目的:证据综合方法的激增使审阅者选择\'\'右\'\'方法具有挑战性。本研究旨在更新RightReview工具(一种基于网络的决策支持工具,可指导用户解决一系列建议证据综合方法的问题),并为定量和定性研究的综合建立一套通用问题(https://rightview。知识翻译.net/)。
方法:与研究人员一起进行了2轮修改的国际电子修改Delphi(2022),卫生保健提供者,病人,和政策制定者。小组成员对正确审查工具指导问题的重要性/清晰度进行了评级,证据合成类型定义和工具输出。高一致性定义为至少70%的一致性。国际项目指导小组讨论了在第二轮之后未达成高度一致的任何项目。
结果:来自9个国家的24名专家完成了第一轮,12名专家完成了第二轮。在第一轮提出的46个项目中,有21个达成了高度一致。在第二轮中提出了27个项目,其中8个达成了高度一致。项目指导小组讨论了未达成高度一致的项目,包括8个指导性问题,9审查定义(主要与定性综合相关),和2个输出项。三个项目被完全删除,其余16个项目被修订和编辑和/或与现有项目合并。最终工具包括42个项目;9个指导性问题,25个证据综合定义和方法,和8个工具输出。
结论:可自由访问的RightReview工具支持选择适当的审查方法。通过利用Delphi技术来塑造正在进行的开发,增强了该工具的设计和清晰度。更新的工具预计将于2025年第1季度推出。
OBJECTIVE: 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/).
METHODS: 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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.