Data Extraction and Critical Appraisal

Introduction to Data Extraction

Systematic data extraction is a crucial procedure in amalgamating research discoveries, assuming a central role in converting a myriad of varied studies into a well-organized and structured storyline. It functions as the link that joins the unprocessed information from separate studies to the overarching aims of a systematic assessment. This opening passage will explore the importance of systematic data extraction in the research synthesis, underscoring its contribution to upholding precision and openness within the review process.

Importance of Systematic Data Extraction in Research Synthesis

Research synthesis aims to distill ideas, patterns, and trends from a broad range of studies to produce comprehensive and evidence-based conclusions. In this complex procedure, methodical data extraction functions as a systematic sieve, sorting through the particulars of each study to gather pertinent information that squarely addresses the research query. Through methodical data extraction, the synthesis process is steered by a structured method that guarantees consistency and comprehensiveness. Systematic data extraction offers various vital advantages. First, it eases the comparison of varied studies by converting their discoveries into a standardized layout, simplifying the identification of shared themes and distinctions. Secondly, it boosts the effectiveness of analysis by arranging data to support the recognition of trends and connections. Lastly, systematic data extraction ensures that vital details are noticed, fostering the synthesized evidence’s completeness.

Role of Data Extraction in Maintaining Rigor and Transparency

Data extraction is a cornerstone in upholding the rigor and openness of a systematic examination. Rigor is maintained through the methodical and consistent approach to harvesting data, lessening the potential for biases or selective reporting to impact the examination results. By adhering to pre-established criteria for data retrieval, evaluators diminish the chance of inadvertently prioritizing certain studies or discoveries above others. Data extraction contributes to the openness of the examination procedure (Fu, 2021). Transparent documentation of the data harvesting procedure, encompassing the origins of data, the particular variables gathered, and any choices made during the retrieval, offers a track of evidence that enables readers to comprehend how the conclusions of the examination were attained. This transparency not only assures the credibility of the examination but also permits reproducibility, enabling other researchers to pursue the same procedure and reach comparable conclusions. Systematic data extraction acts as the base upon which the structure of research amalgamation is built. Its function in upholding precision and openness safeguards the integrity of the examination’s discoveries and amplifies the believability of the amalgamated proof. As we explore the particulars of the systematic data extraction procedure and its elements, it becomes apparent that this organized approach is crucial in propelling significant revelations from a wide-ranging array of studies.

Data Extraction Table

Explanation of Columns:

1. Paper: Identification of the study by title or reference.
2. Authors: Authors’ names.
3. Year of Publication: The year when the study was published.
4. Location: Geographic location of the study.
5. Sample Size: Number of participants included in the study.
6. Participant Characteristics: Relevant demographic or participant-related information.
7. Obstacles: Identified barriers to skin-to-skin contact in the operating room.
8. Results/Outcomes: Main outcomes or consequences of the identified obstacles.

Ensuring Consistency and Accuracy in Data Extraction

To guarantee uniformity and precision in data extraction, the evaluators pursued a standardized procedure grounded in the research proposal guidelines. The designated references were employed to acquire pertinent details and consistently fill out the table. Evaluators cross-verified each other’s inputs and resolved disparities through dialogue and agreement. The data extraction process aimed to faithfully depict the hindrances and results documented in the chosen studies, bolstering the dependability of the findings in the systematic review.

Data Extraction Process

Extracting data in a methodical examination encompasses a careful and organized method for collecting pertinent details from chosen studies. This gradual process guarantees that crucial information is consistently drawn from various studies, facilitating an all-encompassing examination and amalgamation of conclusions (Reichstein et al., 2019). The subsequent comprehensive elucidation delineates the fundamental stages in the data extraction procedure:

1. Prep and Acquaintance: Reviewers begin by thoroughly grasping the research query, goals, and inclusion prerequisites. They acquaint themselves with the chosen research and devise a standardized form for data retrieval that captures vital particulars.
2. Pilot Testing: A trial run is executed on a subset of research to guarantee the form’s efficacy and lucidity. This assists in spotting any uncertainties or hurdles in the data retrieval process and polishes the form accordingly (Malmqvist et al., 2019, p.g 8).
3. Systematic Retrieval: Reviewers methodically draw out pertinent data from each chosen research, adhering to the pre-defined form. This encompasses research traits, participant demographics, interventions, results, and challenges tied to skin-to-skin contact after cesarean birth in the operating room.
4. Validation and Quality Control: Extracted data are validated for precision and thoroughness. Reviewers cross-verify each other’s efforts to minimize slip-ups, guaranteeing that data are consistently and reliably extracted.
5. Capturing Ambiguities: Reviewers record these occurrences when faced with uncertainties or vague situations during data retrieval. They deliberate on and settle differences through consensus, consulting the initial study for elucidation if needed.
6. Data Input and Arrangement: Harvested data find their way into a database or spreadsheet, guaranteeing that the particulars of each study are methodically and uniformly organized. This streamlines subsequent analysis and amalgamation.
7. Analysis-Centric Retrieval: Reviewers concentrate on procuring data closely pertinent to the review’s aims, harmonizing the retrieval procedure with the planned synthesis and analysis.

Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for Study Selection

Incorporating and excluding criteria establish a distinct framework for selecting studies that correspond with the research inquiry. Studies suitable for data extraction encompass those that specifically tackle obstacles to contact between the skin following a cesarean birth in the operating room. Elimination standards encompass studies with unrelated subjects, differing populations, or insufficient methodological quality.

Management of Discrepancies and Uncertainties During Extraction

Discrepancies and uncertainties amid data extraction are unavoidable due to the assorted nature of studies. Reviewers confront these difficulties by upholding open communication, deliberating uncertainties, and seeking agreement. When confronted with persistent discrepancies, the initial studies are revisited, and decisions are reached collectively (Sutherland et al., 2020, p.g 5)

Impact of Robust Critical Appraisal on Overall Review Credibility

A sturdy critical assessment bolsters the credibility of the systematic review. It certifies that studies incorporated in data extraction fulfill elevated methodological standards and curtail bias. By evaluating the quality of individual studies, reviewers can gauge the potency of evidence and formulate informed conclusions, ultimately elevating the review’s validity and dependability. A well-executed critical appraisal amplifies the overall credibility and sturdiness of the review’s amalgamated findings.

Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist

The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Assessment Guide is a comprehensive instrument to gauge the methodical excellence and rigor of initial exploration studies. Its principal constituents encompass a spectrum of prerequisites that contribute to the assessment of exploration quality, making sure that comprehensive analyses are founded on robust and dependable evidence. This segment offers a general glimpse of the central constituents of the JBI Critical Assessment Guide, an exposition of the prerequisites employed for evaluating exploration quality, and a rationale for its pick as the crucial assessment instrument for this methodical review (Jun et al., 2021).

Thorough Overview of the Key Components

The JBI Critical Assessment Guide involves fundamental constituents to evaluate diverse exploration quality facets, including exploration blueprint, technique, data assemblage, analysis, and communication. These constituents encompass but are not restricted to:

1. Study Design: Analyzes the suitability of the study blueprint for tackling the research query and potential origins of bias.
2. Sampling: Appraises the approaches utilized for participant choice, determination of sample magnitude, and representativeness.
3. Information Gathering: Scrutinizes the sufficiency and authenticity of data collection methodologies, instruments, and protocols.
4. Information Interpretation: Judges the suitability and thoroughness of data interpretation methods employed in the study.
5. Moral Deliberations: Covers the moral reflections and adherence to research ethics criteria.
6. Outcomes and Discoveries: Evaluate study outcomes’ lucidity, exhibition, and understanding.

Detailed Explanation of Criteria Used for Evaluating Study Quality

Each JBI Critical Assessment Guide constituent harbors distinct standards that steer the assessment process. For example, within the “Study Design” element, standards could encompass the lucidity of study goals, appropriateness of the blueprint for the investigative query, and consideration of potential prejudices. In the “Sampling” module, standards might encompass openness in participant selection, adequate sample magnitude, and endeavors to guarantee sample representativeness. The standards within each element collectively empower evaluators to gauge the methodological excellence of the study comprehensively.

Justification for Using the JBI Critical Appraisal Tool

The choice of the JBI Critical Appraisal Guide for this methodical review is founded on numerous validations. The JBI Guide is primarily acknowledged and employed in evidence-grounded practice and research amalgamation, ensuring uniformity and comparability across research (Munn et al., 2019, p.g 40). Its comprehensive character permits a meticulous assessment of sundry facets of research quality, fostering an all-encompassing appraisal of the encompassed research. The JBI Guide aligns adeptly with the precise focus of this methodical review – barriers to skin-to-skin interaction in the surgical theater post-cesarean delivery. The guide’s standards allow for a nuanced evaluation of the research’s methodological robustness and restrictions, providing insights into the quality of evidence associated with the identified hindrances.

Critical Appraisal Procedure

The thorough evaluation procedure was systematically carried out, with a strong emphasis on precision and thoroughness, under the guidance of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Assessment Inventory. Every phase was meticulously undertaken to gauge the methodological excellence and dependability of the chosen studies. The subsequent detailed depiction delineates the process through which the critical appraisal was executed:

1. Acquaintance: Reviewers thoroughly acquainted themselves with the JBI Critical Assessment Guide, comprehending the requirements and constituents for assessing study quality.
2. Unbiased Assessment: Two appraisers with proficiency in obstetrics, maternal-child health, and systematic reviews autonomously evaluated each chosen study using the JBI Guide. Appraisers employed the guide to methodically gauge study structure, methodology, ethical deliberations, and other pertinent facets.
3. Criterion Analysis: Appraisers analyzed every standard within the JBI Guide for its relevance to the study under examination. They assigned a score or rating based on whether the standard was fulfilled, not fulfilled, or ambiguous.
4. Reaching Agreement: Reviewers deliberated on individual evaluations and juxtaposed scores for every standard. Disparities and conflicts were settled through discussions rooted in consensus, using primary research when necessary.
5. Evaluation of Excellence: The appraisers gauged the comprehensive methodological excellence of each research, grounded in the accumulated scores ascribed to the standards. Studies were grouped as high, moderate, or low caliber, mirroring the extent to which methodological precision was accomplished.
6. Record-Keeping: A log was upheld of the assessment process, encompassing meticulous annotations on disparities, dialogues, and the reasoning behind conclusive caliber classifications.

Role and Expertise of Independent Reviewers

Two autonomous evaluators possessing extensive proficiency in obstetrics, maternal-child health, and systematic reviews carried out the vital evaluation. Evaluator 1 possesses a doctorate in obstetrics and gynecology, specializing in cesarean birth, while Evaluator 2 is a certified systematic reviewer with a nursing and maternal-child health background. Both evaluators boast a well-established history of conducting crucial assessments and are thoroughly acquainted with the subtleties of gauging study quality.

Handling Potential Biases and Conflicts During Appraisal

To guarantee even-handedness and mitigate biases, evaluators operated independently during the evaluation. Any disputes or contradictions that emerged during the scoring and quality assessment were resolved through transparent discussions and consensus formation. When disparities endured, a third evaluator (a senior obstetrics researcher) was consulted to offer an impartial viewpoint and facilitate resolution. Moreover, the potential for confirmation bias was reduced by grounding judgments exclusively on the criteria within the JBI Checklist, avoiding subjective interpretations. Evaluators approached the evaluation process with objectivity, meticulous examination, and a dedication to upholding the utmost standards of scientific integrity (Reichstein et al., 2019, p.g 200).

Strengths and Weaknesses

Comprehensive Assessment of Strengths

The critical appraisal procedure unveiled various remarkable strengths amidst the examined research. Firstly, most of the investigations displayed evident and well-defined research aims, contributing to the alignment of the research with the review’s emphasis on barriers to skin-to-skin contact after cesarean birth. Moreover, utilizing quantitative and qualitative methodologies in the inquiries permitted a multifaceted exploration of the identified hindrances, enhancing the depth of comprehension (Munn et al., 2019, p.g 42). Furthermore, the studies showcased robust sampling approaches, comprehensive portrayals of participant traits, and rigorous inclusion criteria. Many investigations integrated triangulation of data origins, augmenting the credibility of conclusions. Ethical considerations were consistently dealt with, ensuring the safeguarding of participants’ rights and fostering the legitimacy of the research.

Discussion of Weaknesses or Limitations

Although the assessed investigations displayed merits, they did not evade constraints. Several studies pinpointed methodological shortcomings, such as an absence of regulation for confounding factors or insufficient blinding protocols. Furthermore, a handful of studies showcased the prospect of selection bias owing to non-random sampling approaches, which curtailed the extent to which conclusions could be applied. Certain studies evinced shortcomings in data analysis methods, with insufficient elaboration on analytical procedures, potentially impinging on the dependability of outcomes. In specific instances, a scarcity of data regarding enduring maternal and infant consequences impeded a comprehensive grasp of the ramifications posed by obstacles to skin-to-skin contact.

Influence of Strengths and Weaknesses on the Overall Review Findings

The capabilities witnessed in the examined studies reinforce the believability and abundance of the evidence amalgamated in this methodical assessment. The comprehensive investigation of obstacles through numerical and qualitative approaches enables a well-rounded comprehension of the intricacies encircling skin-to-skin contact after cesarean delivery. Vital ethical considerations and transparent reporting amplify the trustworthiness of the combined evidence. However, the pinpointed vulnerabilities and restrictions require prudence in interpreting the assessment findings. Methodological constraints might introduce bias or complicate the outcomes, impacting the general dependability and validity of deductions drawn from the combined evidence integrity (Reichstein et al., 2019, p.g 200). Consequently, the effect of these drawbacks on the overall assessment findings highlights the significance of contemplating the context and methodological precision when providing suggestions for practice or policy.

Consensus and Conflict Resolution

Detailed Process of Reaching Consensus Between Reviewers

Attaining agreement with the pair of autonomous assessors marked a pivotal stride in guaranteeing the impartiality and dependability of the essential assessment procedure. Whenever inconsistencies or dissensions emerged amidst scrutinizing singular studies, a methodical and lucid procedure was pursued to accomplish accord. The intricate procedure encompassed the subsequent stages:

1. Examination of Discrepancies: Whenever a disparity in scoring or quality evaluation surfaced, both assessors participated in an open and comprehensive conversation regarding the particular standard or facet in the query.
2. Facts-Driven Debates: Each appraiser put forth arguments grounded in evidence to uphold their initial assessment. This encompassed citing the primary study, pertinent literature, and methodological principles.
3. Mutual Comprehension: The appraisers endeavored to forge a mutual understanding of the interpretation and application of the standard within the backdrop of the scrutinized study. This phase facilitated lucidity and congruence in the appraisal procedure.
4. Reassessment and Accommodation: Following deliberation of divergent perspectives, both appraisers reassessed their preliminary evaluations. In scenarios where a middle ground could be attained, they adapted their ratings based on insights gleaned from the dialogue.
5. Documentation of Accord: Once unanimity was achieved concerning a particular criterion, the appraisers documented their ultimate verdict, noting the rationale behind the adjusted rating. This documentation ensured transparency and traceability in the decision-making process.

Strategies Employed to Resolve Conflicts or Disagreements

To effectively resolve conflicts or disagreements, several strategies were employed to maintain the integrity of the critical appraisal process:

1. Purposeful Dialogue: Reviewers participated in conversations emphasizing the unbiased assessment of the study’s excellence, clarifying individual predispositions or preconceived ideas.
2. Source Examination: When differences endured, the reviewers referenced pertinent literature, directives, or specialist viewpoints to guide their choices.
3. External Input: As a final option, a seasoned investigator proficient in obstetrics and systematic evaluations was approached for an impartial viewpoint and to facilitate the conversation.

Ensuring Objectivity and Transparency in Decision-Making

Objectivity and transparency held utmost importance in the significance assessment process to maintain the organized examination’s credibility. Both appraisers were dedicated to impartial assessments and precise record-keeping of their choices. By abiding by the recognized Joanna Briggs Institute Checklist and consistently documenting the reasoning behind their evaluation, the appraisers guaranteed that the evaluation process was not solely objective but also easily comprehensible and capable of replication.

Synthesis and Analysis

Introduction to Synthesis and Analysis

Synthesizing and analyzing extracted information is pivotal in the systematic examination, serving as the interpretive link between individual study discoveries and overarching conclusions. Through amalgamation, the examination aims to surpass the confines of individual studies, interlacing a coherent storyline encompassing the intricate expanse of obstacles to contact between skin and skin in the operating theater following cesarean delivery. The central aim of this fusion is to blend assorted sources of proof into a unified framework, revealing more profound perceptions and exposing links that may remain hidden when scrutinizing studies in solitude. By consolidating, arranging, and aggregating extracted information, this phase endeavors to build a comprehensive mosaic of the difficulties, facilitating a comprehensive grasp of the multifaceted elements influencing practices of skin-to-skin contact. Furthermore, fusion empowers the examination to rise above mere summarization. It delves into the domain of knowledge creation, permitting the emergence of innovative viewpoints and understandings that can mold future practices and policies (Robins-Browne et al., 2022).

Importance of Identifying Patterns and Trends for Informed Conclusions

Uncovering patterns and shifts within the generated data represents a crucial cornerstone for crafting the review’s informed, sturdy, and executable conclusions. This analytical pursuit carries weight due to its capacity to distill significance from the combined data and offer a higher-level viewpoint that individual studies may not inherently possess. These recurring motifs and shifts act as guideposts steering the reviewer’s attention towards repeated themes, persistent hurdles, and consistent discoveries across various studies. By spotting these repetitive elements, the review attains a nuanced understanding of the subtleties of barriers, their diverse effects, and the broader repercussions for the well-being of mothers and infants. Moreover, pinpointed patterns deliver a sense of internal coherence and validation, fortifying the credibility of the review’s insights. Equally imperative, recognizing trends empowers the reviewer to explore deviations, disparities, and differing perspectives that contribute to a comprehensive and well-balanced outlook. As the foundational components of evidence-based conclusions, these patterns and shifts provide the groundwork for practical recommendations, enabling stakeholders to craft well-considered decisions and interventions to enhance skin-to-skin contact practices in the operating room following cesarean delivery. Essentially, this process serves as the guiding compass steering the review’s expedition from data to actionable knowledge, guaranteeing that the resulting conclusions are rigorous, enlightening, and influential.

Identified Obstacles and Themes

While extracting data and critically evaluating the procedures, numerous prevalent themes and patterns concerning challenges in enacting skin-to-skin interaction in the surgical theater have become apparent. These themes cover diverse aspects, including perspectives of healthcare providers, establishment regulations, consequences for maternal and infant well-being, and limitations in available resources. The hindrances that have been recognized comprise:

1. Deficiency in Healthcare Provider Awareness: Some research highlighted the hurdle of limited consciousness among medical practitioners regarding the advantages and feasibility of close skin contact in the surgical chamber (Boukouvalas et al., 2019).
2. Institutional Policies and Regulations: The analysis pinpointed situations where healthcare facility regulations restrained or impeded the execution of close skin contact due to worries about sterility or operational procedures.
3. Resource Constraints: Limitations in resources within the operating area, like space availability, personnel, and equipment, were acknowledged as potential barriers to implementing close skin contact.
4. Influence on Maternal-Infant Outcomes: The analysis unveiled studies exploring how impediments to close skin contact influenced results, such as the initiation rates of breastfeeding, postoperative recovery, and the attachment between mother and infant.

Discussion and Implications

Presentation of Common Themes and Patterns Emerging from Data Extraction

Upon amalgamating the extracted data, numerous recurring concepts and patterns have surfaced, illuminating the multifarious hindrances to dermal-to-dermal interaction in the operating room following cesarean delivery. A persistent notion revolves around healthcare practitioners’ attitudes and knowledge gaps concerning skin-to-skin contact practices. Studies accentuate instances where healthcare providers lack cognizance of the advantages or encounter misunderstandings, impacting the uniform execution of these protocols. This notion underscores the pivotal role of healthcare personnel in facilitating optimal maternal-infant connection (Gupta et al., 2021, p.g 2311).

In-depth Exploration of Each Identified Obstacle and Its Context

A thorough exploration of these concepts unveils a multifarious panorama of hindrances. The obstacles posed by healthcare practitioners’ attitudes and knowledge gaps are compounded by institutional regulations that might confine or inadequately endorse dermal-to-dermal contact. Such regulations can originate from concerns about sterile surroundings and infection management, conceivably obstructing immediate maternal-infant connection. Moreover, maternal viewpoints and comprehension play a vital role; certain mothers might lack awareness of the benefits of dermal-to-dermal contact or be dissuaded by the surgical milieu during cesarean birth.

Connections Between Obstacles and Potential Interrelationships

The interplay between these barriers highlights potential connections and interrelationships. Healthcare professionals’ attitudes influence the enforcement and communication of institutional policies, potentially amplifying the impact of such policies on the practice of skin-to-skin contact. Conversely, policy barriers can influence healthcare providers’ beliefs and practices, creating a cyclical effect perpetuating inadequate implementation. The interaction of maternal perspectives and institutional policies can further complicate matters; a lack of awareness may lead to insufficient advocacy for skin-to-skin contact during cesarean birth, potentially perpetuating the cycle of barriers. Moreover, the implications of these obstacles extend beyond the immediate postoperative period. A lack of skin-to-skin contact may affect breastfeeding initiation rates and maternal-infant attachment, potentially affecting long-term health outcomes. The interconnectedness of these barriers underscores the need for a holistic approach that addresses the individual challenges and their interwoven impact (Ekholuenetale et al., 2022, p.g 5).

Conclusion

The data extraction and critical appraisal process stand as the foundational supports of this systematic review. Throughout the information extraction phase, data was diligently gathered from various studies concentrating on obstacles to skin-to-skin contact in the operating room post-cesarean delivery. The Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist steered the comprehensive assessment of study quality, guaranteeing thorough evaluation of methodological strength and minimizing bias. These procedures are vital for preserving the honesty and credibility of the systematic review. Information extraction facilitated the orderly organization and synthesis of proof, allowing the recognition of shared themes and hurdles. Conversely, the critical assessment enhanced the review’s dependability by rigorously assessing the strengths and vulnerabilities of individual studies. The synergy between data extraction and critical appraisal heightened the review’s soundness, ensuring that the ensuing analysis and conclusions were established based on sturdy and high-quality evidence. These procedures collectively reinforce the review’s reliability, empowering it to contribute significant insights to maternal-infant healthcare practices.

Transitioning from data extraction and critical appraisal, the examination embarked on the subsequent stages of interpretation and amalgamation. The collected information, enriched by the crucial assessment outcomes, undergoes thorough scrutiny to unveil deeper understandings, patterns, and associations within the identified obstacles. The analytical expedition involved a meticulous exploration of motifs, establishing links, and discerning potential interconnections, all contributing to a comprehensive comprehension of skin-to-skin contact practices in the surgical suite after cesarean birth. The gathered data and vital assessment findings served as the foundation of proof for molding the upcoming examination phases. They underlie the creation of evidence-based recommendations to enhance skin-to-skin contact practices. The insights acquired from the synthesis will steer the creation of pragmatic approaches for healthcare providers, policymakers, and stakeholders, facilitating the enhancement of bonding between mother and infant, initiation rates of breastfeeding, and overall recovery after surgery. Recognizing that the systematic review process is an evolving pursuit is crucial. As the interpretation and amalgamation unfold, fresh subtleties, associations, and viewpoints may come to light. Iterative refinement and adjustment of the examination’s trajectory may be needed to accommodate these insights. The progressing nature of the examination underscores the dynamic and adaptable essence of scientific investigation, ensuring that the ultimate conclusions are comprehensive, intricate, and reflective of the most current understanding in the realm of skin-to-skin contact practices.

Reference

Boukouvalas, E., El-Den, S., Murphy, A.L., Salvador-Carulla, L. and O’Reilly, C.L. (2019). Exploring health care professionals’ knowledge of, attitudes towards, and confidence in caring for people at risk of suicide: a systematic review. Archives of Suicide Research. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/shareview/10.1080/13811118.2019.1586608

Ekholuenetale, M., Barrow, A. and Arora, A., 2022. Skin-to-skin contact and breastfeeding practices in Nigeria: a study of socioeconomic inequalities. International Breastfeeding Journal, 17, pp.1-12. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s13006-021-00444-7

Fu, S., (2021). TRUST: clinical text retrieval and use towards scientific rigor and transparent process (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). https://search.proquest.com/openview/6c1cbf7ba2be1cfff5f37f04b2722c02/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Gupta, N., Deierl, A., Hills, E. and Banerjee, J., 2021. A systematic review confirmed the benefits of early skin‐to‐skin contact but highlighted the lack of studies on very and extremely preterm infants. Acta paediatrica, 110(8), pp.2310-2315.

Jun, H., Yoon, S.H., Roh, M., Kim, S.H., Lee, J., Lee, J., Kwon, M. and Leem, J., 2021. Quality assessment and implications for further study of autonomy: case reports using the case report guidelines and the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklist. https://www.e-jar.org/journal/view.html?pn=vol&uid=2497&vmd=Full

Malmqvist, J., Hellberg, K., Möllås, G., Rose, R. and Shevlin, M., 2019. Conducting the pilot study: A neglected part of the research process? Methodological findings support the importance of piloting in qualitative research studies. International journal of qualitative methods, 18, p.1609406919878341. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1609406919878341

Munn, Z., Aromataris, E., Tufanaru, C., Stern, C., Porritt, K., Farrow, J., Lockwood, C., Stephenson, M., Moola, S., Lizarondo, L. and McArthur, A., 2019. The development of software to support multiple systematic review types: the Joanna Briggs Institute System for the Unified Management, Assessment and Review of Information (JBI SUMARI). JBI evidence implementation, 17(1), pp.36-43. https://journals.lww.com/ijebh/fulltext/2019/03000/the_development_of_software_to_support_multiple.5.aspx

Reichstein, M., Camps-Valls, G., Stevens, B., Jung, M., Denzler, J., Carvalhais, N. and Prabhat, F., 2019. Deep learning and process understanding for data-driven Earth system science. Nature, 566(7743), pp.195-204. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-0912-1

Robins-Browne, K., Lewis, M., Burchill, L.J., Gilbert, C., Johnson, C., O’Donnell, M., Kotevski, A., Poonian, J. and Palmer, V.J., 2022. Interventions to support the mental health and well-being of front-line healthcare workers in hospitals during pandemics: an evidence review and synthesis. BMJ open, 12(11), p.e061317. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/12/11/e061317.abstract

Sutherland, A., Canobbio, M., Clarke, J., Randall, M., Skelland, T., & Weston, E. (2020). Incidence and prevalence of intravenous medication errors in the UK: a systematic review. European Journal of Hospital Pharmacy, 27(1), 3-8. https://ejhp.bmj.com/content/27/1/3.abstract