Commentary on “Efficacy of the Use of the Calgary Family Intervention Model in Bedside Nursing Education: A Systematic Review” [Response to Letter]
Michael Mileski,1 Rebecca McClay2
1School of Health Administration, Texas State University, San Marcos, TX, USA; 2School of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math, American Public University System, Charles Town, WV, USA
Correspondence: Michael Mileski, School of Health Administration, Texas State University, 601 University Drive, Encino Hall—250, San Marcos, TX, 78666, USA, Tel +1 512 245 3556, Email [email protected]
We have had the opportunity to review the Letter to the Editor submitted by Tarigan and Priastana regarding “Efficacy of the Use of the Calgary Family Intervention Model in Bedside Nursing Education: A Systematic review by Milesky [sic] et al”.1
We appreciate their comments and would appreciate the opportunity to respond to their concerns.
This protocol has not been listed in a prospectively listed international systematic review database. It is recommended that the protocol be registered in the PROSPERO database for peer review and to reduce unnecessary duplication of efforts among researchers.
Our systematic review was completed using the PRISMA 2020 Guidelines. Whereas, PRISMA does state that this is a recommendation, it is not a requirement. “Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.”2,3 In fact, according to the PROSPERO website which the reviewers here have cited themselves, PROSPERO is currently fast-tracking only publications which are related to COVID-19, and all others are simply being published automatically without being checked against PROSPERO.4 As PROSPERO is not currently verifying originality of submission topics at this time, the reviewers comments regarding early enrollment, unplanned duplication, and comparison of methods by PROSPERO are moot.
At the article selection process stage, there are difficulties for readers to understand the PRISMA diagram shown At the screening stage, the reasons for releasing 106 articles from 135 articles have not been explained.
We disagree with this statement entirely. Had the reviewers read the article fully, they would find this information included in the Materials and Methods section. We clearly utilize the PRISMA protocol2,3 in addition to the Kruse Protocol5 to identify how we chose articles. We discuss Eligibility Criteria, Information Sources, Search Strategy, Selection Process, Data Collection Process, Data Items, Study Risk of Bias Assessment, Effect Measures, Synthesis Methods, and Additional Analyses under the Materials and Methods Section of the paper (all required parts of a paper using the PRISMA Guidelines).1 We also include clear diagrams showing PICOS (Table 2) and Summary of Strength and Quality of Evidence Identified with the JHNEBP (Table 3). The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Rating Scale (JHNEBP) is a widely used and highly regarded method for assessing the strength of articles.6 The PRISMA flow diagram is merely a summative tool showing the flow of research and is not meant to provide conclusion derivation in a step-by-step process. This process is outlined in the actual text, as it would not be possible for such detail to be included in a flow diagram.
Meanwhile, in this section, there is also a selection based on full text, which has a different section from the process above. The author needs to explain this so that the screening carried out guarantees the selected articles according to standards.
There is no explanation necessary here, the use of PRISMA protocols is clearly stated, which uses the definition of “full text” to indicate that the full text of the article was reviewed. Should the reviewers familiarize themselves with PRISMA 2020,2,3 they would find highly detailed information regarding “full text” is included in the explanation including example papers and PRISMA flow diagrams cited by PRISMA.7,8
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this communication, outside authoring the original paper.
1. Mileski M, McClay R, Heinemann K, Dray G. Efficacy of the use of the Calgary family intervention model in bedside nursing education: a systematic review. J Multidiscip Healthc. 2022;15:1323. doi:10.2147/JMDH.S370053
2. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160. doi:10.1136/bmj.n160
3. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
5. Kruse CS. Writing a systematic review for publication in a health-related degree program. JMIR Res Protoc. 2019;8(10):e15490. doi:10.2196/15490
6. Newhouse R, Dearholt S, Poe S, Pugh L, White K. The Johns Hopkins Nursing Evidence-Based Practice Rating Scale. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins Hospital; 2005.
7. Chambergo-Michilot D, Tellez WA, Becerra-Chauca N, Zafra-Tanaka JH, Taype-Rondan A. Text message reminders for improving sun protection habits: a systematic review. PLoS One. 2020;15(5):e0233220. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233220
8. Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):54. pmid: 24886533. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-54
© 2022 The Author(s). This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.