Assessment of redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential discrepancies of results of systematic reviews of early mobilisation of critically ill adults: a meta-research protocol

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorGutierrez-Arias, Ruvistay
dc.contributor.authorPieper, Dawid
dc.contributor.authorNydahl, Peter
dc.contributor.authorGonzalez-Seguel, Felipe
dc.contributor.authorJalil, Yorschua
dc.contributor.authorOliveros, Maria-Jose
dc.contributor.authorTorres-Castro, Rodrigo
dc.contributor.authorSeron, Pamela
dc.date.accessioned2025-01-20T20:07:27Z
dc.date.available2025-01-20T20:07:27Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.description.abstractIntroductionSeveral systematic reviews (SRs) have been conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adults with heterogeneous methodology and results. Redundancy in conducting SRs, unclear justification when leading new SRs or updating, and discordant results of SRs on the same research question may generate research waste that makes it difficult for clinicians to keep up to date with the best available evidence. This meta-research aims to assess the redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential reasons for discordance in the results reported by SRs conducted to determine the effectiveness of early mobilisation in critically ill adult patients. Methods and analysisA meta-research of early mobilisation SRs in critically ill adult patients will be conducted. A search of MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos and other search resources will be conducted. Two independent reviewers will perform study selection, data extraction and quality appraisal. Discrepancies will be resolved by consensus or a third reviewer. The redundancy of SRs will be assessed by the degree of overlap of primary studies. In addition, the justification for conducting new SRs will be evaluated with the 'Evidence-Based Research' framework. The methodological quality of the SRs will be assessed with the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 tool, and the quality of the reports through compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. To assess the potential reasons for discordance in the results of the SRs considering divergence in results and their interpretation. Ethics and disseminationAs meta-research, this study does not involve the participation of people whose rights may be violated. However, this overview will be developed rigorously and systematically to achieve valid and reliable results. The findings of this meta-research study will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal related to rehabilitation, critical care or research methodology.
dc.fuente.origenWOS
dc.identifier.doi10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074615
dc.identifier.issn2044-6055
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-074615
dc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uc.cl/handle/11534/91803
dc.identifier.wosidWOS:001047062500007
dc.issue.numero7
dc.language.isoen
dc.revistaBmj open
dc.rightsacceso restringido
dc.subjectintensive & critical care
dc.subjectrehabilitation medicine
dc.subjectstatistics & research methods
dc.subject.ods03 Good Health and Well-being
dc.subject.odspa03 Salud y bienestar
dc.titleAssessment of redundancy, methodological and reporting quality, and potential discrepancies of results of systematic reviews of early mobilisation of critically ill adults: a meta-research protocol
dc.typeartículo
dc.volumen13
sipa.indexWOS
sipa.trazabilidadWOS;2025-01-12
Files
Collections
Artículos de revistas