A “Rapid <scp>Best‐Fit</scp>” model for framework synthesis: Using research objectives to structure analysis within a rapid review of qualitative evidence

Shaw, Liz; Nunns, Michael; Briscoe, Simon; Anderson, Rob; Thompson-Coon, Jo

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1462

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After reviewing the automated clusters, researchers should manually create and code any supplemental categories as needed. This is similar to a best‐fit framework synthesis 33,34 used in qualitative evidence syntheses, in which authors categorize data into a pre‐existing framework. Any data that are left outside of the framework are then thematically analyzed to create new framework areas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Machine learning in systematic reviews: Comparing automated text clustering with Lingo3G and human researcher categorization in a rapid review

Muller

Ames

Jardim

et al. 2021

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews are resource‐intensive. The machine learning tools being developed mostly focus on the study identification process, but tools to assist in analysis and categorization are also needed. One possibility is to use unsupervised automatic text clustering, in which each study is automatically assigned to one or more meaningful clusters. Our main aim was to assess the usefulness of an automated clustering method, Lingo3G, in categorizing studies in a simplified rapid review, then compare performance (precision and recall) of this method compared to manual categorization. We randomly assigned all 128 studies in a review to be coded by a human researcher blinded to cluster assignment (mimicking two independent researchers) or by a human researcher non‐blinded to cluster assignment (mimicking one researcher checking another's work). We compared time use, precision and recall of manual categorization versus automated clustering. Automated clustering and manual categorization organized studies by population and intervention/context. Automated clustering failed to identify two manually identified categories but identified one additional category not identified by the human researcher. We estimate that automated clustering has similar precision to both blinded and non‐blinded researchers (e.g., 88% vs. 89%), but higher recall (e.g., 89% vs. 84%). Manual categorization required 49% more time than automated clustering. Using a specific clustering algorithm, automated clustering can be helpful with categorization of and identifying patterns across studies in simpler systematic reviews. We found that the clustering was sensitive enough to group studies according to linguistic differences that often corresponded to the manual categories.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Machine learning in systematic reviews: Comparing automated text clustering with Lingo3G and human researcher categorization in a rapid review

Muller

Ames

Jardim

et al. 2021

Research Synthesis Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the observational study, transcriptions were reviewed using a rapid qualitative analysis approach. 9 Demographic information was summarized using descriptive statistics. Associations between categorical variables were examined by chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests and computations were carried out in SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After obtaining informed consent and assent, 12 (nine of which were diagnosed with standard risk B-ALL) study participants were recruited in Houston, Texas from the MD Anderson Cancer Center Children's Cancer Hospital in accordance with approval from the Institutional Review Board of the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center (2010-0654). Eligibility criteria included children being school aged (5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17), pediatric cancer patients who were currently undergoing treatment, and ability to read and speak English. Each participant attended in-person sessions wherein they tasted five low-fat prepared foods and five low-sucrose prepared foods prepared by the Bionutrition Research Core at MD Anderson Cancer Center using recipes from the At The Table online cookbook.…”

Section: Observational Study Of Diet Receptivitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Feasible diet and circadian interventions reduce in vivo progression of FLT3‐ITD‐positive acute myeloid leukemia

Rodriguez,

Fekry,

Murphy

et al. 2024

Cancer Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAcute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an internal tandem duplication in the fms‐like tyrosine kinase receptor 3 gene (FLT3‐ITD) is associated with poor survival, and few studies have examined the impact of modifiable behaviors, such as nutrient quality and timing, in this subset of acute leukemia.MethodsThe influence of diet composition (low‐sucrose and/or low‐fat diets) and timing of diet were tested in tandem with anthracycline treatment in orthotopic xenograft mouse models. A pilot clinical study to test receptivity of pediatric leukemia patients to macronutrient matched foods was conducted. A role for the circadian protein, BMAL1 (brain and muscle ARNT‐like 1), in effects of diet timing was studied by overexpression in FLT3‐ITD‐bearing AML cells.ResultsReduced tumor burden in FLT3‐ITD AML‐bearing mice was observed with interventions utilizing low‐sucrose and/or low‐fat diets, or time‐restricted feeding (TRF) compared to mice fed normal chow ad libitum. In a tasting study, macronutrient matched low‐sucrose and low‐fat meals were offered to pediatric acute leukemia patients who largely reported liking the meals. Expression of the circadian protein, BMAL1, was heightened with TRF and the low‐sucrose diet. BMAL1 overexpression and treatment with a pharmacological inducer of BMAL1 was cytotoxic to FLT3‐ITD AML cells.ConclusionsMouse models for FLT3‐ITD AML show that diet composition and timing slows progression of FLT3‐ITD AML growth in vivo, potentially mediated by BMAL1. These interventions to enhance therapy efficacy show preliminary feasibility, as pediatric leukemia patients responded favorable to preparation of macronutrient matched meals.

show abstract

“…The rapid best-fit framework synthesis is an adapted framework synthesis approach to accommodate reviews under time constraints. 8 The traditional framework synthesis approach draws on existing relevant models or theories to guide data extraction and analysis. 9 The rapid best-fit approach allows using the review objectives as guiding principles to develop an initial framework to categorize and interpret the findings from the included studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 The rapid best-fit approach allows using the review objectives as guiding principles to develop an initial framework to categorize and interpret the findings from the included studies. 8 We developed our initial framework based on 3 sensitizing categories drawn from our research question:…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Genetic Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis, Fragile X Syndrome, Hemoglobinopathies, and Spinal Muscular Atrophy

Herington¹,

Horton²

2021

cjht

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

People generally describe wanting access to carrier screening because knowing about the risk of passing along a genetic condition is considered important and supportive of their desires to be prepared. In the context of expanded carrier screening programs, this could mean that an increased number of people would want to access these programs. Supporting people who are considering carrier screening can be challenging and is likely to be more involved than simply sharing high-level descriptive information about testing details and potential outcomes. Descriptive information is important to help people understand the screening process and the types of results that could emerge from testing; however, programs might be more supportive of informed decision-making if the providers take a proactive role and are open to facilitating speculative conversations about potential ramifications in people’s actual lives. This is challenging given the expressed desire by health care providers, clinical geneticists in particular, to provide “neutral information” that patients would not experience as prescriptive. Given the challenge of supporting people making decisions about whether or not to pursue carrier screening, and the likely increase in people who would consider carrier screening if targeted programs were expanded to population-level screening, it is important to ensure that health care providers are both aware of jurisdictional carrier screening programs and competent in what carrier screening can offer their patients in terms of clinical actionability. Although this is particularly true for general practitioners who are often the primary point of contact with the health care system for their patients, it is also important for people who work in family planning clinics and women’s health clinics. Having the option to engage with carrier screening at the preconception stage was universally preferred by participants across the included studies. Compared with prenatal carrier screening, preconception carrier screening was seen as providing prospective parents with more reproductive options. Health care providers were concerned that offering carrier screening during pregnancy might lead pregnant people and their partners to confuse it with other prenatal testing which would limit people’s ability to be truly informed before deciding whether or not to pursue screening. However, if offered as a prenatal option, most people consider it important to do so as early as possible because it could be paired with other prenatal tests. Although not referred to specifically by any of the included studies, we note that offering carrier screening prenatally rather than at preconception, could place the responsibility to make the decision on cisgender women and non-binary or transgender people with uteruses. Sequentially designed carrier screening programs were the most common across the included studies; however, people moving through programs with this design found the interim period between receiving their positive carrier results and receiving their partners’ results difficult. This was particularly true for people who were already pregnant because this interim period forced them to reimagine both their relationship with the fetus and the future they had imagined with that child. Of course, this reimagining might be necessary if both partners’ screening results came back positive for the condition in question, but to stagger the return of the results could put undue anxiety on potential parents. Carrier screening will not affect everyone in the same way, and reproductive decision-making will still be complex and difficult. As such, the opportunity to engage with genetic counsellors on reproductive options following positive carrier status result is considered valuable.

show abstract

A “Rapid Best‐Fit” model for framework synthesis: Using research objectives to structure analysis within a rapid review of qualitative evidence

Cited by 9 publications

References 33 publications

Machine learning in systematic reviews: Comparing automated text clustering with Lingo3G and human researcher categorization in a rapid review

Machine learning in systematic reviews: Comparing automated text clustering with Lingo3G and human researcher categorization in a rapid review

Feasible diet and circadian interventions reduce in vivo progression of FLT3‐ITD‐positive acute myeloid leukemia

Genetic Carrier Screening for Cystic Fibrosis, Fragile X Syndrome, Hemoglobinopathies, and Spinal Muscular Atrophy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About