Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

/pdf/preferred-reporting-items-for-systematic-review-and-meta-mgb1uy0yle.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

animals used (i.e., species/strain, sex, and age/weight). Most of the papers surveyed did not report using randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%) to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods fully described them and presented the results with a measure of precision or variability [5]. These findings are a cause for concern and are consistent with reviews of many research areas, including clinical studies, published in recent years [2–22].

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412&type=printable

Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research

การวจยเชงคณภาพ เปนเครองมอสำคญอยางหนงสำหรบทำความเขาใจสงคมและพฤตกรรมมนษย การวจยแบบการสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล กเปนหนงในหลายระเบยบวธการวจยเชงคณภาพทกำลงไดรบความสนใจ และเปนทนยมเพมสงขนเรอยๆ จากนกวชาการ และนกวจยในสาขาสงคมศาสตร และศาสตรอนๆ เชน พฤตกรรมศาสตร สงคมวทยา สาธารณสขศาสตร พยาบาลศาสตร จตวทยาสงคม ศกษาศาสตร รฐศาสตร และสารสนเทศศกษา ดงนน หนงสอเรอง “ConstructingGrounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis” หรอ “การสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล:แนวทางการปฏบตผานการวเคราะหเชงคณภาพ” จะชวยใหผอานมความรความเขาใจถงพฒนาการของปฏบตการวจยแบบสรางทฤษฎจากขอมล ตลอดจนแนวทาง และกระบวนการปฏบตการวจยอยางเปนระบบ จงเปนหนงสอทควรคาแกการอานโดยเฉพาะนกวจยรนใหม เพอเปนแนวทางในการนำความรความเขาใจไประยกตในงานวจยของตน อกทงนกวจยผเชยวชาญสามารถอานเพอขยายมโนทศนดานวจยใหกวางขวางขน

Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis

Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

/pdf/systematic-review-or-scoping-review-guidance-for-authors-21ouh48v3u.pdf

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

Reviews of primary research are becoming more common as evidence-based practice gains recognition as the benchmark for care, and the number of, and access to, primary research sources has grown. One of the newer review types is the 'scoping review'. In general, scoping reviews are commonly used for 'reconnaissance' - to clarify working definitions and conceptual boundaries of a topic or field. Scoping reviews are therefore particularly useful when a body of literature has not yet been comprehensively reviewed, or exhibits a complex or heterogeneous nature not amenable to a more precise systematic review of the evidence. While scoping reviews may be conducted to determine the value and probable scope of a full systematic review, they may also be undertaken as exercises in and of themselves to summarize and disseminate research findings, to identify research gaps, and to make recommendations for the future research. This article briefly introduces the reader to scoping reviews, how they are different to systematic reviews, and why they might be conducted. The methodology and guidance for the conduct of systematic scoping reviews outlined below was developed by members of the Joanna Briggs Institute and members of five Joanna Briggs Collaborating Centres.

Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews.

Background
The scoping review has become an increasingly popular approach for synthesizing research evidence. It is a relatively new approach for which a universal study definition or definitive procedure has not been established. The purpose of this scoping review was to provide an overview of scoping reviews in the literature.

Methods
A scoping review was conducted using the Arksey and O'Malley framework. A search was conducted in four bibliographic databases and the gray literature to identify scoping review studies. Review selection and characterization were performed by two independent reviewers using pretested forms.

Results
The search identified 344 scoping reviews published from 1999 to October 2012. The reviews varied in terms of purpose, methodology, and detail of reporting. Nearly three-quarter of reviews (74.1%) addressed a health topic. Study completion times varied from 2 weeks to 20 months, and 51% utilized a published methodological framework. Quality assessment of included studies was infrequently performed (22.38%).

Conclusions
Scoping reviews are a relatively new but increasingly common approach for mapping broad topics. Because of variability in their conduct, there is a need for their methodological standardization to ensure the utility and strength of evidence. © 2014 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/jrsm.1123

A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency

Verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC).

Objectives: Shiga toxin–producing Escherichia coli (STEC) are an important cause of foodborne disease, yet global estimates of disease burden do not exist. Our objective was to estimate the global annual number of illnesses due to pathogenic STEC, and resultant hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and death. Materials: We searched Medline, Scopus, SIGLE/OpenGrey, and CABI and World Health Organization (WHO) databases for studies of STEC incidence in the general population, published between January 1, 1990 and April 30, 2012, in all languages. We searched health institution websites for notifiable disease data and reports, cross-referenced citations, and consulted international knowledge experts. We employed an a priori hierarchical study selection process and synthesized results using a stochastic simulation model to account for uncertainty inherent in the data. Results: We identified 16 articles and databases from 21 countries, from 10 of the 14 WHO Sub-Regions. We e...

/pdf/global-incidence-of-human-shiga-toxin-producing-escherichia-2qtzt5qowr.pdf

Global Incidence of Human Shiga Toxin–Producing Escherichia coli Infections and Deaths: A Systematic Review and Knowledge Synthesis

Sensitivity and specificity of somatic cell count and California Mastitis Test for identifying intramammary infection in early lactation.

Potential associations were investigated between bovine leucocyte antigen (BoLA) alleles and occurrence of disease. Cows (Holstein n = 835; Jersey n = 66) were examined for polymorphisms of the second exon of the BoLA-DRB3 gene, using the polymerase chain reaction (PCR), followed by digestion of the amplified fragments with three restriction endonucleases. Disease occurrences were recorded for each cow throughout one lactation. Milk somatic cell count data were retrieved through the Dairy Herd Improvement records and converted to somatic cell score (SCS). There were no effects of BoLA alleles on SCS in Jersey cows, but BoLA-DRB3.2*16 was significantly associated (P < or = 0.05) with lower SCS in Holsteins. Since the number of Jerseys was relatively small and prevalence of diseases in this population was low, health records of Jerseys were not analyzed further. BoLA associations with occurrence of disease in Holsteins were investigated using a log-linear model. There was a significant (P < or = 0.05) association between BoLA-DRB3.2*23 and occurrence of severe mastitis, from which coliforms were the most commonly isolated bacteria. The BoLA allele *3 was associated with a lower risk of retained placenta (P < or = 0.05) and alleles *16 (P < or = 0.05) and *22 (P < or = 0.05) with a lower risk of cystic ovarian disease. Although more studies are required to confirm the present findings, it can be concluded that BoLA alleles may have potential usefulness as genetic markers of higher or lower risk of disease occurrence in cows.

Associations of the bovine major histocompatibility complex DRB3 (BoLA‐DRB3) alleles with occurrence of disease and milk somatic cell score in Canadian dairy cattle

Jan M. Sargeant

Papers

A scoping review of scoping reviews: advancing the approach and enhancing the consistency

Verocytotoxin-producing Escherichia coli (VTEC).

Global Incidence of Human Shiga Toxin–Producing Escherichia coli Infections and Deaths: A Systematic Review and Knowledge Synthesis

Sensitivity and specificity of somatic cell count and California Mastitis Test for identifying intramammary infection in early lactation.

Associations of the bovine major histocompatibility complex DRB3 (BoLA‐DRB3) alleles with occurrence of disease and milk somatic cell score in Canadian dairy cattle