Updating the web-based "Right Review" tool: an international Delphi process
2Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA), Ireland
3JBI, The University of Adelaide, Australia
4Department of Health, Ireland
5Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada; Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Canada
6Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
7Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, UK
8School of Health and Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, UK
9Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality: A JBI Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Queen's University Kingston, Canada
10JBI, The University of Adelaide Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, Australia
11Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto. Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto., Canada
Background:
A diverse range of evidence synthesis approaches have been developed to meet end users’ (such as policy makers) knowledge needs. Examples include systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, network meta-analysis, meta-narrative reviews, and meta-synthesis. For researchers and those commissioning reviews, choosing the most appropriate method may be confusing. “Right Review” is a web-based decision support tool that guides users through a series of simple questions for recommending evidence synthesis methods suitable for their research question. Currently, the tool separates quantitative reviews and qualitative evidence synthesis.
Objectives:
To update the Right Review tool to establish a common set of questions for the synthesis of both quantitative and qualitative studies.
Methods:
A two-round modified online international Delphi was conducted (2021) with researchers, policy makers, health care providers, patients, and decision makers. Along with demographic questions, participants were asked to rate the importance and or clarity of the tool guiding questions, definitions of evidence synthesis types, and the tool output structure. A consensus definition of at least 70% agreement for each item was decided a priori. Any items not reaching consensus after round 2 were discussed by the international project steering committee (PSC).
Results:
Twenty-four experts from 9 countries completed round 1 and 12 round 2. A total of 46 items were presented in round 1, with 21 reaching consensus. Twenty-seven items were presented in round 2, with eight reaching consensus. Items not reaching consensus, including 8 tool guiding questions, 9 review definitions (predominantly related to qualitative evidence), and 2 tool output items, were brought forward for discussion by the PSC. Three items were removed entirely, and the remainder revised and edited and/or combined with existing items.
Conclusions:
The Delphi process informs the update of this tool which is free, practical decision support tool that helps reviewers choose an appropriate method.