ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2022
PROTOCOL: Systematic review of methods to reduce risk of bias in knowledge translation interventional studies in health-related issues.
Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- PROTOCOL: Systematic review of methods to reduce risk of bias in knowledge translation interventional studies in health-related issues.Campbell systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Systematic reviews: Not always a pain.Interventional pain medicine · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Review studies have reported on the low quality of study methodologies and poor reporting of knowledge translation (KT) interventional studies. This flaw cause the result of such studies to become misleading. Objectives: The present review is designed to evaluate the effect of methodological factors on the results of interventional studies that aimed to evaluate KT strategies at the policy level. Search Methods: Bibliographic databases and grey literature databases will be searched. The retrieved studies will be recorded in Covidence. After screening titles and abstracts, the full texts of selected studies will be assessed against the inclusion criteria. Disagreements will be resolved through discussion or by consultation with a third author. Selection Criteria: Primary studies are studies that aimed to estimate the efficacy of KT strategies to improve evidence-informed policymaking. Study participants include policymakers and the intervention is a KT strategy. The main outcome is the desired changes in policy-makers towards evidence-informed decision-making. Data Collection and Analysis: The main effect sizes will be expressed as standard mean difference and its variance for the main efficacy outcome of KT strategies in primary studies. Forest plot meta-analysis will be used to synthesize the effect of each group of KT strategies. The contribution of ROB to the efficacy of KT interventions will be assessed via Meta-epidemiology analysis. The overall estimate will be calculated using inverse-variance random-effects meta-analysis with a 95% confidence interval for the estimate.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.