Compared with classic systematic review types, the scoping review, mapping review and evidence gap maps (EGMs) address broader research questions. Therefore, they are classified into the "big picture review" family. These three types of evidence synthesis have developed rapidly in recent years, but the related concepts are easy to be confused. This article introduces the methodological development process of the three types of evidence synthesis, summarizes the similarities and differences in terms of research purposes and methodology based on the methodological guidelines of the three types of evidence synthesis in the "big picture review" family. The author hopes that this article can help domestic researchers distinguish and identify the three types of evidence synthesis, avoid conceptual confusion, and correctly choose the type of evidence synthesis in the "big picture review" family according to the research purpose.
The COSMIN community updated the COSMIN-RoB checklist on reliability and measurement error in 2021. The updated checklist can be applied to the assessment of all types of outcome measurement studies, including clinician-reported outcome measures (ClinPOMs), performance-basd outcome measurement instruments (PerFOMs), and laboratory values. In order to help readers better understand and apply the updated COSMIN-RoB checklist and provide methodological references for conducting systematic reviews of ClinPOMs, PerFOMs and laboratory values, this paper aimed to interpret the updated COSMIN-RoB checklist on reliability and measurement error studies.
ObjectiveTo construct a framework and functional items of a scientific research assistant tool for conducting systematic review for patient-reported outcome measures. MethodsBased on the research foundation and work experience of the system evaluation of two patient-reported outcome measures systematic reviews carried out by the research group in the early stage, the framework and function system of scientific research aid tool was initially constructed, and two rounds of correspondence were carried out by Dephi expert consultation method. ResultsThe effective recovery rates of the two rounds of expert consultation questionnaires were 90% and 100%, the expert authority coefficient was 0.839, and the compatibility coefficients of suitability and importance were 0.105 and 0.177, respectively. The final the patient-reported outcome measures tool system evaluation scientific research aid tool system consists of 7 frames and 31 items. ConclusionThis study has developed a scientific and comprehensive set of functional criteria for research-assistant tools that systematically review patient-reported outcome measures based on the COSMIN methodology and it lays the foundation for subsequent tool research and development.