Page Comparison

Content published in the JBI Evidence-based Practice Database is subject to multiple rounds of peer review. The first is an internal peer review as per our policy whereby each item of content is reviewed by a second member of JBI staff who is an academic lead for a Field, who has experience and expertise in the methods for ES and RP development, and who provides feedback on compliance with a) standardisation of structure and layout, b) clarity and appropriateness of content for a clinical audience and c) use of required reporting standards for levels of evidence, grades of recommendation and references. The internal peer review also addresses basic editorial requirements such as grammar. The second round of peer review is external to the staff of JBI Implementation Science, members of the relevant Field Expert Reference Group are invited to provide structured feedback which is then actioned before the content is considered suitable for publication.

Evidence Summaries:

For Evidence Summaries, all studies and papers selected to be included in the Evidence Summary are required to have a formal, documented assessment of methodological quality using the relevant critical appraisal checklist as a guide for this process. Critical appraisal is a formal requirement for any literature to be included in a JBI evidence summary; and each article that meets the PICO driven inclusion criteria must be appraised and given an overall score of either, low, medium or high. A decision rubric is then applied by the writer; the aim is to include the most recent, highest level of good quality evidence that relates to answering the clinical question. Therefore, only articles that score medium or high will be included – with the exception that some topics completely lack high or medium quality research. In these exceptional cases, low quality evidence will be included, the quality of the evidence made clear for readers, and future updates will aim to focus on identifying improved quality research for the topic. JBI holds that low quality evidence that has been published in a peer reviewed source has been open to greater critique and public scrutiny than routine practice (in the absence of clinical review) and therefore may provide useful context which would otherwise not be accessible.  The  The critical appraisal checklists for clinical guidelines, systematic reviews, quantitative evidence, qualitative evidence and expert opinion are found in the Technical Development Report template, which can be downloaded from Resources, Forms and Templates. The TDR for each topic will cumulatively report the appraisal results for each study reported in an evidence summary. As older papers, or those with findings that are superseded by higher quality studies are removed, the TDR will be updated with the newer appraisal reports, a new version of the TDR will be released and the original version will be archived but accessible by request.

Best Practice Information Sheets:

Peer review of BPIS is multi-phase, no BPIS is published unless both phases have been fully completed:

• Phase one is internal, the writer of the BPIS is required to pass it through to professional staff, and a second academic member of staff. Professional staff examine each BPIS from an editorial perspective while academic staff undertake an internal peer review of the content, its alignment with the source systematic review, and for how levels of evidence, grades of recommendation and the decision-making algorithm are reported. Critique focuses on reliable representation of the findings of a JBI systematic review, accurate documentation of the recommendations, and consistency with the source systematic review in how levels of evidence and grades of recommendation are reported.
  

• Phase two is external to JBI, the draft BPIS is sent to the authors of the original systematic review requesting their open peer review and feedback. Concurrently, a copy of the BPIS is sent to members of the Speciality Field Expert Reference Group (ERG) or an appropriately qualified independent specialist for further evaluation and critique, including accessibility of the practice recommendations, currency and relevance of the topic, and feedback on acceptability to diverse practicing professionals and clinical contexts.