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
  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
  88. Methodological review to develop a list of bias items used to assess reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: protocol and rationale
  89. Systematic Versus Rapid Versus Scoping Reviews
  90. Scoping reviews: reinforcing and advancing the methodology and application
  91. Practical guide to undertaking scoping reviews for pharmacy clinicians, researchers and policymakers
  92. What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol