JBI series paper 1: Introducing JBI and the JBI Model of EHBC

Jordan, Zoe; Lockwood, Craig; Aromataris, Edoardo; Pilla, Bianca; Porritt, Kylie; Klugar, Miloslav; Riddle, Dru; Wang, N.; Munn, Zachary

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.04.008

Cited by 18 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2021, the JBI Scientific Committee approved the update of the current set of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative analytical study design by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, a working group consisting of researchers and methodologists. 11 The objective of this revision was to enhance the longevity and utility of the tools, [7][8][9] as well as to reflect current advancements in the field of risk of bias while adhering to the reporting requirements established by PRISMA 2020. 12 A secondary aim was to better support reviewers as they grapple with the methodological requirements of GRADE.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies

Barker,

Habibi,

Aromataris

et al. 2024

JBI Evidence Synthesis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews of effectiveness offer a rigorous synthesis of the best evidence available regarding the effects of interventions or treatments. Randomized controlled trials are considered the optimal study design for evaluating the effectiveness of interventions and are the ideal study design for inclusion in a systematic review of effectiveness. In the absence of randomized controlled trials, quasi-experimental studies may be relied on to provide information on treatment or intervention effectiveness. However, such studies are subject to unique considerations regarding their internal validity, and consequently, the assessment of the risk of bias of these studies needs to consider these features of design and conduct. The JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group has recently commenced updating the suite of JBI critical appraisal tools for quantitative study designs to align with the latest advancements in risk of bias assessment. This paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for risk of bias assessment of quasi-experimental studies, offers practical guidance for its use, provides examples for interpreting the results of risk of bias assessment, and discusses major changes from the previous version, along with the justifications for those changes.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies

Barker,

Habibi,

Aromataris

et al. 2024

JBI Evidence Synthesis

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…JBI is a research organisation which specialises in evidence‐based health care 9 . The JBI Collaboration is a global collaboration of academics and clinicians from over 75 entities across 40 countries 10 and bi‐annual meetings of the JBIC are held.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…JBI is a research organisation which specialises in evidence-based health care. 9 The JBI Collaboration is a global collaboration of academics and clinicians from over 75 entities across 40 countries 10 and bi-annual meetings of the JBIC are held. The research was conducted over Zoom during the 64th JBIC meetings (16th-18th of November 2020), which is an invited event for directors of each collaborating centre.…”

Section: Study Design and Settingmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study

Pollock,

Barker,

Stone

et al. 2023

Research Synthesis Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Predatory journals are a blemish on scholarly publishing and academia and the studies published within them are more likely to contain data that is false. The inclusion of studies from predatory journals in evidence syntheses is potentially problematic due to this propensity for false data to be included. To date, there has been little exploration of the opinions and experiences of evidence synthesisers when dealing with predatory journals in the conduct of their evidence synthesis. In this paper, the thoughts, opinions, and attitudes of evidence synthesisers towards predatory journals and the inclusion of studies published within these journals in evidence syntheses were sought. Focus groups were held with participants who were experienced evidence synthesisers from JBI (previously the Joanna Briggs Institute) collaboration. Utilising qualitative content analysis, two generic categories were identified: predatory journals within evidence synthesis, and predatory journals within academia. Our findings suggest that evidence synthesisers believe predatory journals are hard to identify and that there is no current consensus on the management of these studies if they have been included in an evidence synthesis. There is a critical need for further research, education, guidance, and development of clear processes to assist evidence synthesisers in the management of studies from predatory journals.

show abstract

“…Over the nearly 3 decades of JBI's ongoing investment in evidence synthesis, [12][13][14][15] there have been many different iterations of JBI critical appraisal tools. These tools have been developed by JBI and collaborators, and approved by the JBI Scientific Committee following extensive consultation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the risk of bias of quantitative analytical studies: introducing the vision for critical appraisal within JBI systematic reviews

Munn

Stone

Aromataris

et al. 2022

JBI Evidence Synthesis

178

149

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A key step in the systematic review process is the assessment of the methodological quality (or risk of bias) of the included studies. At JBI, we have developed several tools to assist with this evaluation. As evidence synthesis methods continue to evolve, it has been necessary to revise and reflect on JBI's current approach to critical appraisal and to plan a strategy for the future. In this first paper of a series focusing on risk of bias assessment, we introduce our vision for risk of bias assessment for JBI. In future papers in this series, the methodological approach taken for this revision process will be discussed, along with the revised tools and guidance for using these tools.

show abstract

JBI series paper 1: Introducing JBI and the JBI Model of EHBC

Cited by 18 publications

References 7 publications

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies

The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for quasi-experimental studies

Predatory journals and their practices present a conundrum for systematic reviewers and evidence synthesisers of health research: A qualitative descriptive study

Assessing the risk of bias of quantitative analytical studies: introducing the vision for critical appraisal within JBI systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About