ArticleArchives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique2025
Protocol of a collaborative evaluation systematized non-systematic reviews by "DESCreview", a Design tool for Evaluating risk of bias/quality in Systematized and sCoping reviews.
Article in Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique, 2025. 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background. Reproducible reviews that have a systematized approach, such as scoping, mapping, rapid, and other non-systematic reviews (henceforth, referred to as Scoping et al. reviews), have become a necessary step in a wide range of observational studies for public health research. Nevertheless, the quality of such Scoping et al. reviews is never questioned or evaluated. We propose a general-purpose tool for assessing the quality and risk of bias of Scoping et al. reviews, using a collaborative evaluation.
methodsThis Scoping et al. reviews tool (DESCreview, Design tool for Evaluating risk of bias/quality in Systematized and sCoping reviews) consists of a nine-domain assessment with four possible probabilities of quality. It includes the following domains in three parts: (A) Items applicable to all Scoping et al. reviews (Selection of papers; Classification; Extraction; Conflict of interest; Specific domain relevant to the question); (B) Items applicable to some Scoping et al. reviews (Preregistration and protocol difference, Risk of bias); and (C) Items only applicable for systematic reviews (Meta-analysis (if applicable), Strength of evidence). Each of the nine domains is rated from "Very high quality with low risk of bias" to "Very low quality with high risk of bias". The overall confidence is assigned by combining all the nine domains into an overall strength rated: high, moderate, low, critically low. These four categories would be included in the review as the "calibration". We also propose a collaborative evaluation, involving all potentially interested colleagues, using an online questionnaire. In the absence of a reference method, the validation study will be based on a comparison with AMSTAR-2, and feedback from user experience resulting in the production of a paper after one year of testing. DISCUSSION: DESCreview allow simple general-purpose tool for assessing the quality and risk of bias of systematized review in occupational and public health. The originality also lies in the collaborative validation process.
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.