0202410020544: Difference between revisions

From STARDIT
Jump to navigation Jump to search
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{item
{{item
|title=Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative
|type_parameter=research
|type_parameter=research
|description_parameter=The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative (ESTI) aims to develop a comprehensive evidence synthesis taxonomy to encourage and facilitate appropriate research synthesis to inform policy and practice
|description_parameter=The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative (ESTI) aims to develop a comprehensive evidence synthesis taxonomy to encourage and facilitate appropriate research synthesis to inform policy and practice
Line 38: Line 39:
|out_typ=publication/report/document
|out_typ=publication/report/document
|out_out=The Pandora’s Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy
|out_out=The Pandora’s Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy
|out_state=Completed
|out_stg=2022
|out_stg=2022
|out_dates=No
|out_dates=No
|out_typ3=No
|out_url_oth=https://ebm.bmj.com/content/28/3/148.long
|out_url_oth=https://ebm.bmj.com/content/28/3/148.long
|fair=No
|secure=No
|care=No
|out_imp=Introduces a global initiative to develop an evidence synthesis taxonomy and harmonise evidence synthesis.
|out_imp=Introduces a global initiative to develop an evidence synthesis taxonomy and harmonise evidence synthesis.
|out_des=This article discusses some of the pitfalls associated with an ever-expanding toolkit for evidence synthesis (likened to the opening of Pandora’s Box) and discuss potential solutions for improving the cohesiveness of evidence synthesis.
|out_des=This article discusses some of the pitfalls associated with an ever-expanding toolkit for evidence synthesis (likened to the opening of Pandora’s Box) and discuss potential solutions for improving the cohesiveness of evidence synthesis.
Line 50: Line 48:
|out_typ=publication/report/document
|out_typ=publication/report/document
|out_out=The Dark Side of Rapid Reviews: A Retreat From Systematic Approaches and the Need for Clear Expectations and Reporting
|out_out=The Dark Side of Rapid Reviews: A Retreat From Systematic Approaches and the Need for Clear Expectations and Reporting
|out_state=Completed
|out_stg=2022
|out_stg=2022
|out_dates=No
|out_dates=No
|out_typ3=No
|out_url_oth=https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-2603?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
|out_url_oth=https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-2603?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed
|fair=No
|secure=No
|care=No
|out_imp=This paper raises concerns over the use of rapid reviews.
|out_imp=This paper raises concerns over the use of rapid reviews.
|out_des=In this paper, we aim to highlight some risks and concerns associated with rapid reviews that do not follow a systematic approach or involve relevant knowledge users—and to reflect on the frequently overlooked “dark side” of rapid reviews.
|out_des=In this paper, we aim to highlight some risks and concerns associated with rapid reviews that do not follow a systematic approach or involve relevant knowledge users—and to reflect on the frequently overlooked “dark side” of rapid reviews.
Line 62: Line 57:
|out_typ=publication/report/document
|out_typ=publication/report/document
|out_out=Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol
|out_out=Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol
|out_state=Completed
|out_stg=2023
|out_stg=2023
|out_dates=No
|out_dates=No
|out_typ3=No
|out_url_oth=https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/fulltext/2023/03000/investigating_different_typologies_for_the.10.aspx
|out_url_oth=https://journals.lww.com/jbisrir/fulltext/2023/03000/investigating_different_typologies_for_the.10.aspx
|fair=No
|secure=No
|care=No
|out_imp=This scoping review forms the foundation of the evidence synthesis taxonomy
|out_imp=This scoping review forms the foundation of the evidence synthesis taxonomy
|out_des=The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis.
|out_des=The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis.
}}{{output parameter
|out_typ=publication/report/document
|out_out=A comprehensive evidence synthesis taxonomy
|out_state=Prospective
|out_dates=No
}}
}}
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 05:45, 12 November 2024

Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative Description: The Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy Initiative (ESTI) aims to develop a comprehensive evidence synthesis taxonomy to encourage and facilitate appropriate research synthesis to inform policy and practice
STARDIT ID: 0202410020544
Dates

State ongoing
Start 2021-01-01
End 2025-12-31
Form updated 2024-11-12

Report authors
Danielle Pollock (link)
0000-0002-6604-0609
danielle.pollock@adelaide.edu.au
Zachary Munn (link)
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7091-5842
Zachary.Munn@adelaide.edu.au
Aims
To develop a comprehensive evidence synthesis taxonomy to encourage and facilitate appropriate research synthesis to inform policy and practice.
To overview current evidence synthesis approaches and identify areas for improving efficiencies in the development of evidence syntheses
The identification of gaps within the evidence synthesis taxonomy for further investigation (i.e. development of additional risk of bias tools, reporting guidelines, methodological approaches)
Ensure appropriate evidence syntheses are conducted to inform policy and practice
Keywords
methodology
evidence synthesis
Reviews
Systematic Reviews as Topic
Evidence-Based Practice
{{{1}}}
Category
research

Inputs

group of individuals

https://jbi.global/jbi-evidence-synthesis-taxonomy-initiative/who-are-we (>100)


Task: Consultation
Compensation: volunteer

Outputs and impacts

publication/report/document
State: Completed
Stage: 2022
The Pandora’s Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy (link)


Impact: Introduces a global initiative to develop an evidence synthesis taxonomy and harmonise evidence synthesis.

This article discusses some of the pitfalls associated with an ever-expanding toolkit for evidence synthesis (likened to the opening of Pandora’s Box) and discuss potential solutions for improving the cohesiveness of evidence synthesis.
publication/report/document
State: Completed
Stage: 2022
The Dark Side of Rapid Reviews: A Retreat From Systematic Approaches and the Need for Clear Expectations and Reporting (link)


Impact: This paper raises concerns over the use of rapid reviews.

In this paper, we aim to highlight some risks and concerns associated with rapid reviews that do not follow a systematic approach or involve relevant knowledge users—and to reflect on the frequently overlooked “dark side” of rapid reviews.
publication/report/document
State: Completed
Stage: 2023
Investigating different typologies for the synthesis of evidence: a scoping review protocol (link)


Impact: This scoping review forms the foundation of the evidence synthesis taxonomy

The objective of this scoping review is to identify evidence synthesis types and previously proposed classification systems, typologies, or taxonomies that have guided evidence synthesis.
publication/report/document
State: Prospective
A comprehensive evidence synthesis taxonomy
Retrieved from "https://stardit.wikimedia.org.au/w/index.php?title=0202410020544&oldid=1232"