MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4390742725 · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00550

Reflecting on 2023: achievements and milestones in JBI Evidence Synthesis

2024· article· en· W4390742725 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mara Lambert, Melanie Dankel

Bibliographic record

VenueJBI Evidence Synthesis · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Each year when the calendar turns to January, it’s timely to reflect on the year just gone and anticipate the challenges and opportunities that lie ahead. This year, the JBI Evidence Synthesis editorial office is kicking off 2024 by revisiting some of the highlights from 2023. After publishing close to 150 papers in 2023, totaling nearly 2500 pages, and marking 10 years of continuous online publication,1 we can confidently say it was both a busy and productive year for the journal, with many important contributions to the landscape of evidence-based health care, health research, and the science of evidence synthesis. Here is a small sample of the exciting work presented in the previous 12 months. In 2023, we were pleased to introduce our first article series. We launched our first-ever series with a focus on risk of bias and providing an accessible point for dissemination for the work of the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, under the auspices of the JBI Scientific Committee.2 The first installments in the series were published in March to coincide with our society’s annual “Methodology Month.” In addition to debuting JBI’s revised critical appraisal tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized controlled trials,3 papers published to launch the series articulate JBI’s vision for assessing risk of bias of studies in systematic reviews4; clarify the change in terminology used for assessing methodological quality5; and provide an overview of the methods and development process of the revised tools.6 Look for the next installments in the risk-of-bias series in Methodology Month 2024 and beyond. The Methodology Month issue in March 2023 also included the latest recommendations for extracting, analyzing, and presenting results in scoping reviews from the JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group.7 As scoping reviews continue to be a popular methodology in our journal, it is important for reviewers to understand how to present their results clearly to facilitate their use. This article contains some extremely useful tips and examples for authors of this methodology of synthesis. Volume 21 (2023) also presented papers that moved beyond considerations of specific tools and methods applied in the conduct of evidence syntheses to the broader science of the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews in general, and we were pleased to co-publish “Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews”8 with multiple other leading international scientific periodicals. This comprehensive paper defined the essential components of a systematic review, and presented strategies and tools for developing a trustworthy review, as well as some critique of the guidance presented by leading international organizations with programs invested in evidence synthesis, specifically JBI and Cochrane. In an accompanying editorial,9 we explained why this guidance is so important and how reviewers should apply it to reduce confusion, improve the quality of the research, and increase the trustworthiness of their results. The systematic and scoping reviews published in JBI Evidence Synthesis in 2023 covered a wide range of health-related topics, from women’s and children’s health to surgery, and from eHealth to COVID-19. In July 2023, we devoted an entire co-guest-edited special issue to the topic of education, specifically, educating, developing, and supporting health professionals for the future. This issue included a qualitative review reporting on nursing students’ experiences of bridging programs when transitioning from pre-vocational nurse training to a registered nurse course.10 The review highlighted the value student nurses place on attaining this qualification despite juggling many other personal and family responsibilities. Also in this special issue was a scoping review of structural competency training across health professional curricula.11 The purpose of structural competency training is to teach students about determinants of global health and social justice issues.11 Education programs that address social determinants of health are aligned to the World Health Organization’s strategy to address global health inequality and must be considered when training the current and future health care workforce. Many other reviews published in Volume 21 resonated with readers. In the first issue of 2023, a scoping review explored the relatively novel concept of absorptive capacity in the adoption of innovations in health care organizations.12 Absorptive capacity is particularly vital for the adoption and implementation of knowledge into existing systems, but can be dependent on an organization’s capacity to recognize and value new information and to incorporate it into decision-making processes. The use of scoping review methodology enabled the authors to not only map the available evidence but also to provide clear pathways for future research into this innovative topic. Another widely read review was a qualitative systematic review focusing on the experiences and perceptions of nurses working night shift.13 Nurses are a unique cohort who routinely work shifts at varying times of the day and night, which can affect sleep patterns, cause sleep deprivation, and increase their risk of on-the-job injury. Despite this, they are required to provide round-the-clock, high-quality patient care. This review reported 3 synthesized findings covering issues such as the peculiar characteristics of night shift, work-life balance, and sleep deprivation. In a systematic review of prevalence and incidence, a team of reviewers from Canada, Switzerland, and Sweden investigated the timing of overall and cause-specific neonatal mortality and severe morbidity in the first 28 days of life.14 With high rates of newborn mortality and morbidity an ongoing concern, the reviewers assert that their results will help develop and focus future policy and recommendations for postnatal care to help move toward achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals of reducing the neonatal mortality rate. The Sustainable Development Goals will be a further focus in Methodology Month 2024 in a paper that maps the alignment of publications in JBI Evidence Synthesis to the Sustainable Development Goals15 to promote broader engagement with these important aims. We would also be remiss to not mention 2 other outstanding highlights from 2023. In June, JBI Evidence Synthesis was awarded a journal impact factor of 2.7, which reflects the dissemination and reach of the work done by our authors. We are excited to have received our impact factor, and believe it will assist in making our authors’ work more discoverable, and with it, the evidence-based research that will help researchers and clinicians at the point of care. A second achievement was the recognition of JBI Evidence Synthesis as a 2023 ambassador for World Evidence-Based Healthcare Day. This international event, which falls annually on October 20, is now in its fourth year and brings together a range of partners in the global evidence community to highlight the importance of the best-available evidence to improve health care for all. The journal’s blog, “Improving the accessibility of scientific research to promote equity,” highlighted some of the initiatives we have implemented to achieve equity and accessibility in global health research.16 As we now shift focus to the coming year, it is important to reflect on and celebrate our achievements thus far. The new year will bring many more developments, not least among them the inaugural JBI Evidence Synthesis Impact Award,17 which will be awarded to the authors of the systematic review published in 2023 with the most potential for impact in improving health outcomes and that demonstrates excellence in the application of JBI methodology. We look forward to another thought-provoking year in 2024, and thank you, our readers, for your support and engagement.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.117
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.323
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.821
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1170.323
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.007

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.548
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.008 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJBI Evidence SynthesisSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207