Methods Projects

The following are not funded by DSEN.

1. Advancing scoping study methodology: a web-based survey and consultation of perceptions on terminology, definition and methodological steps
2. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methodshttps://bmchealthservres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12913-016-1579-z
3. A scoping review of rapid review methods
4. A scoping review on the conduct and reporting of scoping reviews
5. An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes
6. A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews
7. A scoping review describes methods used to identify, prioritize and display gaps in health research
8. A users’ guide to understanding therapeutic substitutions
9. A third of systematic reviews changed or did not specify the primary outcome: a PROSPERO register study
10. An introduction to methodological issues when including non-randomised studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions
11. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both
12. Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study
13. Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study
14. Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review
15. Barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes to engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in knowledge synthesis: a scoping review protocol
16. Bibliographic study showed improving statistical methodology of network meta-analyses published between 1999-2015
17. Blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias in studies included in a systematic review
18. Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation
19. Characteristics and knowledge synthesis approach for 456 network meta-analyses: a scoping review
20. Checklists of methodological issues for review authors to consider when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews
21. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses
22. Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey
23. Defining rapid reviews: a modified Delphi consensus approach
24. Developing WHO rapid advice guidelines in the setting of a public health emergency
25. Engaging policy-makers, heath system managers, and policy analysts in the knowledge synthesis process: a scoping review
26. Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study
27. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study
28. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review
29. Expediting evidence synthesis for healthcare decision-making: exploring attitudes and perceptions towards rapid reviews using Q methodology
30. Few studies exist examining methods for selecting studies, abstracting data, and appraising quality in a systematic review
31. Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis
32. Following Cochrane review protocols to completion 10 years later: a retrospective cohort study and author survey
33. Conducting high quality scoping reviews- challenges and solutions 
34. Importance of assessing and adjusting for cross-study heterogeneity in network meta-analysis: a case study of psoriasis
35. Improving the conduct of systematic reviews: A process mining perspective
36. Inter-rater reliability and validity of risk of bias instrument for non-randomized studies of exposures: a study protocol
37. Inter-rater reliability and concurrent validity of ROBINS-I: protocol for a cross-sectional study
38. Issues relating to selective reporting when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions
39. Issues relating to study design and risk of bias when including non-randomized studies in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions
40. Knowledge synthesis methods for integrating qualitative and quantitative data: a scoping review reveals poor operationalization of the methodological steps
41. Methodologically rigorous risk of bias tools for non randomized studies had low reliability and high evaluator burden
42. A Microsoft-Excel-based tool for running and critically appraising network meta-analyses–an overview and application of NetMetaXL
43. Network meta-analysis incorporating randomized controlled trials and non-randomized comparative cohort studies for assessing the safety and effectiveness of medical treatments: Challenges and opportunities
44. Non-randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions
45. Paule-Mandel estimators for network meta-analysis with random inconsistency effects
46. Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR): a protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
47. Preparing scoping reviews for publication using methodological guides and reporting standards
48. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
49. PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations
50. PROTOCOL: When and how to replicate systematic reviews
51. Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines
52. Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps
53. Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods
54. Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda
55. Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review
56. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide
57. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting
58. Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews
59. Reporting scoping reviews – PRISMA ScR extension
60. Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions
61. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
62. Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis
63. Scoping review identifies significant number of knowledge translation theories, models, and frameworks with limited use
64. Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting
65. Steps toward more complete reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Test Accuracy (PRISMA-DTA)
66. Sustainability of knowledge translation interventions in healthcare decision-making: a scoping review
67. Systematic reviews of clinical practice guidelines: a methodological guide
68. The Devil Is in the Details: Incomplete Reporting in Preclinical Animal Research
69. The Importance of Considering Differences in Study Design in Network Meta-analysis: An Application Using Anti-Tumor Necrosis Factor Drugs for Ulcerative Colitis
70. The PRISMA statement extension for systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: PRISMA-NMA
71. The quality of reporting methods and results in network meta-analyses: an overview of reviews and suggestions for improvement
72. Undertaking a scoping review: A practical guide for nursing and midwifery students, clinicians, researchers, and academics
73. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
74. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage
75. What guidance are economists given on how to present economic evaluations for policymakers? A Systematic Review
76. What guidance are researchers given on how to present network meta-analyses to end-users such as policymakers and clinicians? A systematic review
77. Using a distribution-based approach and systematic review methods to derive minimum clinically important differences
78. Comparative Efficacy and Safety of Ultra-Long-Acting, Long-Acting, Intermediate-Acting, and Biosimilar Insulins for Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus: a Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis
79. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
80. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
81. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews
82. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
83. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
84. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
85. Interventions and strategies involving primary healthcare professionals to manage emergency department overcrowding: a scoping review
86. Customized guidance/ training improved the psychometric properties of methodologically rigorous risk of bias instruments for non-randomized studies
87. Text mining to support abstract screening for knowledge syntheses: a semi-automated workflow