An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool
Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved..
OBJECTIVES: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/).
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group.
RESULTS: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs.
CONCLUSION: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:170 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Journal of clinical epidemiology - 170(2024) vom: 24. März, Seite 111333 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Clyne, Barbara [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Delphi |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Revised 26.04.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status Publisher |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111333 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM370123212 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM370123212 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240427232159.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 240325s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111333 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1390.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM370123212 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)38522755 | ||
| 035 | |a (PII)S0895-4356(24)00088-X | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Clyne, Barbara |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 3 | |a An international modified Delphi process supported updating the web-based "right review" tool |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 26.04.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status Publisher | ||
| 520 | |a Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. | ||
| 520 | |a OBJECTIVES: The proliferation of evidence synthesis methods makes it challenging for reviewers to select the ''right'' method. This study aimed to update the Right Review tool (a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods) and establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies (https://rightreview.knowledgetranslation.net/) | ||
| 520 | |a STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A 2-round modified international electronic modified Delphi was conducted (2022) with researchers, health-care providers, patients, and policy makers. Panel members rated the importance/clarity of the Right Review tool's guiding questions, evidence synthesis type definitions and tool output. High agreement was defined as at least 70% agreement. Any items not reaching high agreement after round 2 were discussed by the international Project Steering Group | ||
| 520 | |a RESULTS: Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1, with 12 completing round 2. Of the 46 items presented in round 1, 21 reached high agreement. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with 8 reaching high agreement. The Project Steering Group discussed items not reaching high agreement, including 8 guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative synthesis), and 2 output items. Three items were removed entirely and the remaining 16 revised and edited and/or combined with existing items. The final tool comprises 42 items; 9 guiding questions, 25 evidence synthesis definitions and approaches, and 8 tool outputs | ||
| 520 | |a CONCLUSION: The freely accessible Right Review tool supports choosing an appropriate review method. The design and clarity of this tool was enhanced by harnessing the Delphi technique to shape ongoing development. The updated tool is expected to be available in Quarter 1, 2025 | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Delphi | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Evidence synthesis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Qualitative evidence synthesis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Research methods | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic reviews | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Web-based decision tool | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Sharp, Melissa K |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a O' Neill, Michelle |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Pollock, Danielle |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Lynch, Rosarie |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Amog, Krystle |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ryan, Mairin |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Smith, Susan M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mahtani, Kamal |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Booth, Andrew |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Godfrey, Christina |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Munn, Zachary |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Tricco, Andrea C |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Journal of clinical epidemiology |d 1991 |g 170(2024) vom: 24. März, Seite 111333 |w (DE-627)NLM012614815 |x 1878-5921 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:170 |g year:2024 |g day:24 |g month:03 |g pages:111333 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111333 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 170 |j 2024 |b 24 |c 03 |h 111333 | ||