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 objective of this commentary, which is part of the JBI Series on Risk of Bias, is to discuss some of the distinctions among different tool structures and approaches to risk of bias assessment and the implications of these approaches for systematic reviewers.

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. Two data-based methods (Welton's data-based approach and Doi's quality effects model) and 4 opinion-informed methods (opinion-based approach, opinion-based distributions combined statistically with data-based distributions, numerical opinions informed by data-based distributions, and opinions obtained by selecting areas from data-based distributions) were used to incorporate methodological quality information into the meta-analytical estimates. The results of these 6 methods were compared with 2 unadjusted models: the DerSimonian-Laird random effects model and Doi's inverse variance heterogeneity model. RESULTS: The 4 opinion-based methods returned the random effects model estimates with wider uncertainty. The data-based and quality effects methods returned different results and aligned with the inverse variance heterogeneity method with some minor downward bias adjustment. CONCLUSION: Opinion-based methods seem to only add uncertainty rather than bias adjust.

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. However, such studies are subject to unique considerations regarding their internal validity and, consequently, the assessment of the risk of bias of these studies needs to consider these features of design and conduct. The JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group has recently commenced updating the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs to align with the latest advancements in risk of bias assessment. This paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for risk of bias assessment of quasi-experimental studies; offers practical guidance for its use; provides examples for interpreting the results of risk of bias assessment; and discusses major changes from the previous version, along with the justifications for those changes.

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. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.

Tools to assess the risk of bias of evidence syntheses: a scoping review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this scoping review is to identify and examine risk of bias tools, critical appraisal tools, and/or assessment of methodological quality tools (including their items and domains) developed to assess all types of evidence syntheses. INTRODUCTION: Evidence synthesis is often the basis for policies, procedures, decisions, and evidence-based practice. It is imperative that evidence syntheses are of good quality, reproducible, and reliable. Despite methodological advancements, there remains a substantial risk that bias is present in the conduct of an evidence synthesis project, hindering the validity and reliability of the findings. One way to assess bias is through formal tools and assessments for assessing the risk of bias and/or methodological quality. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Published and unpublished papers presenting a risk of bias, critical appraisal, or methodological quality assessment tool for assessing an evidence synthesis will be included. Individual umbrella reviews proposing a de novo tool or modified tool will be excluded from the review, as will texts that do not present a tool. METHODS: A 3-step search strategy will be conducted to locate both published and unpublished documents. An initial search of PubMed was developed with a librarian, which identified keywords and MeSH terms. A second search of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Embase (Ovid), Scopus, and Compendex will follow. Websites and databases, including Google, Cochrane, and JBI, will be searched for difficult-to-locate and unpublished literature. Documents will be independently screened, selected, and extracted by 2 researchers, and the data will be presented narratively and in tables. REVIEW REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework osf.io/mjcfy.

Effectiveness of NOTES versus traditional techniques on surgical outcomes in adults with diverticulitis: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will evaluate the effectiveness of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic surgery (NOTES)/hybrid NOTES versus traditional surgical techniques in the management of diverticular disease. INTRODUCTION: Diverticular disease can have a significant impact on a patient's quality of life, especially the changes affecting bowel function. Recurrent/severe symptoms may require surgery. Resections are invasive and can have significant operative complications. There has been a shift from an open resection to a more minimally invasive technique such as laparoscopy. Furthermore, the use of natural orifice transluminal endoscopic resection, using a transanal/transvaginal approach, has begun to be used in colorectal resections. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible studies will include patients who underwent surgical resection for diverticular disease or diverticulitis. The review will consider studies that evaluate NOTES in the management of diverticular disease or diverticulitis. This will include hybrid procedures involving both NOTES and natural orifice specimen extraction (NOSE), with the aid of laparoscopy/endoscopy/robotic equipment. Studies on participants under 18 years of age and presenting with non-diverticular pathologies will be excluded. METHODS: This review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement. Databases to be searched will include PubMed, MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ANZCTR, with no language limitations. The reference lists of included studies will be screened for additional studies. This review will preferentially consider experimental and quasi-experimental study designs. Two reviewers will conduct critical appraisal and data extraction. Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analyses. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER: PROSPERO CRD42023420771.

Reactions of Benzylboronate Nucleophiles.

This short review summarizes our laboratory's development of benzylboronic esters as nucleophiles. Activation of the benzylboronic ester is achieved by irreversible coordination of an alkyllithium Lewis base to form a nucleophilic benzylboronate. This boronate was found to react with aldehydes, imines, ketones and alkyl bromides. A copper catalyst was employed in reactions of the boronate with epoxides and aziridines.

Effectiveness of dual active ingredient insecticide-treated nets in preventing malaria: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Malaria vectors have demonstrated resistance to pyrethroid-based insecticides used in insecticide-treated nets, diminishing their effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis investigated two forms of dual active-ingredient (DAI) insecticide-treated nets (ITN(s)) for malaria prevention. A comprehensive search was conducted on July 6th 2022. The databases searched included PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, amongst others. Trials were eligible if they were conducted in a region with ongoing malaria transmission. The first DAI ITN investigated were those that combined a pyrethroid with a non-pyrethroid insecticides. The second DAI ITN investigated were that combined a pyrethroid with an insect growth regulator. These interventions were compared against either a pyrethroid-only ITN, or ITNs treated with pyrethroid and piperonyl-butoxide. Assessment of risk of bias was conducted in duplicate using the Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for cluster-randomised trials. Summary data was extracted using a custom data-extraction instrument. This was conducted by authors THB, JCS and SH. Malaria case incidence was the primary outcome and has been meta-analysed, adverse events were narratively synthesised. The review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022333044). From 9494 records, 48 reports were screened and 13 reports for three studies were included. These studies contained data from 186 clusters and all reported a low risk of bias. Compared to pyrethroid-only ITNs, clusters that received pyrethroid-non-pyrethroid DAI ITNs were associated with 305 fewer cases per 1000-person years (from 380 fewer cases to 216 fewer cases) (IRR = 0.55, 95%CI: 0.44-0.68). However, this trend was not observed in clusters that received pyrethroid-insect growth regulator ITNs compared to pyrethroid-only ITNs (from 280 fewer cases to 135 more) (IRR = 0.90, 95%CI: 0.73-1.13). Pyrethroid-non-pyrethroid DAI ITNs demonstrated consistent reductions in malaria case incidence and other outcomes across multiple comparisons. Pyrethroid-non-pyrethroid DAI ITNs may present a novel intervention for the control of malaria.

Clinical outcomes and resource utilisation in patients with major burns treated with NovoSorb® BTM.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with major burns can undergo temporary coverage while skin graft donor sites heal, where dermal templates have an emerging role. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes and resource utilisation in patients with major burns treated with a bilayer biodegradable synthetic matrix (NovoSorb BTM). METHOD: This retrospective cohort study included patients admitted to the Royal Brisbane and Women's Hospital Adult Burn Unit with burns to at least 40 % TBSA who survived their acute admission. Patients treated from July 2017 to June 2022 with BTM were compared with patients with similar injuries treated using cadaveric allograft as temporising full thickness wound coverage between January 2013 and June 2017. Outcomes measures included number of operations, total operative time, hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS), cadaveric allograft and BTM use, and blood product use. Unadjusted comparisons were made with Wilcoxon Rank-Sum tests and Fisher's exact tests. Multivariate linear regression was used to adjust for the effect of TBSA on each outcome. RESULTS: Fifty-five patients were included (78 % male), 22 of whom were treated with BTM. We found no significant differences in age, sex, or TBSA between groups. One patient had half of the BTM removed due to infection and replaced with allograft. Patients treated with BTM had significantly less operative theatre time (median 1361.5 min [BTM] vs 1768 min [no BTM], P = 0.044). Number of operations, allograft use, hospital and ICU LOS, and blood product use were similar between groups. Adjusted models accounting for TBSA supported unadjusted models. CONCLUSION: Resource utilisation and clinical outcomes were similar in patients with at least 40 % TBSA treated with BTM and those who were treated with allograft before the introduction of BTM. Patients treated with BTM had significantly less total operative time and no difference in number of operations, allograft use and ICU LOS.

Effectiveness of perioperative anticoagulation interruption without heparin bridging on thromboembolic events in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing elective invasive procedures: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will determine whether withholding heparin bridging is superior to bridging in patients with atrial fibrillation requiring temporary interruption of anticoagulation therapy in the perioperative period of an elective invasive procedure. INTRODUCTION: Atrial fibrillation is the most commonly diagnosed clinical arrhythmia. It is an important cause of cardioembolic events, requiring the use of oral anticoagulation in most patients. It is unclear whether heparin bridging during temporary interruption of anticoagulants has superior outcomes compared with no bridging in the perioperative setting. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will consider studies that compare adults aged 18 years or older; diagnosed with atrial fibrillation; undergoing elective invasive procedures; and who have had oral anticoagulants temporarily withheld with heparin bridging with patients without heparin bridging. Participants will be excluded if they had an alternative reason for anticoagulation or were admitted for emergency surgery. Outcomes will include arterial or venous thromboembolism (including stroke, transient ischemic attack, systemic embolism), major bleeding events, non-major bleeding events, length of hospital stay, and all-cause mortality. METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and CENTRAL will be searched for randomized and non-randomized trials from inception until the present. Two independent reviewers will screen citations by title and abstract, and again at full text. Risk of bias will be assessed using the JBI critical appraisal instrument, and data will be extracted using a modified extraction tool. Results will be synthesized using a random effects meta-analysis and presented in a forest plot. Heterogeneity will be tested for using the standard χ 2 and I2 tests. Overall certainty of evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE approach. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022348538.

Residual insecticide surface treatment for preventing malaria: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Malaria presents a significant global public health burden, although substantial progress has been made, with vector control initiatives such as indoor residual surface spraying with insecticides and insecticide-treated nets. There now exists many different approaches to apply residual insecticide to indoor and outdoor surfaces in malaria-endemic settings, although no comprehensive systematic reviews exist evaluating these interventions. This manuscript outlines the protocol for a systematic review which aims to synthesise the best available evidence regarding full or partial indoor or outdoor residual insecticide surface treatment for preventing malaria. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This review will comprehensively search the literature (both published and unpublished) for any studies investigating the effectiveness of residual insecticide surface treatment for malaria. Studies will be screened to meet the inclusion criteria by a minimum of two authors, followed by assessment of risk of bias (using appropriate risk-of-bias tools for randomised and non-randomised studies) and extraction of relevant information using structured forms by two independent authors. Meta-analysis will be carried out where possible for epidemiological outcomes such as malaria, anaemia, malaria-related mortality, all-cause mortality and adverse effects. Certainty in the evidence will be established with GRADE assessments. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: A full review report will be submitted to the Vector Control & Insecticide Resistance Unit, Global Malaria Program, WHO. A version of this report will be submitted for publication in an open access peer-reviewed journal. The report will inform the development of WHO recommendations regarding residual insecticide treatment for malaria. This systematic review does not require ethics approval as it is a review of primary studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 293194.

Effectiveness of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen in apneic oxygenation during intubation in high-risk surgical patients: a systematic review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: This review will investigate the effectiveness of high-flow nasal oxygen in apneic oxygenation through safe apnea time and other ventilation parameters in patients at high risk of oxygen desaturation during induction and tracheal intubation for anesthesia management. INTRODUCTION: High-risk surgical patient groups include obese patients, those with suspected or known obstructive sleep apnea, and critically ill patients, who are at risk of rapid oxygen desaturation during intubation. Conventional oxygen administration in induction and intubation of patients undergoing general anesthesia include nasal cannulas, simple face masks, Venturi, buccal oxygenation, bag-valve mask ventilation, and non-invasive ventilation. High-flow nasal oxygen has emerged as a novel technique, and is advantageous because it increases positive end-expiratory pressure and oxygen delivered. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Eligible studies will include high-risk surgical patients aged 18 or above requiring endotracheal intubation in both emergency and elective anesthetic settings. High-risk patients are defined as those with suspected or known obstructive sleep apnea, obesity (BMI > 35), or critically ill patients (scored the American Society of Anesthesiologists classification as 3 or above). METHODS: The review will follow the JBI methodology for systematic reviews of effectiveness. Databases to be searched include MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus. Reference lists of selected studies will then be hand-searched for additional eligible studies. The primary outcome will be safe apnea time, with secondary outcomes including oxygen and carbon dioxide parameters, and adverse events (eg, gastric distension). Studies will, where possible, be pooled in statistical meta-analyses with data heterogeneity assessed using the standard χ2 and I2 tests. REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022312145.

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. As evidence synthesis methodology has advanced, guidance for the critical appraisal of primary research has emphasized a distinction from the assessment of internal validity required for synthesized research. This assessment is conceptualized and branded in various ways in the literature, such as risk of bias, critical appraisal, study validity, methodological quality, and methodological limitations. This paper provides a discussion of the definitions and characteristics of these terms, concluding with a recommendation for JBI to adopt the term "risk of bias" assessment.

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. We also discuss the major changes made to this tool compared to the previous version and justification for why these changes facilitate best-practice methodologies in this field.

Reporting quality and risk of bias in JBI systematic reviews evaluating the effectiveness of interventions: a methodological review protocol.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this methodological review is to evaluate the adherence of systematic reviews of effectiveness published in JBI Evidence Synthesis to reporting guidelines and methodological quality. INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews of effectiveness are essential tools for health practitioners and policy-makers. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 guidelines and the Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool are used to ensure maintenance of high reporting standards and methodological quality, respectively. This review will utilize these tools to identify strengths and shortfalls in the reporting quality of JBI systematic reviews of effectiveness. INCLUSION CRITERIA: This review will include the 20 most recent systematic reviews of effectiveness published in JBI Evidence Synthesis . METHODS: This review will search MEDLINE (PubMed) for effectiveness reviews published in JBI Evidence Synthesis . Abstract and full-text screening will be performed by 2 independent reviewers, and the most recent 20 studies will be selected for inclusion. Data regarding adherence to PRISMA 2020 and ROBIS will be extracted by 2 independent reviewers. Data will be presented descriptively with tables and synthesized narratively.

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. Employing a descriptive survey-based cross-sectional study design, these experts were asked a series of questions regarding predatory journals to explore these attitudes, opinions, and experiences. Two hundred and sixty four evidence synthesis experts responded to this survey. Most respondents agreed with the definition of a predatory journal (86%), however several (19%) responded that this definition was difficult to apply practically. Many respondents believed that studies published in predatory journals are still eligible for inclusion into an evidence synthesis project. However, this was only after the study had been determined to be 'high-quality' (39%) or if the results were validated (13%). While many respondents could identify common characteristics of these journals, there was still hesitancy regarding the appropriate methods to follow when considering including these studies into an evidence synthesis project.