Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

Abstract

Data continue to accumulate indicating that many systematic reviews are methodologically flawed, biased, redundant, or uninformative. Some improvements have occurred in recent years based on empirical methods research and standardization of appraisal tools; however, many authors do not routinely or consistently apply these updated methods. In addition, guideline developers, peer reviewers, and journal editors often disregard current methodological standards. Although extensively acknowledged and explored in the methodological literature, most clinicians seem unaware of these issues and may automatically accept evidence syntheses (and clinical practice guidelines based on their conclusions) as trustworthy.A plethora of methods and tools are recommended for the development and evaluation of evidence syntheses. It is important to understand what these are intended to do (and cannot do) and how they can be utilized. Our objective is to distill this sprawling information into a format that is understandable and readily accessible to authors, peer reviewers, and editors. In doing so, we aim to promote appreciation and understanding of the demanding science of evidence synthesis among stakeholders. We focus on well‐documented deficiencies in key components of evidence syntheses to elucidate the rationale for current standards. The constructs underlying the tools developed to assess reporting, risk of bias, and methodological quality of evidence syntheses are distinguished from those involved in determining overall certainty of a body of evidence. Another important distinction is made between those tools used by authors to develop their syntheses as opposed to those used to ultimately judge their work.Exemplar methods and research practices are described, complemented by novel pragmatic strategies to improve evidence syntheses. The latter include preferred terminology and a scheme to characterize types of research evidence. We organize best practice resources in a Concise Guide that can be widely adopted and adapted for routine implementation by authors and journals. Appropriate, informed use of these is encouraged, but we caution against their superficial application and emphasize their endorsement does not substitute for in‐depth methodological training. By highlighting best practices with their rationale, we hope this guidance will inspire further evolution of methods and tools that can advance the field.

HIV1 drug resistance among patients experiencing first-line treatment failure in Ethiopia: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis

“…Questions related to attrition bias focus on handling incomplete data, while reporting bias is assessed by examining whether all predetermined outcomes are reported consistently. This systematic approach ensures thorough assessment of potential biases contributing to the overall robustness of the meta-analysis [ 28 , 30 ]. Two reviewers will independently assess the quality of included studies using the checklist.…”

Clinical research methodology: A narrative review

“…Research is the process of learning new things through careful planning, intervention, and the discovery or interpretation of new information [1]. The validity and reliability of the research should be ensured through good research, objectivity, reliability, reproducibility, appropriate practices, data collection, and explanatory reviews [2]. Relying on inappropriate or inaccurate research is unacceptable and can lead to misinformation being provided to healthcare professionals [3].…”

Recent changes in the British Journal of Pharmacology: widening scope and improving author and editor experience

“…While covering traditional pharmacological papers, we encourage authors to submit papers in novel, rapidly growing fields of pharmacology and drug development, including research on gene, cell and tissue therapy, RNA and DNA therapeutics, metabolism and bioinformatics tools, including databases and softwares available on webservers enabling pharmacology and drug development (Box 1).3 | INTRODUCING NEW ARTICLE TYPESSeveral new article types have been recently introduced, such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses focusing on preclinical and translational pharmacology, rapid communication and implementation of bioinformatics tools (databases and softwares available on webservers) (Box 2). To support the first of these, BJP has recently copublished new guidance on systematic reviews, which we hope will raise the quality of these submissions across the discipline(Kolaski et al, 2023). We have ceased the fast-track option for selected submissions and instead incorporated what we have learned from that initiative, including the introduction of rapid communications alongside increased speed on decisions for all manuscript types.4 | IMPROVING AUTHOR AND EDITOR EXPERIENCE DURING THE REVIEW AND…”