Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal

Kahale, Lara A; El-Khoury, Riyad; Mikati, Ibrahim El; Pardo-Hernández, Héctor; Khamis, Assem M.; Schünemann, Holger J.; Haddaway, Neal R.; Akl, Elie A.

doi:10.12688/f1000research.51723.2

Cited by 15 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Eligibility screening of titles and abstracts was undertaken by DR. An overview of the study screening and selection process of the original search and the updated search are presented using a tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagram 17 (see Figure 1). The reasons for exclusion of full text papers were documented by DR and independently verified by a researcher experienced in conducting SRs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Knowledge and confidence (self-reported) 1,5,8,17,18,22,23,26,31,32,42,48 Communication skills 5,8,13,[20][21][22]30,33,50 Role specific education and training 7,11,22,[25][26][27]35,39,42 Obesity training 17,31,32 Ability to use practice tools to aid communication. 4,5,13,[20][21][22]30,33,504,13,20,21,33,50 Experience of working with children and mothers 2,4,29,36,…”

Section: Breastfeeding Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Barriers and facilitators to implementing practices for prevention of childhood obesity in primary care: A mixed methods systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Primary care providers (PCPs) have an important role in prevention of excess weight gain in pre-school children. Guidelines exist to support PCPs' practices. This systematic review of PCPs' practice behaviors and their perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of implementation of guidelines was the first step toward the development of an intervention aimed at supporting PCPs. Five databases were searched to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies which examined PCPs' practice patterns and factors influencing implementation of recommended practices. The convergent integrated approach of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for mixed methods reviews was used for data synthesis. Following analyses, the resultant factors were mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation model of Behaviour (COM-B). Fifty studies met the eligibility criteria. PCPs inconsistently implement recommended practices. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the provider (e.g., lack of knowledge), parent (e.g., lack motivation), and organization level (e.g., inadequate training). Factors were mapped to all three components of the COM-B model: psychological capability (e.g., lack of skills), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs about guidelines), automatic motivation (e.g., discomfort), physical opportunity (e.g., time constraints), and social opportunity (e.g., stigma). These findings reflect the complexity of implementation of childhood obesity prevention practices.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Breastfeeding Supportmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barriers and facilitators to implementing practices for prevention of childhood obesity in primary care: A mixed methods systematic review

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One reviewer applied eligibility criteria to select studies and a second reviewer verified all included and excluded studies. We reported the process in a flow diagram, adapted for living systematic reviews [27] (S1 Fig). The reviewers determined which of the three review questions each study addressed.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Buitrago-Garcia

Ipekci

Heron

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND Debate about the level of asymptomatic severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We conducted a living systematic review to address three questions: (1) Amongst people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic? METHODS AND FINDINGS The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2020. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 2 February 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 94 studies. Heterogeneity was high and we could not reliably estimate values for the proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range 13-45%, prediction interval 2-89%), or in studies based on screening of defined populations (interquartile range 18-59%, prediction interval 3-95%). In screening studies at low risk of information bias, the prediction interval was 4-69% (summary proportion 23%, 95% CI 14-35%). In 40 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 18% (95% CI 14-24%, prediction interval 3-64%) and, in studies at low risk of selection bias, 25% (95% CI 18-33%, prediction interval 5-66%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.43 (95% CI 0.05-3.44, 5 studies). (3) In 11 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, high risks of selection and information bias, and the absence of studies about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated. CONCLUSIONS This review does not provide a summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 across all study designs. In studies based on contact and outbreak investigation, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by wild-type SARS-CoV-2.

show abstract

“…The search strategy was developed by a researcher experienced in developing literature search strategies with the help of an information specialist (LH) as part of a larger project to develop an extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs. 8 , 9 The strategy was peer-reviewed by an information specialist (IM) who will also run the search planned for July or August 2021. Please see Box 1 for the complete search strategy.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on an ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. A few guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but the methodology described is either not up-to date or not suitable for LSRs and misses additional LSR-specific considerations. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically collate methodological literature and guidance on how to conduct, report, publish and appraise the quality of LSRs. The scoping review will allow the mapping of the existing evidence on the topic to support LSRs authors seeking guidance and identify related gaps. Methods: To achieve our objectives, we will conduct a scoping review to survey and evaluate existing evidence, using the standard scoping review methodology. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane using the OVID interface. The search strategy was developed by a researcher experienced in developing literature search strategies with the help of an information specialist. As for searching grey literature, we will seek existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses using the Lens.org website. Two review authors will extract and catalogue the study data on LSR methodological aspects into a standardized and pilot-tested data extraction form. The main categories will reflect proposed methods for (i) conducting LSRs, (ii) reporting of LSRs, (iii) publishing and (iv) appraising the quality of LSRs. Data synthesis and conclusion: By collecting these data from methodological surveys and papers, as well as existing guidance documents and handbooks on LSRs, we might identify specific issues and components lacking within current LSR methodology. Thus, the systematically obtained findings of the scoping review could be used as basis for the revision of existing methods tools on LSR, for instance a PRISMA statement extension for LSRs.

show abstract

Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal

Cited by 15 publications

References 24 publications

Barriers and facilitators to implementing practices for prevention of childhood obesity in primary care: A mixed methods systematic review

Barriers and facilitators to implementing practices for prevention of childhood obesity in primary care: A mixed methods systematic review

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About