Review Protocol: [INSERT TITLE]

Review Protocol: [INSERT TITLE]

Student Information

Student Name Student ID No. Date of Submission Supervisor Name **Delete this colour advisory text before submission**

This protocol should be correctly referenced in each section, with appropriate citations and a full reference list at the end of the document. This is also an academic assignment with a word limit of 2,000 words (+/- 10%) which does not include headings/subheadings or any figures/tables which are inserted.

Background (500-750 words)

Describe the population and condition or phenomenon of interest and contextualize it. In other words, describe what your review will be about.

Give relevant definitions and discuss what may already be known about the subject

Explain what it is you are hoping to explore (the WHY comes in the next section)

Should include relevant references to support description of the topic, condition, disorder, interventions, current evidence/best practice, current guidelines.

You are setting the scene for the reader.

Objective/Rationale (200-400 words)

Describe the justification for this review. In other words, describe why this review/the information it collects is important.

This section is about WHY you are doing the review.

What is the rationale/reason for looking at this topic/condition/intervention?

What are you hoping to achieve/discover by doing this review?

Set any specific objectives e.g.,

This review will

Review Question

Full Review Question

Provide the full review question in sentence format, and then break up the question according to the PICO framework (or other frameworks as appropriate e.g., PEO, SPIDER, PICOS). Discuss the best framework to use with your supervisor.

Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Search Strategy

Databases

List the bibliographic databases to be searched.

Reference Searches

If forward or backward citations will be performed (also known as chain or snowball searching), detail them here.

Full List of Search Terms

Include your search terms, organized by PICO or another framework. Remember that in the review you will need to show your searches in full.

This should be detailed and organized by question type.

Give all the possible search terms for your topic/intervention.

Consider spelling, regional variation (e.g., EMT vs paramedic), MeSH terms.

As this is a protocol, you will use this list of terms to build the formal searches.

Preliminary Searches

Based on rapid preliminary searches, how confident are you that the topic/question can be answered? Include any key papers identified in your preliminary searches here for reference. If limited/no data found in preliminary searches, may need to convert to scoping review.

This is what we have been doing so far rapid/preliminary searches to make sure that your topic/question is viable.

Include any key papers, e.g., previous systematic review (now out of date) or landmark trials (e.g., Paramedic-2 if looking at Adrenaline in OHCA).

Eligibility Criteria

Operationalise your PICO, PEO, PCC (or other framework) concepts by explicitly stating which types of study/publication will be included. The table below can be adapted/simplified if you wish (to just show a general list of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

PICO/PCC/PEO (or other format, or none just list criteria) Inclusion Criteria Exclusion Criteria

Data Extraction (200-400 words)

Provide a description of methods used to collect data from included studies (e.g. categories of data you intend to collect, how many people will conduct extraction, how disagreements will be resolved, etc.). You can do this alone, or you can work with 1 other to support data extraction. You should extract the data into some form of table, describe that here (give an example layout).

Include here an example of your Characteristics of included studies table.

Describe how you will go from 15 papers included for final analysis to having a summary of the data from each paper.

Study Quality Assessment (200-300 words)

Describe the tool(s) you will use to assess risk of bias. Such as CASP, BestBETS, or other critical appraisal tool.

Most of you will use CASP as an appraisal / risk of bias tool.

Explain here how you intend to examine the quality of your included studies.

Include supporting references (e.g., support why you are choosing a particular tool by saying something like the CASP tool for randomized trials was utilised this is considered to be a robust method of quality assessment (Ref))

Data Synthesis (200-400 words)

Describe how you will analyze and summarize the included study results.

Once you have the studies which you will include, and you have done some form of quality assessment how will you analyse what you have found?

This is the results and discussion section of the final review.

Based on what is in the sources you have included, provide a summary of how you plan to combine those results together, to try to answer your question.

Project Timetable

Fill out the following Gantt chart according to your estimated project timelines. Week one will be as below, when Semester 1 starts in 2024.Week Commencing: 29/01/2024 Preparation Conduct searches Ti/Ab + Full Text Selection Data Extraction Conduct quality assessments Data synthesis and analysis Final writing up References