Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 19, 2026

Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems
Published on: June 13, 2025
Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of
Andrea C Tricco1, Wasifa Zarin2, Marco Ghassemi2
1Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1T8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th Floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada.
Objectives:
The aim of the study was to characterize methodological conduct, reporting, and quality of five knowledge synthesis (KS) approaches.
Study Design And Setting:
Retrospective analysis of a convenience sample of five published databases of KS approaches: overview of reviews (n = 74), scoping reviews (n = 494), rapid reviews (n = 84), systematic reviews (n = 300), and network meta-analyses (NMAs; n = 456). Data in the five published databases were abstracted by two reviewers independently, any missing data for this retrospective analysis were abstracted by one experienced reviewer. Methods were appraised using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Descriptive analysis was performed.
Results:
Reporting the use of a protocol ranged from 4% for rapid reviews to 32% for systematic reviews. The use of two reviewers for citation and full-text screening ranged from 20% for scoping reviews to 60% for NMAs. Data abstraction was performed in duplicate for 11% of rapid reviews and 54% of NMAs, and for risk of bias appraisal, this ranged from 6% for scoping reviews to 41% for NMAs. NMAs had the highest median percentage of maximum obtainable AMSTAR score (64%; Q1-Q3:45-73%), while scoping reviews had the lowest (25%; Q1-Q3:13-38%).
Conclusion:
NMAs consistently scored the highest on the AMSTAR tool likely because the purpose is to estimate treatment effects statistically. Scoping reviews scored the lowest (even after adjusting the score for not relevant items) likely because the purpose is to characterize the literature.
More Related Videos
10:39Qualitative and Quantitative Validation of Tools with Rating Scales Aimed at Assessing the Quality of University Service-Learning
Published on: August 29, 2025
05:26Enactive Phenomenological Approach to the Trier Social Stress Test: A Mixed Methods Point of View
Published on: January 7, 2019
Related Concept Videos
The Scientific Method in Nursing Process
When using research findings to change practice, one must understand the process used to guide a study. The scientific method is a systematic, step-by-step process that supports the data's validity, reliability, and generalizability. As a result, findings can be...
Inductive Reasoning
Inductive reasoning is common in descriptive science. A life scientist makes observations and records them. This data can be qualitative or...
Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method
The Scientific Method
Generally, predictions are tested using carefully-designed experiments. Based on the outcome of these...