The JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group

Poster
2024 Prague [Global Evidence Summit]
Barker T1, Hasanoff S1, Stone J2, Aromataris E2, Leonardi-Bee J3, Sears K4, Klugar M5, Liu X6, Munn Z1
1HESRI, The University Of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
2JBI, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
3Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, England
4Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality, Ontario, Canada
5Cochrane Czech Republic, The Czech Republic: JBI Centre of Excellence, Czech GRADE Network, Institute of Health Information and Statistics of the Czech Republic, Prague, Czech Republic; Center of Evidence-based Education and Arts Therapies: A JBI Affiliated Group, Faculty of Education, Palacky University Olomouc, Olomouc, Czech Republic
6School of Nursing and Health Studies, Hong Kong Metropolitan University, Hong Kong, China

Background:

Scientific development is a fundamental priority for JBI, a world leader in the provision and update of methodological guidance of systematic reviews. The scientific agenda of JBI is driven through its methodology groups that comprise experts across JBI and the JBI Collaboration. The remit of these groups is to develop and maintain the methodologies for systematic reviews of different types of evidence. One of these groups is the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group (EMG).

Objective:

In this presentation, we aim to showcase the workings, achievements and lessons learned of the JBI EMG over the last 5 years. We aim to present an example of the benefits that serving in an international, collaborative working group, committed to developing systematic review methodologies can bring to researchers of all levels.

Methods:

The main objective of the JBI EMG is the update and maintenance of the “Systematic Reviews of Effectiveness” chapter of the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The group is also tasked with investigation into novel methods that may be relevant to the review process for systematic reviews of effectiveness, and how these processes can be integrated into the current methodological guidance. All methods are reviewed and ultimately ratified by the JBI Scientific Committee prior to dissemination. This work is supplemented through targeted meta-epidemiological and methodological research projects. All these processes result in research papers that are published in the JBI Evidence Synthesis journal, following the standard, peer-review process.

Results:

The JBI EMG has produced numerous methodological guidance, ranging from methods to conduct a meta-analysis of proportions; development of critical appraisal tools for the assessment of risk of bias, to the appropriate choice of terminology when conducting these reviews. These formal outputs all serve to develop the ultimate objective of the EMG, being the chapter in the JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis.

Conclusion:

The JBI EMG serves as an example of a productive, efficient collaboration of international researchers of all career levels dedicated to the delivery and update of methods for systematic reviews of effectiveness. The lessons learned and our model of operation may be of use to groups working within this space.