. With a mandate to deliver the best available evidence to inform health policy and improve patient care, the EA involves patients and their caregivers in its governance, research priority setting and conduct, and capacity building. To reflect on the experiences of patient involvement in its first three years, the organization conducted a self-study with 17 actively involved patient partners. They answered the Patient Engagement in Research Scale 22-item short form (PEIRS-22) and open-ended questions. Of the 15 respondents, 12 were women with a mean age of 62.6 years (SD 10.1). The mean PEIRS-22 score was 82.1 (SD 15.9), indicating perceived meaningful engagement. Analysis of the free-text answers identified three themes: (i) communication: successes, changes, and improvements; (ii) a respectful and welcoming environment; and (iii) opportunities to learn and contribute. Patient partners noted the EA made genuine efforts to welcome them and value their contributions. They also identified a need for the organization to increase patient partner diversity. This self-study was perceived as rewarding as it provided a foundation for further growth in patient involvement within the organization.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

23. Letter to the Editor—Response

Author

Colquhoun, Heather L., primary, Jesus, Tiago S., additional, O’Brien, Kelly K., additional, Tricco, Andrea C., additional, Chui, Adora, additional, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, Lillie, Erin, additional, Hitzig, Sander L., additional, Seaton, Samantha, additional, Engel, Lisa, additional, Rotenberg, Shlomit, additional, and Straus, Sharon E., additional

Published
2021
Full Text
View/download PDF

24. Scoping Review on Rehabilitation Scoping Reviews

Author

Colquhoun, Heather L., primary, Jesus, Tiago S., additional, O’Brien, Kelly K., additional, Tricco, Andrea C., additional, Chui, Adora, additional, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, Lillie, Erin, additional, Hitzig, Sander L., additional, Seaton, Samantha, additional, Engel, Lisa, additional, Rotenberg, Shlomit, additional, and Straus, Sharon E., additional

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

25. Efficacy, effectiveness, and safety of herpes zoster vaccines in adults aged 50 and older: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Author

Tricco, Andrea C, primary, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, Cardoso, Roberta, additional, Veroniki, Areti-Angeliki, additional, Khan, Paul A, additional, Nincic, Vera, additional, Ghassemi, Marco, additional, Warren, Rachel, additional, Sharpe, Jane P, additional, Page, Andrea V, additional, and Straus, Sharon E, additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

26. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Author

Tricco, Andrea C., primary, Lillie, Erin, additional, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, O'Brien, Kelly K., additional, Colquhoun, Heather, additional, Levac, Danielle, additional, Moher, David, additional, Peters, Micah D.J., additional, Horsley, Tanya, additional, Weeks, Laura, additional, Hempel, Susanne, additional, Akl, Elie A., additional, Chang, Christine, additional, McGowan, Jessie, additional, Stewart, Lesley, additional, Hartling, Lisa, additional, Aldcroft, Adrian, additional, Wilson, Michael G., additional, Garritty, Chantelle, additional, Lewin, Simon, additional, Godfrey, Christina M., additional, Macdonald, Marilyn T., additional, Langlois, Etienne V., additional, Soares-Weiser, Karla, additional, Moriarty, Jo, additional, Clifford, Tammy, additional, Tunçalp, Özge, additional, and Straus, Sharon E., additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

28. Patient safety initiatives in obstetrics: a rapid review

Author

Antony, Jesmin, primary, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, Pham, Ba’, additional, Nincic, Vera, additional, Cardoso, Roberta, additional, Ivory, John D, additional, Ghassemi, Marco, additional, Barber, Sarah Louise, additional, Straus, Sharon E, additional, and Tricco, Andrea C, additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Evaluative reports on medical malpractice policies in obstetrics: a rapid scoping review

Author

Cardoso, Roberta, primary, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, Nincic, Vera, additional, Barber, Sarah Louise, additional, Gulmezoglu, Ahmet Metin, additional, Wilson, Charlotte, additional, Wilson, Katherine, additional, McDonald, Heather, additional, Kenny, Meghan, additional, Warren, Rachel, additional, Straus, Sharon E., additional, and Tricco, Andrea C., additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

31. Erratum to: Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review

Author

Zarin, Wasifa, primary, Veroniki, Areti Angeliki, additional, Nincic, Vera, additional, Vafaei, Afshin, additional, Reynen, Emily, additional, Motiwala, Sanober S., additional, Antony, Jesmin, additional, Sullivan, Shannon M., additional, Rios, Patricia, additional, Daly, Caitlin, additional, Ewusie, Joycelyne, additional, Petropoulou, Maria, additional, Nikolakopoulou, Adriani, additional, Chaimani, Anna, additional, Salanti, Georgia, additional, Straus, Sharon E., additional, and Tricco, Andrea C., additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

32. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review

Author

Zarin, Wasifa, primary, Veroniki, Areti Angeliki, additional, Nincic, Vera, additional, Vafaei, Afshin, additional, Reynen, Emily, additional, Motiwala, Sanober S., additional, Antony, Jesmin, additional, Sullivan, Shannon M., additional, Rios, Patricia, additional, Daly, Caitlin, additional, Ewusie, Joycelyne, additional, Petropoulou, Maria, additional, Nikolakopoulou, Adriani, additional, Chaimani, Anna, additional, Salanti, Georgia, additional, Straus, Sharon E., additional, and Tricco, Andrea C., additional

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews

Author

Tricco, Andrea C., primary, Lillie, Erin, additional, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, O’Brien, Kelly, additional, Colquhoun, Heather, additional, Kastner, Monika, additional, Levac, Danielle, additional, Ng, Carmen, additional, Sharpe, Jane Pearson, additional, Wilson, Katherine, additional, Kenny, Meghan, additional, Warren, Rachel, additional, Wilson, Charlotte, additional, Stelfox, Henry T., additional, and Straus, Sharon E., additional

Published
2016
Full Text
View/download PDF

36. A scoping review of rapid review methods

Author

Tricco, Andrea C., primary, Antony, Jesmin, additional, Zarin, Wasifa, additional, Strifler, Lisa, additional, Ghassemi, Marco, additional, Ivory, John, additional, Perrier, Laure, additional, Hutton, Brian, additional, Moher, David, additional, and Straus, Sharon E., additional

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

37. Utility of social media and crowdsourced data for pharmacovigilance: a scoping review protocol.

Author

Tricco, Andrea C., Zarin, Wasifa, Lillie, Erin, Ba Pham, and Straus, Sharon E.

Abstract

Introduction: Adverse events associated with medications are under-reported in postmarketing surveillance systems. A systematic review of published data from 37 studies worldwide (including Canada) found the median under-reporting rate of adverse events to be 94% in spontaneous reporting systems. This scoping review aims to assess the utility of social media and crowd-sourced data to detect and monitor adverse events related to health products including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, biologics and natural health products. Methods and analysis: Our review conduct will follow the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Library from inception to 13 May 2016. Additional sources included searches of study registries, conference abstracts, dissertations, as well as websites of international regulatory authorities (eg, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the WHO, European Medicines Agency). Search results will be supplemented by scanning the references of relevant reviews. We will include all publication types including published articles, editorials, websites and book sections that describe use of social media and crowd-sourced data for surveillance of adverse events associated with health products. Two reviewers will perform study selection and data abstraction independently, and discrepancies will be resolved through discussion. Data analysis will involve quantitative (eg, frequencies) and qualitative (eg, content analysis) methods. Dissemination: The summary of results will be sent to Health Canada, who commissioned the review, and other relevant policymakers involved with the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network. We will compile and circulate a 1-page policy brief and host a 1-day stakeholder meeting to discuss the implications, key messages and finalise the knowledge translation strategy. Findings from this review will ultimately inform the design and development of a data analytics platform for social media and crowd-sourced data for pharmacovigilance in Canada and internationally. Registration details: Our protocol was registered prospectively with the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/kv9hu/). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2017
Full Text
View/download PDF

41. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review

Author

Vafaei, Afshin, Chaimani, Anna, Daly, Caitlin, Motiwala, Sanober S, Rios, Patricia, Antony, Jesmin, Straus, Sharon E, Petropoulou, Maria, Ewusie, Joycelyne, Nincic, Vera, Tricco, Andrea C, Sullivan, Shannon M, Salanti, Georgia, Veroniki, Areti Angeliki, Nikolakopoulou, Adriani, Reynen, Emily, and Zarin, Wasifa

Subjects
610 Medicine & health, 360 Social problems & social services, 3. Good health
Abstract

BACKGROUND Network meta-analysis (NMA) has become a popular method to compare more than two treatments. This scoping review aimed to explore the characteristics and methodological quality of knowledge synthesis approaches underlying the NMA process. We also aimed to assess the statistical methods applied using the Analysis subdomain of the ISPOR checklist. METHODS Comprehensive literature searches were conducted in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from inception until April 14, 2015. References of relevant reviews were scanned. Eligible studies compared at least four different interventions from randomised controlled trials with an appropriate NMA approach. Two reviewers independently performed study selection and data abstraction of included articles. All discrepancies between reviewers were resolved by a third reviewer. Data analysis involved quantitative (frequencies) and qualitative (content analysis) methods. Quality was evaluated using the AMSTAR tool for the conduct of knowledge synthesis and the ISPOR tool for statistical analysis. RESULTS After screening 3538 citations and 877 full-text papers, 456 NMAs were included. These were published between 1997 and 2015, with 95% published after 2006. Most were conducted in Europe (51%) or North America (31%), and approximately one-third reported public sources of funding. Overall, 84% searched two or more electronic databases, 62% searched for grey literature, 58% performed duplicate study selection and data abstraction (independently), and 62% assessed risk of bias. Seventy-eight (17%) NMAs relied on previously conducted systematic reviews to obtain studies for inclusion in their NMA. Based on the AMSTAR tool, almost half of the NMAs incorporated quality appraisal results to formulate conclusions, 36% assessed publication bias, and 16% reported the source of funding. Based on the ISPOR tool, half of the NMAs did not report if an assessment for consistency was conducted or whether they accounted for inconsistency when present. Only 13% reported heterogeneity assumptions for the random-effects model. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge synthesis methods and analytical process for NMAs are poorly reported and need improvement.

43. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application

Author

Susanne Hempel, Michael G. Wilson, Casey Marnie, Kelly K O'Brien, Andrea C. Tricco, Chantelle Garritty, Wasifa Zarin, Ӧzge Tunçalp, Tanya Horsley, Micah D J Peters, Erin Lillie, Heather Colquhoun, Etienne V. Langlois, Peters, Micah DJ, Marnie, Casey, Colquhoun, Heather, Garritty, Chantelle M, Hempel, Susanne, Horsley, Tanya, Langlois, Etienne V, Lillie, Erin, O'Brien, Kelly K, Tunçalp, Ӧzge, Wilson, Michael G, Zarin, Wasifa, and Tricco, Andrea C

Subjects
Process management, Research methodology, media_common.quotation_subject, methodological guidance, Medicine (miscellaneous), Stakeholder engagement, scoping reviews, Rigour, reporting guidelines, law.invention, Terminology, Presentation, Consistency (negotiation), law, Knowledge translation, Medicine, Humans, research methodology, media_common, business.industry, evidence synthesis, Methodological guidance, Reporting guidelines, Systematic review, Research Design, Evidence synthesis, CLARITY, Commentary, Scoping reviews, business, Systematic Reviews as Topic
Abstract

Scoping reviews are an increasingly common approach to evidence synthesis with a growing suite of methodological guidance and resources to assist review authors with their planning, conduct and reporting. The latest guidance for scoping reviews includes the JBI methodology and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses—Extension for Scoping Reviews. This paper provides readers with a brief update regarding ongoing work to enhance and improve the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews as well as information regarding the future steps in scoping review methods development. The purpose of this paper is to provide readers with a concise source of information regarding the difference between scoping reviews and other review types, the reasons for undertaking scoping reviews, and an update on methodological guidance for the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews.Despite available guidance, some publications use the term ‘scoping review’ without clear consideration of available reporting and methodological tools. Selection of the most appropriate review type for the stated research objectives or questions, standardised use of methodological approaches and terminology in scoping reviews, clarity and consistency of reporting and ensuring that the reporting and presentation of the results clearly addresses the review’s objective(s) and question(s) are critical components for improving the rigour of scoping reviews.Rigourous, high-quality scoping reviews should clearly follow up to date methodological guidance and reporting criteria. Stakeholder engagement is one area where further work could occur to enhance integration of consultation with the results of evidence syntheses and to support effective knowledge translation. Scoping review methodology is evolving as a policy and decision-making tool. Ensuring the integrity of scoping reviews by adherence to up-to-date reporting standards is integral to supporting well-informed decision-making.

Published
2021

44. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Author

Christina Godfrey, Jo Moriarty, Karla Soares-Weiser, Susanne Hempel, Lesley A. Stewart, Chantelle Garritty, Michael G. Wilson, Jessie McGowan, Adrian Aldcroft, Özge Tunçalp, Wasifa Zarin, Danielle Levac, Marilyn Macdonald, Elie A. Akl, Laura Weeks, Tanya Horsley, Christine Chang, Simon Lewin, Heather Colquhoun, Etienne V. Langlois, Kelly K O'Brien, Micah D J Peters, Andrea C. Tricco, Sharon E. Straus, David Moher, Tammy Clifford, Lisa Hartling, Erin Lillie, Tricco, Andrea C, Lillie, Erin, Zarin, Wasifa, O'Brien, Kelly K, Peters, Micah DJ, and Straus, Sharon E

Subjects
Knowledge management, Delphi Technique, MEDLINE, Delphi method, scoping reviews, Terminology, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Health care, Internal Medicine, Humans, Medicine, PRISMA-ScR, 030212 general & internal medicine, Research ethics, business.industry, General Medicine, Checklist, Review Literature as Topic, Systematic review, business, 030217 neurology & neurosurgery, Systematic Reviews as Topic
Abstract

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts,theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers,publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews. Refereed/Peer-reviewed

Published
2018

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results