Introducing the Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS)

Hirt, Julian; Schönenberger, Christof; Ewald, Hannah; Lawson, Daeria O.; Papola, Davide; Rohner, Ramon; Suter, Katja; Shi, Lin; Germini, Federico; Zeng, Linan; Shahabinezhad, Ali; Chowdhury, Saifur Rahman; Gao, Ya; Bhattacharjee, Arunima; Lima, João Pedro; Marušić, Ana; Buljan, Ivan; Agarwal, Arnav; Guyatt, Gordon; Briel, Matthias; Schandelmaier, Stefan

doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.53198

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…12 One simple application of implementation science would be to make it easier for investigators to identify methods guidance relevant to their studies. 13 Another would be to improve methods guidance by encouraging those providing such guidance to involve their target audience in ensuring the accessibility of the guidance they provide. 14 Reporting guidelines represent another approach that has demonstrated appreciable-although still perhaps somewhat disappointing-improvement in study design and methods implementation.…”

Section: Poor Statistical Practice Of Dichotomizing Continuous Effect...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One simple application of implementation science would be to make it easier for investigators to identify methods guidance relevant to their studies . Another would be to improve methods guidance by encouraging those providing such guidance to involve their target audience in ensuring the accessibility of the guidance they provide .…”

Section: Poor Statistical Practice Of Dichotomizing Continuous Effect...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Same Old Challenges in Subgroup Analysis—Should We Do More About Methods Implementation?

Schandelmaier,

Guyatt

2024

JAMA Netw Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Sherry et al 1 considered the methodological quality of subgroup analyses reported in 379 oncology trials. The authors explored a number of fundamental problems with these analyses: in forest plots, use of linear rather than logarithmic scales and failure to present overall pooled estimates; failure to conduct and highlight tests of interaction; and readiness to make unwarranted inferences regarding the credibility of postulated subgroup effects. They reported a distressingly high frequency of each of these problems. 1 The study thus adds to an already large body of subgroup literature finding that authors' presentations of forest plots are often suboptimal. It also adds indirect evidence for the oftensuspected abuse of subgroup analyses for post hoc data dredging in search of interesting findings 2 : trials that failed to show a significant effect reported more subgroup analyses. 1 The primary message of the study is, therefore, that the methodological limitations of subgroup analyses and misleading inferences in oncology trials remain the same as those that the methods community has been discussing for more than 3 decades. 3,4 We will briefly discuss these key limitations in subgroup analyses.

show abstract

Section: Poor Statistical Practice Of Dichotomizing Continuous Effect...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Poor Statistical Practice Of Dichotomizing Continuous Effect...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Same Old Challenges in Subgroup Analysis—Should We Do More About Methods Implementation?

Schandelmaier,

Guyatt

2024

JAMA Netw Open

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We will search the following grey literature databases and resources: the EQUATOR network, dissertation abstracts, websites of evidence synthesis organizations (e.g., Campbell Collaboration, Cochrane Multiple Treatments Group, CADTH, NICE-DSU, Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi), Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee, Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen, European Network for Health Technology Assessment, Guidelines International Network, ISPOR, International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment, and JBI), and methods collections (e.g., Cochrane Methodology Register, AHRQ Effective Healthcare Programme). We will also search LIGHTS and LATITUDES (https://www.latitudes-network.org/), which are two methodological registries that capture guidance and validity assessment tools, respectively [32]. All online registries will be searched using the following terms "adaptive clinical trial", "bias", and/or risk-of-bias (ROB)".…”

Section: Search Strategymentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological review to develop a list of bias items for adaptive clinical trials: Protocol and rationale

Staibano,

McKechnie,

Thabane

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Randomized-clinical trials (RCTs) are the gold-standard for comparing health care interventions, but can be limited by early termination, feasibility issues, and prolonged time to trial reporting. In contrast, adaptive clinical trials (ACTs), which are defined by pre-planned modifications and analyses that occur after starting patient recruitment, are gaining popularity as they can streamline trial design and time to reporting. As adaptive methodologies continue to be adopted by researchers, it will be critical to develop a risk-of-bias tool that evaluates the unique methodological features of ACTs so that their quality can be improved and standardized for the future. In our proposed methodological review, we plan to develop a list of risk-of-bias items for ACTs to develop a candidate instrument. Methods and analysis We will perform a systematic database search to capture: (1) ACTs published in any discipline of medicine and/or surgery; and (2) studies that have proposed or reviewed items pertaining to methodological risk, bias, and/or quality in ACTs. We will perform a comprehensive search of citation databases, such as Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, the Cochrane library, and Web of Science, in addition to multiple grey literature sources to capture published and unpublished literature related to ACTs and studies evaluating the methodological quality of ACTs. We will also search methodological registries for any risk of bias tools for ACTs. All screening and review stages will be performed in duplicate with a third senior author serving as arbitrator for any discrepancies. Included ACTs will be analyzed in a descriptive manner, and we will perform regression analysis to identify factors associated with poor reporting quality and high risk of bias. We will also perform a risk of bias assessment of ACTs using the Cochrane risk-of-bias 2.0 tool and we will assess reporting quality using the CONSORT-ACE tool. These assessments will be performed independently and in duplicate. This will be done to help generate risk of bias concepts, themes, and items that can be included in the candidate tool. For all studies of methodological quality and risk of bias, we will extract all pertinent bias items and/or tools. We will combine conceptually similar items in a descriptive manner and classify them as referring to bias or to other aspects of methodological quality, such as reporting. We will plan to generate pertinent risk of bias items and fields and finally, a candidate tool that will undergo further refinement, testing, and validation in future development stages. Ethics and dissemination This review does not require ethics approval as human subjects are not involved. As mentioned previously, this study is the first step in developing a tool to evaluate the risk of bias and methodological quality of ACTs.

show abstract

“…unibas.ch/) and plan to disseminate the TARCiS terminology and reporting checklist 17 on various platforms, including EQUATOR. We aim to make the TARCiS statement available via the Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS), a living database for methods guidance 54 ; the Systematic Review Toolbox, an online catalogue of tools for evidence syntheses 55 ; and ResearchGate, a social scientific network to share and discuss publications.…”

Section: Disseminationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance on terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching: the TARCiS statement

Hirt,

Nordhausen,

Fuerst

et al. 2024

BMJ

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evidence syntheses adhering to systematic literature searching techniques are a cornerstone of evidence based healthcare. Beyond term based searching in electronic databases, citation searching is a prevalent search technique to identify relevant sources of evidence. However, for decades, citation searching methodology and terminology has not been standardised. An evidence guided, four round Delphi consensus study was conducted with 27 international methodological experts in order to develop the Terminology, Application, and Reporting of Citation Searching (TARCiS) statement. TARCiS comprises 10 specific recommendations, each with a rationale and explanation on when and how to conduct and report citation searching in the context of systematic literature searches. The statement also presents four research priorities, and it is hoped that systematic review teams are encouraged to incorporate TARCiS into standardised workflows.

show abstract

Introducing the Library of Guidance for Health Scientists (LIGHTS)

Cited by 5 publications

References 34 publications

Same Old Challenges in Subgroup Analysis—Should We Do More About Methods Implementation?

Same Old Challenges in Subgroup Analysis—Should We Do More About Methods Implementation?

Methodological review to develop a list of bias items for adaptive clinical trials: Protocol and rationale

Guidance on terminology, application, and reporting of citation searching: the TARCiS statement

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About