2021
DOI: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-931213/v1
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same topic: A protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

Abstract: Introduction: An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. Overviews of systematic reviews aim to address these challenges by summarising results of SRs and making sense of potentially discrepant SR results and conclusions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same topic. Since this tool pre-dates the advent of overviews, it has been inconsistently applied in this c… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(3 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Cochrane SR guidance was followed when performing our study selection and data extraction [19]. Our protocol is registered as a preprint on the Research Square server [20].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Cochrane SR guidance was followed when performing our study selection and data extraction [19]. Our protocol is registered as a preprint on the Research Square server [20].…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, we used consensus building strategies to develop clear instructions on how to operationalise the Jadad algorithm, and to ensure a consistent approach to assumptions and stepwise interpretation. We also adopted a systematic and transparent approach to address the objectives outlined in our protocol using SR guidance [20]. A comprehensive search strategy, including a search of the grey literature, was employed with no restrictions on language and publication status to minimise publication bias.…”
Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation