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.
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
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献