Evidence Translation and
Innovation
Handbook for Contributing Reviewers
Contributor Handbook
The Joanna Briggs Institute offers evidence-based resources to its
members, with many of these available through our online resources,
particularly JBI-COnNECT (Clinical Online Network of Evidence for
Care and Therapeutics). Included in JBI-COnNECT is the JBI
database of evidence summaries and recommended practices.
Reviewers contribute to evidence-based health care by participating
with JBI in the development of evidence and guidance for practice.
This handbook outlines the methods for content development and
update, as well as payment processes between JBI and reviewers.
Prepared by The Joanna Briggs Institute, April 2009
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
2
Contents
Agreement between JBI and the Contributor ................................................................. 4
Contracted persons role and responsibilities ..................................................................................... 4
Payment ............................................................................................................................. 5
Payment Schedule ............................................................................................................................. 5
Process .............................................................................................................................. 6
Updating content ................................................................................................................................ 6
Evidence Summary development ....................................................................................................... 7
Evidence Based Recommended Practice development .................................................................... 9
The Update Process ........................................................................................................ 10
Appendix I: Proforma – JBI Reviewer Registration ...................................................... 11
Appendix II: Example Invoice ......................................................................................... 12
Appendix III: Tool 1 - Evidence Summary Structure .................................................... 13
Appendix IV: Tool 2 - Evidence-Based Recommended Practice Structure................ 14
Appendix V: Tool 3 - Technical Development Report .................................................. 15
Appendix VI: Tool 4 - Quality Appraisal Score Sheet................................................... 16
16
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
3
Agreement between JBI and the Contributor
This agreement outlines the terms of the agreement, including the schedule, it is located at:
http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/about/reviewers.php
Contracted persons role and responsibilities
1. To send a copy of their curriculum vitae to JBI and complete the Proforma (Appendix I)
describing their professional background, area/s of expertise and types of resources
they have available
2. The update/creation of evidence summary/recommended practices.
a. The authors should ensure the research fellow assigned to them is aware of
how many Evidence Summaries they wish to do and expected time frames of
completion.
b. The authors should specify their area of expertise to ensure that Evidence
Summaries are sent to them in these fields (where possible).
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
4
Payment
Payment will require that units of Evidence Summaries and Evidence-Based Recommended
practices have been completed to the agreed standards, including changes as required by
the evidence review fellows in JBI.
The allocation of new versus update topics will be decided by JBI based on core needs of
the institute.
Once it has been confirmed that the agreed standards have been met, an invoice will be
drawn and processed, all monies are in Australian dollars, GST is included. An example
invoice is attached at Appendix II.
A unit consists of:

One evidence summary and recommended practice, or

two evidence summaries, or

two recommended practices (this is rare but will occur)
Payment Schedule
An update of one unit will be invoiced at AUD$45 each (Evidence Summary plus EvidenceBased Recommended Practice OR two evidence summaries OR two recommended
practices.)
For example, a bundle of updates may consist of 10 units and will be renumerated at
AUD$450.
New content will be invoiced at AUD$90 each (Evidence Summary plus Evidence-Based
Recommended Practice). New content development is by specific request of JBI.
Payment will be made once the content is signed-off on by a member of the Evidence
Review staff. No payment will be made for content that does not meet the specified quality
criteria, or for content that requires multiple reviews.
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
5
Process
The process below describes the following steps and who is responsible for each step. The
specific methods for Evidence Summaries and Recommended Practices are appended:

Topic collation - JBI

Topic allocation - JBI

Topic distribution - JBI

Confirmation of receipt - Reviewer

Review and update - Reviewer

Content submission - Reviewer

Confirmation of receipt of submission - JBI

Internal rapid review - JBI

Email with changes/acceptance sent to reviewer - JBI

Invoicing - Reviewer

ERG/CRG - JBI

Approval - JBI

Upload - JBI
Updating content
1. All content on COnNECT (and their due dates) are downloaded from the COnNECT
Administration pages by the Administration Officer (weekly).
2. The compiled list of content that needs updating is forwarded to the Manager Evidence
Review.
3. The Manager, Evidence Review allocates content lists to each of the Evidence Review
Fellows.
4. Evidence Review Fellows allocate content to program participants based on profession,
area of expertise and advised availability.
5. Program participants confirm receipt of materials and participation.
6. The Reviewers receive their allotted content, along with specific information regarding
the process of content update.
7. The reviewers complete their updates within two weeks and send to their Research
Fellow for peer review.
a. Peer review consists of:
i. Rapid overview of content for use of proforma and methods
ii. Feedback to author
b. Feedback:
i. If the content only requires minor editing, the Research Fellow
completes this and the content is placed in the shared folder ready to
be uploaded by the Administrative Assistant.
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
6
ii. If the content requires considerable changes, the Research Fellow
will send this back to the external author, for changes to be made.
c. No negotiation of changes will be entered in to, authors who do not undertake
to make changes will not receive payment and their work will be re-allocated to
other program participants for completion and payment.
d. Once approved by the JBI Research Fellow, new content and recommended
practices are sent out to the ERG/CRG for comment, whilst updated evidence
summaries are uploaded onto COnNECT.
e. Changes suggested by the ERG/CRG are made by the JBI Research Fellow,
and presented to the ERG/Chair for sign off.
f.
Once approved by the ERG/Chair, new content/ recommended practices are
uploaded onto COnNECT.
8. The administrative officer tracks completions, and informs the reviewer that they can
send an invoice to JBI.
9. When the external author returns content, they also notify the JBI contact of when they
are available to receive further content. Participants who commit to a regular schedule
will be preferred.
Evidence Summary development
Evidence Summaries are short abstracts that summarise existing international evidence on
common health care interventions and activities. Evidence Summaries are based on
structured searches of the literature and selected evidence-based health care databases.
The emphasis is to write Evidence Summaries that are specific to a particular clinically
focused information need rather than a particular profession.
Summaries will ideally be based on systematic reviews; the search process specified in this
document is based on the JBI levels of evidence that preferences systematic reviews over
single studies. For some topics, there will be multiple systematic reviews, and these should
be incorporated into a single summary. For some topics, there will be only one review, and
for others, no reviews. The methods below seek to describe optimal methods for promoting
consistency in content development for each of these scenarios.
Developing or updating Evidence Summaries involves receiving content based on
previously nominated areas of expertise, conducting a search, retrieving and appraising the
quality of papers, drafting the summary, peer review (internal JBI content editorial staff, and
external via the Expert Reference Group and Corresponding Reference Group) followed by
approval, and upload (completed by the JBI Administrative Assistant).
There are two types of summaries developed:

summaries based on single systematic reviews or evidence-based guidelines,

summaries that contain evidence from multiple sources (multiple reviews, or
multiple primary studies).
Searching
Whether developing a new summary or updating an existing one (whether based on a single
reference, or multiple references), the following electronic databases are searched using a
range of keywords and subject headings appropriate to the specific topic:


The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
7



The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)
Medline
CINAHL
Choice of key words is based on clinical knowledge of the topic area. The date of searching
and key words used per database is stored with the citation details in COnNECT to ensure
consistency each year that the summary is updated. If the list of keywords does not contain
a word you think is relevant it should be added. Keywords for searching may be required to
be developed by the reviewer. In updating content, we undertake a two-phase search:
1. Firstly searching to establish if any new systematic reviews have been published
on the topic since the selected review was published. If additional reviews have
been published, they are incorporated in to the same evidence summary as per the
methods described in the relevant section of this manual, and the additional
citation details are added.
2. Secondly, if the search establishes that no new systematic reviews have been
published on the topic, a broader search of the primary research literature is
undertaken.
If there is no research, text/opinion based evidence from the above databases or an Internet
search for reputable organisations/affiliations is conducted using Google Scholar. Google
Scholar is a last option only in the absence of other resources. Evidence from
books/textbooks is not accepted.
Single source evidence summaries
These are based on single reviews, or evidence-based guidelines. The evidence source is
subject to critical appraisal once the reference has been added to the database. The
Evidence Summary then follows the proforma described below, using the template built in to
COnNECT.
Multiple source evidence summaries

These are based on the integration of two or more systematic reviews, evidencebased guidelines or primary studies. The length of multiple source Evidence
Summaries should not extend beyond 2 x A4 pages, including references. The
higher levels of evidence and grades of recommendations should be preferred
other content related decisions are up to the discretion of the reviewer. The
proforma for Evidence Summary update consists of three forms that MUST be
completed and returned for each Evidence Summary.
NOTE:

When writing new summaries or updating summaries that join to an evidencebased recommended practice, the recommended practice is read first to ascertain
the type of information that should be searched for and subsequently included.

When summarises are completed, they should be read against the recommended
practice and any part of the recommended practice that is backed up by evidence
should be assigned an evidence level based on the JBI levels of evidence.
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
8
Evidence Based Recommended Practice development
A Recommended Practice is a description of practice on a specific clinical topic and is
based on the best available evidence. Recommended Practices are designed to provide
clinicians and carers with basic principles. The difference between the best practice
recommendations contained in an Evidence Summary and the Recommended Practice is
that the Recommended Practice describes the specific process (how to) conduct a clinical
intervention whereas the summaries provide an overview of the research literature.
It is recommended that where an Evidence Summary is included with an evidence-based
Recommended Practice, that the Evidence Summary update be conducted first, and the
Evidence-Based Recommended Practice reviewed based on the evidence plus clinical
experience.
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
9
The Update Process
Complete Individual Proforma and return to email: zachary.munn@adelaide.edu.au
Receive topics from JBI
Undertake Search

Complete Tool 3 (Technical Development Report) per topic
Identify and appraise papers

Complete Tool 4 (Quality Appraisal Score Sheet) per included study
Complete Tool 1 and/or Tool 2 for evidence summaries and recommended practices
as appropriate
Email completed documents (including an invoice) with your name in the subject
header to assigned JBI contact.
Undertake final edits if required
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
10
Appendix I: Proforma – JBI Reviewer Registration
The following is a brief document to apply for status as a JBI Reviewer. Please fill out all
sections of this form and return to the manager of Evidence Review, Zachary Munn at
Zachary.Munn@adelaide.edu.au.
Name:
Email Address:
Phone (incl country and area code):
Fax (incl country and area code):
Profession:
Specialty:
Highest Tertiary Qualification:
Current professional or academic registrations:
Do you have access to the following databases:
The JBI Database of Systematic Reviews
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
The Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE)
Medline
CINAHL
Others (list)
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
11
Appendix II: Example Invoice
To: The Joanna Briggs Institute
Royal Adelaide Hospital
North Terrace
Adelaide, SA 5000
Date:
Item: Reviewer Payment, (Your Name)
Item Description: Evidence Summary and Recommended Practice Update
Invoice Number: (eg. 001)
Description
Cost
Two Evidence Summary and Recommended Practices updates (AU $90.00
$90.00)
Total
$90.00
Your Address
Telephone:
Email:
ABN: (if one)
Payment preference:
Cheque or
Electronic Funds Transfer (International reviewers
are required to fill out the attached form for EFT)
Australian Reviewers
Bank name:
Branch Name:
BSB:
Account Number:
Account Name:
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
12
Appendix III: Tool 1 - Evidence Summary Structure
Topic/title
Author details (name, qualifications, organisation)
Clinical Question: PICO format
Clinical Bottom Line (a brief summary consisting of an opening paragraph, followed by a
series of bullet points that summarise the key elements of the evidence, with the JBI levels
of evidence for each point)
Characteristics of the evidence (should outline the types of evidence included in the
summary and states ‘This evidence summary is based on a structured search of the
literature and selected evidence-based health care databases. The evidence included in this
summary is from:’ with the evidence sources listed in bullet form with a citation i.e. a
Cochrane systematic review containing 20 RCTS of high quality).
Best Practice Recommendations (with grades of recommendation linked to the JBI
grades of recommendations)
References with level of evidence
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
13
Appendix IV: Tool 2 - Evidence-Based Recommended
Practice Structure
Title
Date
Equipment
Recommended Practice
Occupational Health and Safety needs (choose as many as apply)
Patient Information
Clinical Competency
Maintain Electrical Safety
Wash Your Hands
Back Care Manual Handling
Cytotoxic Chemotherapy
Standard Precautions
Spills Are Hazardous
Radiation Hazard
Take Care With Sharps
Resident Education
Safety Testing
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
14
Appendix V: Tool 3 - Technical Development Report
Date created (This is the date of submission to JBI for review)
Title
Speciality
PICO question
Reviewer, post-nomials, organisational affiliation
Search strategy
Databases, years searched per database, search terms per database, filters used per
database
References
Full citation details for each paper with level of evidence and appraisal score per citation
based on the appropriate Critical Appraisal Criteria.
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
15
Appendix VI: Tool 4 - Quality Appraisal Score Sheet
Total number of “yes” scores for the type of literature included. Use this sheet for each
paper that is included in an evidence summary.
Quality Appraisal Criteria
Systematic Reviews:
Is the review question clearly and explicitly stated?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Was the search strategy appropriate?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Were the inclusion criteria appropriate for the review
question?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Were the criteria for appraising studies appropriate?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Was critical appraisal by two or more independent
reviewers?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Were there methods used to minimise error in data
extraction?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Were the methods used to combine studies
appropriate?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Was there appropriate randomisation?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Was allocation concealed?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Was blinding to allocation maintained?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Was incompleteness of data addressed?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Were outcomes reported accurately?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Was the research design appropriate for the research?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Was the recruitment strategy appropriate for the
research?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Were data collected in a way that addressed the
research issue?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Has the relationship between researcher and
participants been considered?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Was the data analysis sufficiently rigorous?
Yes
No
Not Clear
Total number of “yes” scores
Quantitative Evidence:
Total number of “yes” scores
Qualitative Evidence:
Total number of “yes” scores
The Joanna Briggs Institute
Contributor Handbook
16