Development of the InSynQ checklist: A tool for planning and reporting the synthesis questions in systematic reviews of interventions

Author:

Cumpston Miranda S.1ORCID,McKenzie Joanne E.1,Ryan Rebecca2,Flemyng Ella3ORCID,Thomas James4,Brennan Sue E.5

Affiliation:

1. Methods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia

2. Centre for Health Communication and Participation La Trobe University Melbourne Victoria Australia

3. Cochrane London UK

4. EPPI‐Centre, UCL Social Research Institute University College London London UK

5. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine Monash University Melbourne Victoria Australia

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionMethods guidance and appraisal tools for systematic reviews require specification of the question and eligibility criteria for the review (“PICO for the review”). Less emphasis has been given to specifying the question and criteria for each synthesis (“PICO for each synthesis”), yet decisions about which studies to include in each synthesis can critically influence the utility and findings of a review. This paper describes the rationale and methods for developing the InSynQ (Intervention Synthesis Questions) tool for planning and reporting synthesis questions in reviews of interventions. The aim is to provide transparency about the basis of the tool and contribute to evidence on methods for developing guidance for research conduct and reporting.MethodsInformed by EQUATOR Network methods, we (1) established a project group; (2) examined reporting of the “PICO for each synthesis” in published reviews; (3) reviewed existing reporting guidance and the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions; (4) drafted items with elaboration, explanation, and examples; (5) conducted consultation meetings, an evaluation survey and pilot test; (6) incorporated feedback.ResultsExisting reporting guidelines do not distinguish the review and synthesis PICO, with limited coverage of the elements needed to specify the PICO for each synthesis. Using the PRISMA 2020 format, the draft tool contained 10 items with essential and additional reporting elements, explanations, and examples. Revisions arising from consultation meetings (>30 people), included adding an eleventh item on consumer and stakeholder involvement, a figure explaining PICO for each synthesis, and integrating examples into elements/explanations. All respondents to the survey (12 people) said the tool would help them plan or appraise synthesis questions. InSynQ is available at https://InSynQ.info.ConclusionTransparent reporting of the development process contributes to the evidence base for methods to develop guidance. It may improve uptake of InSynQ, in turn enhancing the clarity of syntheses.

Publisher

Wiley

Reference33 articles.

1. Introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analysis

2. Starting a review

3. Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address

4. Non‐pharmacological measures implemented in the setting of long‐term care facilities to prevent SARS‐CoV‐2 infections and their consequences: a rapid review;Stratil JM;Cochrane Database Syst Rev,2021

5. Vaccines for preventing rotavirus diarrhoea: vaccines in use;Bergman H;Cochrane Database Syst Rev,2021

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3