Assessment of concordance between related systematic reviews and between related guideline recommendations: protocol for a methodological survey.
Agarwal, A.; Albarqouni, L.; Badran, N.; Brax, N.; Gandhi, P.; Pereira, T.; Roberts, A.; El Zein, O.; Akl, E.
Show abstract
Independent systematic reviewers may arrive at different conclusions when analyzing evidence addressing the same clinical questions. Similarly, independent expert panels may arrive at different recommendations addressing the same clinical topics. When faced with a multiplicity of reviews or guidelines on a given topic, users are likely to benefit from a structured approach to evaluate concordance, and to explain discordant findings and recommendations. This protocol proposes a methodological survey to evaluate the prevalence of concordance between reviews addressing similar clinical questions, and between clinical practice guidelines addressing similar topics; and to identify methodological frameworks for the evaluation of concordance between related reviews and between related guidelines.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 96%
- Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: a scoping review 95%
- Exploring the potential of Claude 2 for risk of bias assessment: Using a large language model to assess randomized controlled trials with RoB 2 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 96%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 96%
- Strategies used to manage overlap of primary study data by exercise-related overviews. Protocol for a systematic methodological review 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- To Include or Not to Include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning assisted screening in systematic reviews 93%
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 91%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Application of observational research methods to real-world studies for rare disease drugs: a scoping review protocol 93%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 93%
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 96%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.