The use of ‘PICO for synthesis’ and methods for synthesis without meta-analysis: protocol for a survey of current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions

Abstract

Introduction: Systematic reviews involve synthesis of research to inform decision making by clinicians, consumers, policy makers and researchers. While guidance for synthesis often focuses on meta-analysis, synthesis begins with specifying the ’PICO for each synthesis’ (i.e. the criteria for deciding which populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes are eligible for each analysis). Synthesis may also involve the use of statistical methods other than meta-analysis (e.g. vote counting based on the direction of effect, presenting the range of effects, combining P values) augmented by visual display, tables and text-based summaries. This study examines these two aspects of synthesis. Objectives: To identify and describe current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions in relation to: (i) approaches to grouping and definition of PICO characteristics for synthesis; and (ii) methods of summary and synthesis when meta-analysis is not used. Methods: We will randomly sample 100 systematic reviews of the quantitative effects of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 and indexed in the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. Two authors will independently screen citations for eligibility. Two authors will confirm eligibility based on full text, then extract data for 20% of reviews on the specification and use of PICO for synthesis, and the presentation and synthesis methods used (e.g. statistical synthesis methods, tabulation, visual displays, structured summary). The remaining reviews will be confirmed as eligible and data extracted by a single author. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise the specification of methods and their use in practice. We will compare how clearly the PICO for synthesis is specified in reviews that primarily use meta-analysis and those that do not. Conclusion: This study will provide an understanding of current practice in two important aspects of the synthesis process, enabling future research to test the feasibility and impact of different approaches.

Effect of resistance training on bioelectrical phase angle in older adults: a systematic review with Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…For eligibility criteria, the PICOS strategy [31] was adopted: in which "P" (patients), corresponded to participants aged ≥ 60 years, of all genders and ethnicities; "I" (intervention), was designated as resistance training lasted ≥ 8 weeks, "C" (comparison), was defined as the execution of no physical exercise, "O" (outcomes), were the raw BIAderived parameters, and "S" (study design), were related only to randomized clinical trials.…”

Trends and ethical issues in nursing during disasters: A systematic review

“…Article selection criteria for systematic review used PICO and D (population, intervention/exposure, comparison, outcome, and design) 19 with the following details: Population (P); involving nurse participants who work in hospitals or primary healthcare. Intervention/exposure (I); natural, man-made, or pandemic disasters.…”

Discharge Planning Patient Stroke a Nursing Science Philosophy: Systematic Review

“…Finding the study features (population, intervention, comparison, results, and research design) for each article acquired is the first step in the synthesis process. These are then grouped in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Review (Cumpston et al ., 2021). The authors identify the quality of the research by considering the risk of bias.…”