ArticleBMJ open2023
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.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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 ANALYSIS: A 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 DISSEMINATION: As 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. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: osf.io/kxwq9.
Indexed as
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.