Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same topic: A protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

Abstract Introduction: An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. Overviews of systematic reviews aim to address these challenges by summarising results of SRs and making sense of potentially discrepant SR results and conclusions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same topic. Since this tool pre-dates the advent of overviews, it has been inconsistently applied in this context. Our study aims to (a) replicate assessments done in a sample of overviews using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (b) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency, and comprehensiveness, and (c) describe how overviews address discordance in results across multiple SRs. Methods and Analysis: We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for overviews assessing discordance. This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database for overviews. We will include any overviews using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 overviews screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate Jadad assessments in overviews. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the overviews’ assessment. Ethics and Dissemination: No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance in SRs.

Download Full-text

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same question: Protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

10.21203/rs.3.rs-931213/v2 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Sai Surabi Thirugnanasampanthar ◽

Salman Kanji ◽

Nicola Ferri ◽

Dawid Pieper ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Social Media ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Human Subjects ◽

Open Access Journal ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Bibliometric Study ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Social Media Platforms ◽

Clinical Questions ◽

Evidence Summaries

Abstract Introduction: An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (a) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (b) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency, and comprehensiveness, and (c) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs. Methods and Analysis: We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called Discordant Reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors’ Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors’ assessment. Ethics and Dissemination: No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs.

Download Full-text

Locating the Best Available Research

Clinician's Guide to Evidence-Based Practices ◽

10.1093/med:psych/9780190621933.003.0003 ◽

2016 ◽

pp. 29-48

Author(s):

John C. Norcross ◽

Thomas P. Hogan ◽

Gerald P. Koocher ◽

Lauren A. Maggio

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Information Sources ◽

Clinical Evidence ◽

Information Resources ◽

Background Information ◽

Evidence Based ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Wild Cards ◽

Clinical Questions

This chapter discusses the steps EBP clinicians should take in finding evidence that addresses their clinical questions: searching background information resources, which provide overviews of topics, and then moving to filtered information resources, which provide access to timesaving, synthesized information. To help clinicians navigate these resources, the chapter summarizes basic search concepts that are applicable across the resources, such as Boolean operators, truncation, wild cards, and limits. The chapter describes key background information sources, such as eMedicine, textbooks, and Wikipedia. It then discusses key filtered information sources, including the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, BMJ Clinical Evidence, and several evidence-based journals. The chapter provides tailored tips for optimal searching within each resource introduced.

Download Full-text

Nominate Clinical Questions for Systematic Reviews

ASHA Leader ◽

10.1044/leader.an6.18032013.60 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 18 (3) ◽

pp. 60-60

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Clinical Questions

Nominate Clinical Questions for Systematic Reviews

Download Full-text

Faculty Opinions recommendation of The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review.

Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature ◽

10.3410/f.727097912.793533414 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

Saravana Kumar ◽

Esther Tian

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Health System ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Summaries

Download Full-text

From Bitcoin to Central Bank Digital Currencies: Making Sense of the Digital Money Revolution

Future Internet ◽

10.3390/fi13070165 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 13 (7) ◽

pp. 165

Author(s):

Paulo Rupino Cunha ◽

Paulo Melo ◽

Helder Sebastião

Keyword(s):

Central Bank ◽

Practical Implication ◽

Grey Literature ◽

Central Banks ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Making Sense ◽

Extensive Search ◽

Trade Offs ◽

Digital Money ◽

Open Issues

We analyze the path from cryptocurrencies to official Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), to shed some light on the ultimate dematerialization of money. To that end, we made an extensive search that resulted in a review of more than 100 academic and grey literature references, including official positions from central banks. We present and discuss the characteristics of the different CBDC variants being considered—namely, wholesale, retail, and, for the latter, the account-based, and token-based—as well as ongoing pilots, scenarios of interoperability, and open issues. Our contribution enables decision-makers and society at large to understand the potential advantages and risks of introducing CBDCs, and how these vary according to many technical and economic design choices. The practical implication is that a debate becomes possible about the trade-offs that the stakeholders are willing to accept.

Download Full-text

Making sense of farmers’ demand for seed of root, tuber and banana crops: a systematic review of methods

Food Security ◽

10.1007/s12571-021-01157-9 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Thomas Pircher ◽

Conny J. M. Almekinders

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Classification Scheme ◽

Agricultural Research ◽

Global Scale ◽

The Body ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Seed Systems ◽

Making Sense ◽

Root Tuber ◽

Agricultural Research And Development

AbstractA demand-driven approach is becoming increasingly central in the efforts to improve agricultural research and development. However, the question of how exactly demand is studied usually remains unstated and is rarely discussed. We therefore carried out a systematic review in order to better understand how farmers’ demand for seed in root, tuber and banana seed systems is studied. The review is based on data from a consultation with an expert panel and a structured literature search in the SCOPUS database. Screening the gathered articles resulted in 46 studies on a global scale, fitting the scope of our investigation. Through qualitative analysis and categorization of these studies, we developed a classification scheme according to the types of approaches applied in the retained studies. One group of studies explicitly articulates farmers’ preferences and choices through surveys or engagements in trials, auctions, choice experiments and interviews. Other studies implicitly articulate farmers’ demand by characterising their current use of varieties and seed. We discuss opportunities and limitations in the use of each type of study and we reflect on the body of available literature as a whole. Our conclusion is that a framework is necessary that purposefully combines the existing different methods and that it is necessary to involve stakeholders in a process where demand is articulated. Together, these two steps would characterise existing demands in a more effective and precise way, thus providing better guidance to decision-makers in their reactions pertaining to seed systems.

Download Full-text

Framing Effects and Fuzzy Traces: ‘Some’ Observations

Review of Philosophy and Psychology ◽

10.1007/s13164-021-00556-3 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Sarah A. Fisher

Keyword(s):

Framing Effects ◽

Decision Makers ◽

Core Element ◽

Alternative Interventions ◽

Trace Theory ◽

Fuzzy Trace Theory ◽

The Core ◽

Making Sense ◽

Lower Bounding ◽

Central Claim

AbstractFraming effects occur when people respond differently to the same information, just because it is conveyed in different words. For example, in the classic ‘Disease Problem’ introduced by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman, people’s choices between alternative interventions depend on whether these are described positively, in terms of the number of people who will be saved, or negatively in terms of the corresponding number who will die. In this paper, I discuss an account of framing effects based on ‘fuzzy-trace theory’. The central claim of this account is that people represent the numbers in framing problems in a ‘gist-like’ way, as ‘some’; and that this creates a categorical contrast between ‘some’ people being saved (or dying) and ‘no’ people being saved (or dying). I argue that fuzzy-trace theory’s gist-like representation, ‘some’, must have the semantics of ‘some and possibly all’, not ‘some but not all’. I show how this commits fuzzy-trace theory to a modest version of a rival ‘lower bounding hypothesis’, according to which lower-bounded interpretations of quantities contribute to framing effects by rendering the alternative descriptions extensionally inequivalent. As a result, fuzzy-trace theory is incoherent as it stands. Making sense of it requires dropping, or refining, the claim that decision-makers perceive alternatively framed options as extensionally equivalent; and the related claim that framing effects are irrational. I end by suggesting that, whereas the modest lower bounding hypothesis is well supported, there is currently less evidence for the core element of the fuzzy trace account.

Download Full-text

Role of Topical Oxymetazoline for Management of Erythematotelangiectatic Rosacea

Annals of Pharmacotherapy ◽

10.1177/1060028017740139 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 52 (3) ◽

pp. 263-267 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Rebecca M. Hoover ◽

John Erramouspe

Keyword(s):

English Language ◽

Human Subjects ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Drug Approval ◽

Current Data ◽

Patient Response ◽

Study Selection ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Drug Approval Process ◽

Individual Patient Response

Objective: To review and summarize topical oxymetazoline’s pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, safety, cost, and place in therapy for persistent redness associated with erythematotelangiectatic rosacea. Data Sources: Literature searches of MEDLINE (1975 to September 2017), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1975 to September 2017), and Cochrane Database (publications through September 2017) using the terms rosacea, persistent redness, α -agonist, and oxymetazoline. Study Selection and Data Extraction: Results were limited to studies of human subjects, English-language publications, and topical use of oxymetazoline. Relevant materials from government sources, industry, and reviews were also included. Data Synthesis: Data support the efficacy of oxymetazoline for persistent facial redness. Little study beyond clinical trials cited in the drug approval process has been conducted. Current data suggest that oxymetazoline is similar in safety and efficacy to brimonidine. Head-to-head comparisons of topical α-agonists for erythema caused by rosacea are needed. Conclusion: The topical α-agonist, oxymetazoline, is safe and effective for reducing persistent facial redness associated with erythematotelangiectatic subtype of rosacea. Health care practitioners selecting among treatments should consider not only the subtype of rosacea but also individual patient response, preference, and cost.

Download Full-text