Tools, techniques, methods, and processes for the detection and mitigation of fraudulent or erroneous data in evidence synthesis: a scoping review protocol.

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.

An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses Evaluating Associations between Human Health and Exposure to Major Classes of Plastic-Associated Chemicals.

Epidemiological research investigating the impact of exposure to plastics, and plastic-associated chemicals, on human health is critical, especially given exponentially increasing plastic production. In parallel with increasing production, academic research has also increased exponentially both in terms of the primary literature and ensuing systematic reviews with meta-analysis. However, there are few overviews that capture a broad range of chemical classes to present a state of play regarding impacts on human health.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for cohort studies.

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.

Prophylactic embolization versus observation for high-grade blunt trauma splenic injury: a systematic review with meta-analysis.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review was to compare the effectiveness of prophylactic angioembolization with observation as primary management strategies for patients with high-grade (grades 3-5) blunt trauma splenic injury.

Introduction: The spleen is frequently injured in abdominal trauma. Historical management practices involved splenectomy, but more recent evidence suggests an increased risk of severe infections and sepsis associated with this approach.

Experiences of informal caregivers of people with dementia in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol.

Objective: This review aims to synthesize the experiences of informal caregivers of people with dementia in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Introduction: Globally, the burden of dementia is increasing disproportionately in LMICs. Informal caregivers play a vital role and face multiple challenges in LMICs, even though they also often lack the awareness and skills to provide adequate care for people living with dementia.

Comparison of bias adjustment in meta-analysis using data-based and opinion-based methods.

Introduction: Several methods exist for bias adjustment of meta-analysis results, but there has been no comprehensive comparison with unadjusted methods. We compare 6 bias-adjustment methods with 2 unadjusted methods to examine how these different methods perform.

Methods: We re-analyzed a meta-analysis that included 10 randomized controlled trials.

Implementing GRADE in systematic reviews that adhere to JBI methodological conduct.

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.

Common tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment: implications for systematic reviewers.

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 revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies.

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.

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study.

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.

Non-operative management of high-grade splenic injury: a systematic review protocol.

Objective: The objective of this review is to establish whether embolization is more effective than clinical observation for adult patients with grade III-V splenic injuries. The findings will be used to guide future practice and, if necessary, inform future research design and conduct.

Introduction: The spleen is one of the most frequently injured intra-abdominal organs, with a reported adult mortality of 7% to 18% following trauma.

Oncological and functional outcomes of transoral surgery compared with non-surgical management in small-volume oropharyngeal cancer: a systematic review protocol.

Objective: The objective of this systematic review is to investigate oncological and functional outcomes following primary transoral surgery compared with non-surgical management in patients with small-volume (T1-2, N0-2) oropharyngeal cancer.

Introduction: The incidence of oropharyngeal cancer is rising. Transoral surgery was introduced to provide a minimally invasive treatment option for patients with small-volume oropharyngeal cancer and to avoid the morbidity that results from open surgery and the potential acute and late toxicities of chemoradiotherapy.

From critical appraisal to risk of bias assessment: clarifying the terminology for study evaluation in JBI systematic reviews.

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.

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials.

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.

How should we handle predatory journals in evidence synthesis? A descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study of evidence synthesis experts.

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.

Assessing the risk of bias of quantitative analytical studies: introducing the vision for critical appraisal within JBI systematic reviews.

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.

Turning the flywheel: mobilizing the JBI model of evidence-based healthcare.

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.