The Institute has a number of free resources available for all our stakeholders. A few examples are listed below.
Systematic Review Accelerator (SRA)
The Systematic Review Accelerator (SRA) is a suite of automation tools, purpose-built to speed up multiple steps in the systematic review (SR) process. SRA tools assist with many steps of a systematic review, including searching for citations, citation screening and write-up of review findings, among others. Existing tools are being continuously reviewed and refined, and additional tools are being developed. The SRA tools are freely available for anyone in the world to use. Some of our current tools include:
- Word Frequency Analyser - Assists with designing the search strings to find the relevant literature to answer the systematic review question.
- Polyglot Search Translator - Automatically (rather than manually) translates the search string between multiple databases (which have their own syntaxes).
- Deduplicator - Identifies and removes duplicate studies from search results (to decrease the reference screening workload).
- RevMan Replicant (Login required) - Automatically writes the results of the systematic review from meta-analyses (forest plots), thus decreasing errors and time to complete the write-up.
- SearchRefiner - Refines the search strategy so that it is maximally efficient in finding only the relevant literature and leaving out irrelevant literature (decreases the screening workload).
- Disputatron - Detects screening decision disagreements between reviewers. This speeds up the resolution of the disagreement process.
Screenatron - Increases the speed of title/abstract screening by combining customizable hotkeys with a streamlined user interface to allow the reviewer to quickly include or exclude articles.
MethodsWizard - A semi-automated tool to guide the systematic review team through the writeup of the methods section of a systematic review protocol.
Spidercite - Automatically finds and downloads any citing and cited articles from an uploaded set of studies, used for conducting citation searching.
Contact us to suggest improvements or report problems on our feedback page.
Shared Decision Making
- E-Learning module Helping Patients Make Informed Decisions: Communicating benefits and risks.
- E-Learning module (GP version) Helping Patients Make Informed Decisions: Communicating benefits and harms
- for RACGP members, there’s a version available through RACGP’s GP Learning as an accredited activity which enables QI and CPD points to be earnt for completing it
- Short videos for clinicians on shared decision making:
- Patient decision aids for acute bronchitis, sore throat, and middle ear infection
Videos on shared decision making and acute respiratory infection
Abstracts of systematic reviews are very important, as some readers cannot access the full paper, such that abstracts may be the only option for gleaning research results. This can be because of a pay wall, low Internet download capacity, or if the full article is only available in a language not understood by the reader. Readers in countries where English is not the primary language may have access to an abstract translated to their own language, but not to a translated full text.
The PRISMA Statement gives some guidance for abstracts, closely linked to commonly used headings in structured abstracts. After observing that the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews is still poor, we decided to develop an extension to the PRISMA Statement to provide additional guidance on writing abstracts for systematic reviews. We also wanted to provide a checklist enabling the items suggested to fit into any set of headings mandated by a journal or conference submission.
TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication)
The quality of description of interventions in publications is poor. However without details of the intervention, clinicians cannot use effective interventions in practice and other researchers cannot replicate, build upon or reliably synthesis findings.
With the objective of improving the completeness of reporting, and ultimately the replicability, of interventions, a reporting guideline was developed. The reporting checklist is entitled TIDieR (Template for Intervention Description and Replication). It is an extension of item 5 of the CONSORT 2010 statement and item 11 of the SPIRIT 2013 statement
A tool to guide you through completing each of the TIDieR Checklist items and produce a document which summarises your intervention is now available.
This is a database of learning resources for teaching EBHC (Evidence-Based Health Care). There are resources for the public, students and professionals.
The CriSTAL tool (Criteria for Screening and Triaging to Appropriate aLternative care) has been developed and validated for older people aged 65+ years either in residential aged care facilities or hospitals. Some of its components have been used for older patients living in the community and visiting their primary care practitioner. Only one study in the USA has applied it to people aged 55+ years. For a list of free resources for researchers and clinicians interested in reducing prognostic uncertainty for their older patients, please visit the CriSTAL website.
MASCoT is a clinical trial enrolment and randomization software developed at the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University. MASCOT is currently on version v1.2.
Functionality of version 1.2:
Permuted Block randomization for the purpose of stratifying patients.
Allocation Concealment Functionality
Open-label, single blind (patient blinded) or double-blinded trial (clinician and patient blinded)
Contact us for more information or to use the software for your next trial.
Aimed at both patients and professionals, the book Testing Treatments builds a lively and thought provoking argument for better, more reliable, more relevant research, with unbiased or ‘fair’ trials, and explains how patients can work with doctors to achieve this vital goal.
Many treatment claims are untrustworthy, however. Unwarranted faith in untrustworthy claims causes people to suffer by using ineffective or harmful treatments, or failing to use effective ones.
Unfortunately, it is often hard to tell whether a treatment claim is untrustworthy. Skills are needed to spot claims that are unreliable.
Testing Treatments international (TTi) provides open access to learning resources for people who want to (or help others to) acquire those skills.
Please note that TTi is NOT for specific advice on particular treatments. This information is available elsewhere.
However, TTi SHOULD help to promote critical thinking about the treatment claims that people encounter.
TTi builds on Testing Treatments, a successful book written for the public, which is available to download for free in more than a dozen languages.
Testing Treatments is for anyone who wishes to learn how to assess the trustworthiness of treatment claims.
For more information, visit the website: https://en.testingtreatments.org/