Search results

Abstract
Background
The demand for peer reviewers is often perceived as disproportionate to the supply and availability of reviewers. Considering characteristics associated with peer review behaviour can allow for the development of solutions to manage the growing demand for peer reviewers. The objective of this research was to compare characteristics among two groups of reviewers registered in Publons.

Methods
A descriptive cross-sectional study design was used to compare characteristics between (1) individuals completing at least 100 peer reviews ('mega peer reviewers') from January 2018 to December 2018 as and (2) a control group of peer reviewers completing between 1 and 18 peer reviews over the same time period. Data was provided by Publons, which offers a repository of peer reviewer activities in addition to tracking peer reviewer publications and research metrics. Mann Whitney tests and chi-square tests were conducted comparing characteristics (e.g., number of publications, number of citations, word count of peer review) of mega peer reviewers to the control group of reviewers.

Results
A total of 1596 peer reviewers had data provided by Publons. A total of 396 M peer reviewers and a random sample of 1200 control group reviewers were included. A greater proportion of mega peer reviews were male (74%) as compared to the control reviewers (58% male). Mega peer reviewers demonstrated a significantly greater average number of total publications, citations, receipt of Publons awards, and a higher average h index as compared to the control group of reviewers (all p < .001). We found no statistically significant differences in the number of words between the groups (p > .428).

Conclusions
Mega peer reviewers registered in the Publons database also had a higher number of publications and citations as compared to a control group of reviewers. Additional research that considers motivations associated with peer review behaviour should be conducted to help inform peer reviewing activity.

AbstractBackgroundRapid reviews (RRs) have been used to provide timely evidence for policymakers, health providers, and the public in several healthcare scenarios, most recently during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Despite the essential role of diagnosis in clinical management, data about how to perform RRs of diagnostic tests are scarce. We aimed to explore the views and perceptions of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence about the value of methods used to accelerate the review process.MethodsWe performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence. We carried out the interviews in English between July and December 2021. Initial reading and coding of the transcripts were performed using NVIVO qualitative data analysis software.ResultsOf a total of 23 invited experts, 16 (70%) responded. We interviewed all 16 participants representing key roles in evidence synthesis. We identified 14 recurring themes including the review question, characteristics of the review team, and use of automation, as the topics with the highest number of quotes. Some participants considered several methodological "shortcuts" to be ineffective or risky, such as automating quality appraisal, using only one reviewer for diagnostic data extraction and only performing descriptive analysis. The introduction of limits might depend on whether the test being assessed is a new test, the availability of alternative tests, the needs of providers and patients, and the availability of high‐quality systematic reviews.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that organizational strategies (e.g., defining the review question, availability of a highly experienced team) may have a role in conducting RRs of diagnostic tests. Several methodological shortcuts were considered inadequate for accelerating the review process, though they need to be assessed in well‐designed studies. Improved reporting of RRs would support evidence‐based decision‐making and help users of RRs understand their limitations.

AbstractIntroductionRapid identification of severe acute respiratory syndrome‐coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infections by testing potentially reduced coronavirus disease‐19 (COVID‐19) cases. Testing strategies varied across countries and during different stages of the pandemic. This scoping review aims to map the available evidence on the effectiveness of SARS‐CoV‐2 testing strategies for suspected cases and asymptomatic populations to inform the development of World Health Organization recommendations for SARS‐CoV‐2 testing strategies.MethodsWe followed the standard methods for scoping reviews. We searched Medline (OVID), EMBASE (Elsevier), and Europe PMC using a comprehensive search strategy. The search was conducted in January 2023 and covered the period from January 2020 to January 2023. Two review authors independently screened the titles and abstracts, and full texts. Data were extracted onto a pilot‐tested form by a review author and cross‐checked by another review author. We provided a descriptive report summarizing the extracted data around the outcomes and created an interactive map of the available evidence using the evidence for policy and practice mapper.ResultsWe identified 34,550 citations from the databases. After the screening, we included 17 studies from 11 countries for data extraction. The study designs were randomized controlled trials (n = 3), nonrandomized experimental studies (n = 3), cohort studies (n = 3), cross‐sectional studies (n = 4), self‐controlled case series (n = 1), and economic evaluations (n = 3). Among the included studies, 14 used reverse transcription‐polymerase chain reaction and 10 studies used antigen‐detecting rapid diagnostic test. The settings of the studies were healthcare facilities (n = 8), communities (n = 4), schools, and workplaces (n = 3). Included studies considered symptomatic and asymptomatic individuals, or both, or asymptomatic contacts. Most of the studies (n = 14) reported the COVID‐19 positivity rate as the primary outcome. Other reported outcomes are the number of COVID‐19 cases (n = 11), number of hospitalizations and deaths (n = 3), and cost (n = 3).ConclusionWe identified evidence gaps in the effectiveness of SARS‐CoV‐2 testing strategies, particularly in specific settings such as schools and long‐term care facilities. This scoping review provides a foundation for further research, allowing researchers and stakeholders to focus on addressing the identified gaps.