This section of the systematic review is reserved for the methods used to conduct the review and should be presented under the relevant subheadings, including any deviations from the method outlined in the a priori protocol.
Directly below the Methods heading provide the following information:
State and appropriately cite the JBI methodology that was employed in the conduct of the review and synthesis.
Refer to and cite the a priori protocol that was either publicly available, published, or accepted for publication/‘in press’ (e.g. in JBI Evidence Synthesis) and/or if the protocol has been registered with PROSPERO, provide registration information including registration number (e.g. PROSPERO CRD42015425226).
12.3.8.1 Search strategy
This section should detail how the reviewers searched for relevant papers. The information sources that were searched must be listed along with the search dates. A detailed search strategy for all major databases searched must be appended to the review. The documentation of search strategies is a key element of the scientific validity of a systematic review. It enables readers to examine and evaluate the steps taken, decisions made to consider the comprehensiveness and exhaustiveness of the search strategy for each included database. A JBI review should consider papers published in both commercial (e.g. PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE) and in non-commercially operated databases (grey/gray literature).
Each electronic database is likely to use a different system for indexing key words within their search engines. Hence, the search strategy will be tailored to each particular database. These variations are important and need to be captured and included in the systematic review.
12.3.8.2 Study selection
The review should describe the actual process of study screening and all the stages of selection (based on title and abstract examination; on full text examination etc.) and the actual procedures used for solving disagreements between reviewers.
12.3.8.3 Assessment of methodological quality
This section should detail the approach to critical appraisal, not the assessment results, and should be consistent with the protocol. Any deviations from the protocol must be reported and explained. The report should detail the criteria that were used when determining the methodological quality of papers considered for inclusion in the review. If the COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist (Mokkink et al., 2018a) was used as recommended, this should be appropriately cited. It is not necessary to append the COSMIN checklist, but the reference should be provided in a footnote to the table of methodological quality results.
12.3.8.4 Data extraction
This section of the review should include details of the types of data extracted from the included studies. If no data was available for particular measurement properties, that should also be reported. Standardized data extraction tools allow the extraction of the same types of data across the included studies and are recommended for JBI systematic reviews. Information that may impact upon the generalizability of the review findings such as study methods, setting and population characteristics etc. should also be extracted. This information is reported in the characteristics of included studies table (Appendix 12.1) and an overall description of key characteristics reported in the description of included studies section (see 12.3.9.3). Population characteristics include factors such as age, past medical history, co-morbidities, complications or other potential confounders. JBI aims to reduce errors in data extraction by using two independent reviewers. The data extraction tool used must be cited, with this Chapter cited as the reference. Authors should only append the data extraction tool if the cited tool was modified or a new tool developed. Any modifications to existing tools should be described in the text.
12.3.8.5 Data synthesis
The data synthesized within a systematic review are the results extracted from research studies relevant to the review question. This section should report if meta-analysis was conducted and, if so, the methods that were utilized. Indices that were unable to be pooled in meta-analysis, should be combined in narrative synthesis, making use of tables to aid in data presentation. The overall rating for each measurement property for each instrument of interest should be reported, according to established criteria for adequate measurement properties.