Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/343/bmj.d5928.full.pdf

The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

자연주의적 탐구조사(Naturalistic Inquiry)

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n71.full.pdf

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

305 fears and beliefs regarding knee osteoarthritis: views from patients and practitioners. elaboration of the knee fear-belief questionnaire (kfbq) using a qualitative interview study and a delphi consensus method

Objectives Collective intelligence (CI), which is defined as shared intelligence emerging from a group of people when they work on the same tasks, is a cornerstone of science where researchers interact and collaborate with each other. However, a new kind of CI through crowdsourcing is emerging by inclusively mobilising people who are not usually involved in research to conduct more innovative research which address the needs of the community. Climate CoLab, an initiative experimenting new ideas to tackle climate change, has mobilised more than 90 000 people to develop and implement more than 2000 research proposals within 7 years since its creation. To determine whether CI through crowdsourcing could change how research is performed, we systematically reviewed methods of mobilising CI through crowdsourcing across different fields of research. Method We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, EBSCO Business Source Premier, EBSCO Academic Source Premier, Google scholar and resources of the Centre for Collective Intelligence Massachusetts Institute of Technology for all reports describing a research project that had applied methods of CI through crowdsourcing defined as shared intelligence emerging when mobilising people who are usually not involved in the research process to work on a specific task (e.g., solving a problem, generating ideas). We extracted information on the following domains: (1) purposes of using CI, (2) type of participants and methods to recruit participants, (3) motivation, (4) type of participants’ contribution to the project, (5) type of interaction between participants, (6) methods to evaluate participants’ contribution and decision making process, (7) challenges and drawbacks of CI reported by authors and authors’ satisfaction with participants’ contributions. We applied content analysis to inductively develop themes and categories for each domain. Results We identified 141 reports. CI was mobilised to generate ideas, to evaluate ideas/work, to solve problem (e.g., diagnose disease, analyse and interpret data), or to create intellectual products. Most research projects (76%) were open to the public without restriction to the expertise of participants. Incentives to participants and intrinsic motivation were reported in 74% of articles. Of those reported, 38% were financial incentives, followed by recognition from the network (8%), access to data (2%). Independent contribution (i.e., no interaction with other participants) (37%), collaboration (31%), competitions (26%), and playing games (11%) were the methods by which participants contributed to projects. 61% of articles reported methods of evaluation of participants’ contribution and decision-making process with 43% of projects using an independent panel of experts and 18% involving end-users in evaluation and decision making. Some challenges in implementation and sustainability of collective intelligence were reported. Conclusions Our results provide an in-depth description of methods for mobilising collective intelligence and we propose a framework to facilitate its use in research. However, more research is needed to understand the conditions which enable and constrain the success of collective intelligence.

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/ebmed/23/Suppl_1/A31.2.full.pdf

63 Methods of mobilising collective intelligence through crowdsourcing in research: a scoping review

A systematic review identifies, appraises and synthesises all the empirical evidence from studies that meet prespecified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. As part of the appraisal, researchers use explicit methods to assess risk of bias in the results’ from included studies that contribute to the review’s findings, to improve our confidence in the review’s conclusions. Randomised controlled trials included in Cochrane Reviews have used a specific risk of bias tool to assess these included studies since 2008. In 2019, a new version of this tool, Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2), was launched to improve its usability and to reflect current understanding of how the causes of bias can influence study results. Cochrane implemented RoB 2 in a phased approach, with users of the tool informing guidance development. This paper highlights learning for all systematic reviewers (Cochrane and non-Cochrane) from the phased implementation, highlighting differences between the original version of the tool and RoB 2, consideration of reporting systematic review protocols or full review reports that have used RoB 2, and some tips shared by authors during the pilot phase of the implementation.

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/ebmed/early/2023/01/23/bmjebm-2022-112102.full.pdf

Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane

Objective To explore how the results from the 2014 dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) trial were disseminated to the scientific community and online media. Design A a systematic review of scholarly and public attention surrounding the DAPT study. Settings Data were collected from the ISI Web of Knowledge, Google Scholar, PubMed Commons, EurekAlert, the DAPT study website (www.daptstudy.org) and the New England Journal of Medicine website (for scholarly attention) and Altmetric Explorer, Snap Bird, YouTube (for public attention) citing DAPT study results appearing from 16 November 2014 to 10 June 2015. Participants No participants were involved in this study. Main outcome measure Proportion of contents highlighting the increased risk of mortality and critical to the author’s interpretation of the results. Results We identified 425 items reported by seven sources; 164 (39%) disseminated the authors’ interpretation via an electronic link or a reference, with no additional text. Among 81 items (19 %), the message favoured prolonged treatment and consequently overstated the article conclusions. Among 119 items (28 %), the text was uncertain about the benefit of prolonged treatment but was reported with no or inappropriate mention of increased risk of mortality. Only 34 items (8 %) were uncertain about the benefit of prolonged treatment and mentioned increased risk of mortality. In all, 27 items (6 %) did not favour prolonged treatment, and only 12 of these (3 %) clearly raised some concerns about the reporting of increased risk of death. Conclusion Dissemination of the DAPT study results to the scientific community and on different media sources rarely criticised the interpretation of the study results.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/7/11/e014503.full.pdf

Dissemination of 2014 dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) trial results: a systematic review of scholarly and media attention over 7 months.

Objective To generate an understanding of the communication practices that might influence the peer-review process in biomedical journals. Method Recruitment was based on purposive maximum variation sampling. We conducted semistructured interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis method. Participants 56 journal editors from general medicine (n=13) and specialty (n=43) biomedical journals. Most were editor-in-chiefs (n=39), men (n=40) and worked part time (n=50). Results Our analysis generated four themes (1) providing minimal guidance to peer reviewers—two subthemes described the way journal editors rationalised their behaviour: (a) peer reviewers should know without guidelines how to review and (b) detailed guidance and structure might have a negative effect; (2) communication strategies of engagement with peer reviewers—two opposing strategies that journal editors employed to handle peer reviewers: (a) use of direct and personal communication to motivate peer reviewers and (b) use of indirect communication to avoid conflict; (3) concerns about impact of review model on communication—maintenance of anonymity as a means of facilitating critical and unburdened communication and minimising biases and (4) different practices in the moderation of communication between authors and peer reviewers—some journal editors actively interjected themselves into the communication chain to guide authors through peer reviewers’ comments, others remained at a distance, leaving it to the authors to work through peer reviewers’ comments. Conclusions These journal editors’ descriptions reveal several communication practices that might have a significant impact on the peer-review process. Editorial strategies to manage miscommunication are discussed. Further research on these proposed strategies and on communication practices from the point of view of authors and peer reviewers is warranted.

https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/10/8/e035600.full.pdf

Isabelle Boutron

Papers

305 fears and beliefs regarding knee osteoarthritis: views from patients and practitioners. elaboration of the knee fear-belief questionnaire (kfbq) using a qualitative interview study and a delphi consensus method

63 Methods of mobilising collective intelligence through crowdsourcing in research: a scoping review

Using Risk of Bias 2 to assess results from randomised controlled trials: guidance from Cochrane

Dissemination of 2014 dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) trial results: a systematic review of scholarly and media attention over 7 months.

Journal editors' perspectives on the communication practices in biomedical journals: a qualitative study.