BACKGROUND: An often-hidden element in healthcare students\' education is the pedagogy of public involvement, yet public participation can result in deep learning for students with positive impacts on the public who participate.
OBJECTIVE: This article aimed to synthesize published literature reviews that described the impact of public participation in healthcare students\' education.
METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, ERIC, PsychINFO, CINAHL, PubMed, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects and the PROSPERO register for literature reviews on public participation in healthcare students\' education.
METHODS: Reviews published in the last 10 years were included if they described patient or public participation in healthcare students\' education and reported the impacts on students, the public, curricula or healthcare systems.
METHODS: Data were extracted using a predesigned data extraction form and narratively synthesized.
RESULTS: Twenty reviews met our inclusion criteria reporting on outcomes related to students, the public, curriculum and future professional practice.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings raise awareness of the benefits and challenges of public participation in healthcare students\' education and may inform future research exploring how public participation can best be utilized in higher education.
UNASSIGNED: This review was inspired by conversations with public healthcare consumers who saw value in public participation in healthcare students\' education. Studies included involved public participants, providing a deeper understanding of the impacts of public participation in healthcare students\' education.

Scientific research linking climate change to food systems, nutrition, and nutrition-related health (FSNH) has proliferated, showing bidirectional and compounding dependencies that create cascading risks for human and planetary health. Within this proliferation, it is unclear which evidence to prioritize for action and which research gaps, if filled, would catalyze the most impact. We systematically searched for synthesis literature (i.e., reviews) related to FSNH published after 1 January, 2018. We screened and extracted characteristics of these reviews and mapped them in an interactive Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) supplemented by expert consultation. Eight hundred forty-four synthesis reports met inclusion criteria (from 2739 records) and were included in the EGM. The largest clusters of reports were those describing climate impacts on crop and animal-source food production and emissions from such (86%). Comparatively few reports assessed climate change impacts on nutrition-related health or food manufacture, processing, storage, and transportation. Reports focused on strategies of climate adaptation (40%), mitigation (29%), both (19%), or none (12%). Only 1 quarter of reports critically evaluated equity (25%), and fewer reports suggested that changes to equity and equitable practices would alter climate-FSNH dynamics (6%). The expert consultation mirrored the results of the EGM and contextualized findings further. This novel map describes a wide research landscape linking climate change to FSNH. We identified 4 key research gaps, including the following: 1) research on whole food systems or postharvest elements; 2) research evaluating relationships between climate change and nutrition-related health outcomes, especially among vulnerable populations; 3) promising methods (and additional data required) that can i) identify inflection points or levers for intervention, ii) incorporate complex dynamics and characterize trade-offs, iii) be understood and applied in context-specific, localized ways for decision making; and 4) research undertaken through interdisciplinary collaborations that enables producing and translating evidence to action, especially those that inherently consider coproduction and fairness.

Understanding the interactions among anthropogenic stressors is critical for effective conservation and management of ecosystems. Freshwater scientists have invested considerable resources in conducting factorial experiments to disentangle stressor interactions by testing their individual and combined effects. However, the diversity of stressors and systems studied has hindered previous syntheses of this body of research. To overcome this challenge, we used a novel machine learning framework to identify relevant studies from over 235,000 publications. Our synthesis resulted in a new dataset of 2396 multiple-stressor experiments in freshwater systems. By summarizing the methods used in these studies, quantifying trends in the popularity of the investigated stressors, and performing co-occurrence analysis, we produce the most comprehensive overview of this diverse field of research to date. We provide both a taxonomy grouping the 909 investigated stressors into 31 classes and an open-source and interactive version of the dataset (https://jamesaorr.shinyapps.io/freshwater-multiple-stressors/). Inspired by our results, we provide a framework to help clarify whether statistical interactions detected by factorial experiments align with stressor interactions of interest, and we outline general guidelines for the design of multiple-stressor experiments relevant to any system. We conclude by highlighting the research directions required to better understand freshwater ecosystems facing multiple stressors.

In this essay, I argue that the combination of research synthesis and philosophical methods can fill an important methodological gap in neuroscience. While experimental research and formal modelling have seen their methods progressively increase in rigour and sophistication over the years, the task of analysing and synthesizing the vast literature reporting new results and models has lagged behind. The problem is aggravated because neuroscience has grown and expanded into a vast mosaic of related but partially independent subfields, each with their own literatures. This fragmentation not only makes it difficult to see the full picture emerging from neuroscience research but also limits progress in individual subfields. The current neuroscience literature has the perfect conditions to create what the information scientist Don Swanson called \"undiscovered public knowledge\"-knowledge that exists in the mutual implications of different published pieces of information but that is nonetheless undiscovered because those pieces have not been explicitly connected. Current methods for rigorous research synthesis, such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses, mostly focus on combining similar studies and are not suited for exploring undiscovered public knowledge. To that aim, they need to be adapted and supplemented. I argue that successful exploration of the hidden implications in the neuroscience literature will require the combination of these adapted research synthesis methods with philosophical methods for rigorous (and creative) analysis and synthesis.

BACKGROUND: Recovery strategies are used to enhance performance and reduce injury risk in athletes. In previous systematic reviews, individual recovery strategies were investigated to clarify their effectiveness for mixed groups of athletes. However, the current evidence is ambiguous, and a clear overview of (training) recovery for endurance athletes is still lacking.
METHODS: We conducted an umbrella review based on a literature search in PubMed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science. Reviews published in English and before December 2022 were included. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses were eligible if they investigated the effectiveness of one or more recovery strategies compared with a placebo or control group after a training session in endurance athletes.
RESULTS: Twenty-two reviews (nine systematic reviews, three meta-analyses, and ten systematic reviews with meta-analyses included) met the inclusion criteria. In total, sixty-three studies with 1100 endurance athletes were included in our umbrella review. Out of the sixty-three studies, eight provided information on training recovery time frame for data synthesis. Among them, cryotherapy and compression garments showed positive effects, while applying massage showed no effect. In general, none of the included recovery strategies showed consistent benefits for endurance athletes.
CONCLUSIONS: There is no particular recovery strategy that can be advised to enhance recovery between training sessions or competitions in endurance athletes. However, individual studies suggest that compression garments and cryotherapy are effective training recovery strategies. Further research should improve methodology and focus on the different time courses of the recovery process.
BACKGROUND: The review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews with the number CRD42021260509.

During school closures prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic, educational technology (EdTech) was often used to continue educational provision. In this article, we consider EdTech effectiveness using a holistic framework, and synthesise findings from 10 primary research studies of EdTech interventions conducted in low- and middle-income countries during the pandemic. The framework includes five main lenses: learning outcomes, enhancing equity, implementation context, cost and affordability, and alignment and scale. While in-person schooling has largely resumed, there continues to be further integration of EdTech into education systems globally. This analysis provides evidence-based insights and highlights knowledge gaps to shape holistic analysis of both EdTech mainstreaming and future research into the effective use of EdTech to strengthen learning.

In recent years, much research and many data sources have become digital. Some advantages of digital or Internet-based research, compared to traditional lab research (e.g., comprehensive data collection and storage, availability of data) are ideal for an improved meta-analyses approach.In the meantime, in meta-analyses research, different types of meta-analyses have been developed to provide research syntheses with accurate quantitative estimations. Due to its rich and unique palette of corrections, we recommend to using the Schmidt and Hunter approach for meta-analyses in a digitalized world. Our primer shows in a step-by-step fashion how to conduct a high quality meta-analysis considering digital data and highlights the most obvious pitfalls (e.g., using only a bare-bones meta-analysis, no data comparison) not only in aggregation of the data, but also in the literature search and coding procedure which are essential steps in any meta-analysis. Thus, this primer of meta-analyses is especially suited for a situation where much of future research is headed to: digital research. To map Internet-based research and to reveal any research gap, we further synthesize meta-analyses on Internet-based research (15 articles containing 24 different meta-analyses, on 745 studies, with 1,601 effect sizes), resulting in the first mega meta-analysis of the field. We found a lack of individual participant data (e.g., age and nationality). Hence, we provide a primer for high-quality meta-analyses and mega meta-analyses that applies to much of coming research and also basic hands-on knowledge to conduct or judge the quality of a meta-analyses in a digitalized world.

Synthesizing results across multiple studies is a popular way to increase the robustness of scientific findings. The most well-known method for doing this is meta-analysis. However, because meta-analysis requires conceptually comparable effect sizes with the same statistical form, meta-analysis may not be possible when studies are highly diverse in terms of their research design, participant characteristics, or operationalization of key variables. In these situations, Bayesian evidence synthesis may constitute a flexible and feasible alternative, as this method combines studies at the hypothesis level rather than at the level of the effect size. This method therefore poses less constraints on the studies to be combined. In this study, we introduce Bayesian evidence synthesis and show through simulations when this method diverges from what would be expected in a meta-analysis to help researchers correctly interpret the synthesis results. As an empirical demonstration, we also apply Bayesian evidence synthesis to a published meta-analysis on statistical learning in people with and without developmental language disorder. We highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the proposed method and offer suggestions for future research.

The rise of research synthesis and systematic reviews over the last 25 years has been aided by a series of software packages providing simple and accessible GUI interfaces which are intuitively easy to use by novice analysts and users. Development of many of these packages has been abandoned over time due to a variety of factors, leaving a gap in the software infrastructure available for meta-analysis. To fulfill the continued demand for a GUI-based meta-analytic system, we have now released MetaWin 3 as free, open-source, multi-platform software. MetaWin3 is written in Python and developed from scratch relative to earlier versions. The codebase is available on Github, with pre-compiled executables for both Windows and macOS available from the MetaWin website. MetaWin includes standardized effect size calculations, exploratory and publication bias analyses, and allows for both simple and complex explanatory models of variation within a meta-analytic framework, including meta-regression, using traditional least-squares/moments estimation.

This chapter begins with an overview of recent developments that have encouraged and facilitated greater use of research syntheses, including Meta-Analysis, to guide public policy and practice in education, workforce development, and social services. It discusses the role of Meta-Analysis for improving knowledge of the effectiveness of programs, policies, and practices and the applicability and generalizability of that knowledge to conditions other than those represented by the study samples and settings. The chapter concludes with recommendations for improving the potential of Meta-Analysis to accelerate knowledge development through changing how we design, conduct, and report findings of individual studies to maximize their usefulness in Meta-Analysis as well as how we produce and report Meta-Analysis findings. The paper includes references to resources supporting the recommendations.