Systematic reviews on prognostic predictive risk models for drug related problems: a scoping review protocol
Date
2023
Authors
Marlow, N.
Peters, M.D.J.
Eckert, M.
Sharplin, G.
Carson Chahhoud, K.
Editors
Advisors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Type:
Report
Citation
Statement of Responsibility
Conference Name
Abstract
Aim: To provide researchers, health professionals, and policy makers with a consolidated source of evidence regarding the key characteristics and methodological rigor of systematic reviews on prognostic predictive risk models (Models) for drug related problems (DRPs) to improve conduct,reporting, and comparison of reviews in this field.
Objective: To identify and examine the characteristics and appraise systematic reviews on prognostic Models for DRPs so researchers, health professionals, and policy makers can identify key review characteristics as well as the methodological rigor.
Methods: The review will be conducted in line with the JBI guidance for scoping reviews and reported against the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews. Three online databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Collaboration) will be searched to identify English language systematic reviews (reviews) reporting DRP Models published between 1/1/2013 and ‘current’. After duplicates are removed, one researcher will independently screen search results with disagreements resolved through discussion or an arbiter if necessary. Key research characteristics (e.g.: authorship, country, and model type) will be extracted using a pilot tested template developed a priori. Included reviews, will also be appraised using the AMSTAR 2 and ROBIS tools. All review data will be extracted by one researcher and checked by another; appraisals will be performed independently by two researchers and compared, with any disagreements resolved via third party arbitration.
Discussion: Systematic reviews are promoted as the gold standard of evidence, as such they are frequently used to inform healthcare related decisions, from policy to purchasing. Like with any other research, the conduct of systematic reviewing is varied. Due to this variation, it can be difficult for individuals who are not versed in this form of evidence synthesis to understand a review’s strengths and weaknesses. Identifying and reporting on key characteristics and applying a thorough critical appraisal of included reviews will provides readers with insight they need to balance the results of are view with its conduct.
Impact: Examining key characteristics across reviews, as well as the methodological performance of these reviews will identify a current benchmark from which future research gains can be achieved.
Patient or Public Contribution: No patients or members of the public have been involved in the development of this protocol, will participate in the conduct of this research, or be involved in the interpretation and publication of results
School/Discipline
Dissertation Note
Provenance
Description
Access Status
Rights
Copyright 2023 The author(s).