Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Ideally, primary researchers base new studies on prior studies to avoid research waste. In case no up-to-date systematic review (SR) on a topic is available, primary researchers would need to conduct or update one by themselves. However, the resource intensity associated with this process often keeps primary researchers from doing so. To facilitate the uptake of evidence-based research the production and update of SR need to be accelerated.
Aim: We aim to identify the most resource intensive areas when conducting or updating a SR in order to find out where the largest gain in improving efficiency whilst sustaining quality might be possible. In addition, we would like to know why these areas are resource intensive in order to identify suitable methods to address them.
Methods: We will conduct a scoping review (protocol available: https://osf.io/fby54/). We will include SR and empirical and simulation studies that assess resource use in systematic reviews of health interventions, diagnostic, or prognostic studies, without any limits on languages or publication status. We will also include qualitative studies that assessed reasons why diverse steps are resource intense. We will limit our search to studies published from 2009 onwards to get an overview of resource use of current SR processes. An information specialist will perform the search, following the three-step process recommended by the Joanna Briggs institute. In a first step, we conduct a limited, focused, search of Ovid MEDLINE. A second, comprehensive, search using all identified keywords and index terms will be undertaken across the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus (Elsevier), Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Current Contents Connect (via Web of Science). In a third step, the reference list of identified reports and articles will be screened for additional studies. We will also conduct reference chasing, search for dissertations and theses via ProQuest, and conduct a handsearch of relevant conference proceedings (e.g., the Cochrane Colloquium).
Results: We plan to complete the scoping review in August and be able to present results in October at the Cochrane Colloquium. As a result of this research project we aim to give an overview of the most resource intensive steps of the systematic review process, as well as factors influencing this resource intensity. Results of this scoping review will be complemented by a qualitative study on reasons for resource intensity of SR steps and will feed into a Delphi study that aims to prioritize areas in the systematic review process and methods that are most relevant and promising for speeding up the review process. This should guide future methods improvement and validity studies in this area and ultimately help to accelerate the systematic review production without compromising quality.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Increasing evidence-based research ultimately benefits users of healthcare: research becomes more efficient and results can faster improve practice.
Aim: We aim to identify the most resource intensive areas when conducting or updating a SR in order to find out where the largest gain in improving efficiency whilst sustaining quality might be possible. In addition, we would like to know why these areas are resource intensive in order to identify suitable methods to address them.
Methods: We will conduct a scoping review (protocol available: https://osf.io/fby54/). We will include SR and empirical and simulation studies that assess resource use in systematic reviews of health interventions, diagnostic, or prognostic studies, without any limits on languages or publication status. We will also include qualitative studies that assessed reasons why diverse steps are resource intense. We will limit our search to studies published from 2009 onwards to get an overview of resource use of current SR processes. An information specialist will perform the search, following the three-step process recommended by the Joanna Briggs institute. In a first step, we conduct a limited, focused, search of Ovid MEDLINE. A second, comprehensive, search using all identified keywords and index terms will be undertaken across the following databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Scopus (Elsevier), Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, and Current Contents Connect (via Web of Science). In a third step, the reference list of identified reports and articles will be screened for additional studies. We will also conduct reference chasing, search for dissertations and theses via ProQuest, and conduct a handsearch of relevant conference proceedings (e.g., the Cochrane Colloquium).
Results: We plan to complete the scoping review in August and be able to present results in October at the Cochrane Colloquium. As a result of this research project we aim to give an overview of the most resource intensive steps of the systematic review process, as well as factors influencing this resource intensity. Results of this scoping review will be complemented by a qualitative study on reasons for resource intensity of SR steps and will feed into a Delphi study that aims to prioritize areas in the systematic review process and methods that are most relevant and promising for speeding up the review process. This should guide future methods improvement and validity studies in this area and ultimately help to accelerate the systematic review production without compromising quality.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Increasing evidence-based research ultimately benefits users of healthcare: research becomes more efficient and results can faster improve practice.