Assessment of redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential discrepancies of results of systematic reviews of early mobilisation of critically ill adults: a meta-research protocol
| Primer Autor |
Seron, Pamela
|
| Co-autores |
Gutierrez-Arias, Ruvistay
Pieper, Dawid
Nydahl, Peter
Gonzalez-Seguel, Felipe
Jalil, Yorschua
Oliveros, Maria-Jose
Torres-Castro, Rodrigo
|
| Título |
Assessment of redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential discrepancies of results of systematic reviews of early mobilisation of critically ill adults: a meta-research protocol
|
| Editorial |
BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
|
| Revista |
BMJ OPEN
|
| Lenguaje |
en
|
| Resumen |
IntroductionSeveral systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adults with heterogeneous methodology and results. Redundancy in conducting SRs, unclear justification when leading new SRs or updating, and discordant results of SRs on the same research question may generate research waste that makes it difficult for clinicians to keep up to date with the best available evidence. This meta-research aims to assess the redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential reasons for discordance in the results reported by SRs conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adult patients. Methods and analysisA meta-research of early mobilisation SRs in critically ill adult patients will be conducted. A search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and other search resources will be conducted. Two independent reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The redundancy of SRs will be assessed by the degree of overlap of primary studies. In addition, the justification for conducting new SRs will be evaluated with the 'Evidence-Based Research' framework. The methodological quality of the SRs will be assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 tool, and the quality of the reports through compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. To assess the potential reasons for discordance in the results of the SRs considering divergence in results and their interpretation. Ethics and disseminationAs meta-research, this study does not involve the participation of people whose rights may be violated. However, this overview will be developed rigorously and systematically to achieve valid and reliable results. The findings of this meta-research study will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal related to rehabilitation, critical care or research methodology.
|
| Fecha Publicación |
2023
|
| Tipo de Recurso |
artículo original
|
| doi |
10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074615
|
| Formato Recurso |
PDF
|
| Palabras Claves |
intensive & critical care
rehabilitation medicine
statistics & research methods
|
| Ubicación del archivo | |
| Categoría OCDE |
Medicina general e interna
|
| Materias |
cuidados intensivos y críticos
medicina de rehabilitación
estadísticas y métodos de investigación
|
| Identificador del recurso (Mandatado-único) |
artículo original
|
| Versión del recurso (Recomendado-único) |
versión publicada
|
| License |
CC BY-NC 4.0
|
| Condición de la licencia (Recomendado-repetible) |
CC BY-NC 4.0
|
| Derechos de acceso |
acceso abierto
|
| Access Rights |
acceso abierto
|
| Id de Web of Science |
WOS:001047062500007
|
| ISSN |
2044-6055
|
| Tipo de ruta |
verde# dorado
|
| Categoría WOS |
Medicina general e interna
|
cienciaabierta.ufro.cl
ciencia.abierta@ufrontera.cl