当前位置: X-MOL 学术Syst. Rev. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation.
Systematic Reviews ( IF 3.7 ) Pub Date : 2019-12-14 , DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1248-5
Tanya Millard 1 , Anneliese Synnot 1 , Julian Elliott 1 , Sally Green 1 , Steve McDonald 1 , Tari Turner 1
Affiliation  

BACKGROUND Living systematic reviews (LSRs) offer an approach to keeping high-quality evidence synthesis continually up to date, so the most recent, relevant and reliable evidence can be used to inform policy and practice, resulting in improved quality of care and patient health outcomes. However, they require modifications to authoring and editorial processes and pose technical and publishing challenges. Several teams within Cochrane and the international Living Evidence Network have been piloting living systematic reviews. METHODS We conducted a mixed-methods evaluation with participants involved in six LSRs (three Cochrane and three non-Cochrane). Up to three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 participants involved with one or more of the pilot LSRs. Interviews explored participants' experiences contributing to the LSR, barriers and facilitators to their conduct and opportunities for future development. Pilot team members also completed monthly surveys capturing time for key tasks and the number of citations screened for each review. RESULTS Across the pilot LSRs, search frequency was monthly to three-monthly, with some using tools such as machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to screen searches. Varied approaches were used to communicate updates to readers. The number of citations screened varied widely between the reviews, from three to 300 citations per month. The amount of time spent per month by the author team on each review also varied from 5 min to 32 h. Participants were enthusiastic to be involved in the LSR pilot. They highlighted the importance of a motivated and well-organised team; the value of technology enablers to improve workflow efficiencies; the need to establish reliable and efficient processes to sustain living reviews; and the potential for saving time and effort in the long run. Participants highlighted challenges with the current publication processes, managing ongoing workload and the lack of resources to support LSRs in the long term. CONCLUSIONS Findings to date support feasibility and acceptability of LSR production. There are challenges that need to be addressed for living systematic reviews to be sustainable and have maximum value. The findings from this study will be used in discussions with the Cochrane community, key decision makers and people more broadly concerned with LSRs to identify and develop priorities for scale-up.

中文翻译:

实时系统评价的可行性和可接受性:混合方法评估的结果。

背景 活系统评价 (LSR) 提供了一种不断更新高质量证据合成的方法,因此可以使用最新、相关和可靠的证据来为政策和实践提供信息,从而提高护理质量和患者健康结果。然而,它们需要修改创作和编辑流程,并带来技术和出版挑战。Cochrane 和国际活证据网络内的几个团队一直在试点活体系统评价。方法 我们对参与六项 LSR(三项 Cochrane 和三项非 Cochrane)的参与者进行了混合方法评估。对参与一项或多项试点 LSR 的 27 名参与者进行了多达 3 次半结构化访谈。访谈探讨了参与者对 LSR 做出贡献的经历、其行为的障碍和促进因素以及未来发展的机会。试点团队成员还完成了每月调查,记录关键任务的时间以及每次审查筛选的引用数量。结果 在试点 LSR 中,搜索频率为每月到三个月一次,其中一些使用机器学习和 Cochrane Crowd 等工具来筛选搜索。使用了多种方法向读者传达最新信息。不同评论筛选的引用数量差异很大,从每月 3 次到 300 次引用不等。作者团队每月在每次审稿上花费的时间也从 5 分钟到 32 小时不等。参与者热衷于参与 LSR 试点。他们强调了一支积极进取、组织良好的团队的重要性;技术推动者提高工作流程效率的价值;需要建立可靠和高效的流程来维持实时审查;以及从长远来看节省时间和精力的潜力。与会者强调了当前出版流程、管理持续工作量以及缺乏长期支持 LSR 的资源等挑战。结论 迄今为止的研究结果支持 LSR 生产的可行性和可接受性。为了使实时系统评价可持续并具有最大价值,需要解决一些挑战。这项研究的结果将用于与 Cochrane 社区、关键决策者和更广泛关注 LSR 的人员进行讨论,以确定和制定扩大规模的优先事项。
更新日期:2019-12-14
down
wechat
bug