I’m not a sci-fi lover. So when I picked up The Return, the next book on my stack not knowing what to expect and turned to the first scene set on Mars, date 2020, I nearly choked. This novel is 460 pages long, give or take a few. But, I had committed to reading the book and writing a review. And since I try to find good things to say in my reviews, I was a little concerned that I could find something good at all to praise. Then I started reading. Well done, Mr. Boyd. Boyd nails character, story and believability. I’ll admit that there were a few techie spots that I skimmed. Seriously, details on titanium from Russia and DNA strands and windows for rocket launch do nothing for me. But I was seriously impressed with Boyd’s skill with characterization, plotting and his solid and sometimes beautiful writing style. He takes the reader to Mars through the mind of a grieving astronaut and into the thoughts and heart of a confused fifteen year old girl, as well as another dozen or so characters throughout this novel. After a few paragraphs I turned the book over and read all about Austin. Yikes. But a techie genius who writes poetry. Not only has he mastered the basics, he has a great touch with realistic spirituality. Though Christian conversions happen within this novel, they are thoughtful and believable and lack the platitudes that have bothered those who complain about unrealistic pie-in-the-sky Christian fiction. I’m not going to suggest that those who detest sci-fi run out and grab a copy. But I will suggest that anyone who likes a great story check further into Austin Boyd. Very, very impressed, Austin Boyd.
REDCap, a customizable informatics systems-based web software. In the frameworks by Arksey and O’Malley (6) and Levac and colleagues (7), as well as the JBI guidance (4, 5), the process of data extraction in a scoping review is called “data charting” and involves the use of a clear and comprehensive data charting form to extract the relevant information from the included sources of evidence. When reporting this step, authors should include information about the process for developing the charting form (that is, how the items were selected and which software was used), calibration (testing the form among some or all team members to refine it and ensure that all relevant data were captured), full data charting process (how many reviewers participated and whether they charted independently and compared answers or 1 or more researchers charted and 1 or more researchers verified the data for accuracy), and how inconsistencies or views site disagreements were resolved (for example, through discussion or involvement of a third party).
Calibration exercise details should include the number of persons who tested the form (using x number of included sources), as well as the process for resolving inconsistencies, and key changes that were made and why (Box). If the charting process was iterative (that is, the form was continually updated), authors should describe the main revisions with a rationale, to increase transparency of reporting. If applicable, the processes used for obtaining and confirming data from investigators of the included sources of evidence should be described. List and define all variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made. We abstracted data on article characteristics (e.g., country of origin, funder), engagement characteristics and contextual factors (e.g., type of knowledge user, country income level, type of engagement activity, frequency and intensity of engagement, use of a framework to inform the intervention), barriers and facilitators to engagement, and results of any formal assessment of engagement (e.g., attitudes, beliefs, knowledge, benefits, unintended consequences). The specific data items (whether qualitative or quantitative) collected for the scoping review will vary according to the review’s focus. If any items involve interpretation, this should be reported.
The final version of the charting form, including clear definitions of each item, should be included (if possible) in the scoping review as an appendix or supplementary file. If done, provide a rationale for conducting a critical appraisal of included sources of evidence; describe the methods used and how this information was used in any data synthesis (if appropriate). As such, we aimed to explore the characteristics and methodological quality of knowledge synthesis approaches of NMAs. We also aimed to assess the statistical methods applied using the Analysis subdomain of the ISPOR checklist.… The quality of the knowledge synthesis methods was appraised using the AMSTAR tool. The AMSTAR tool was created and validated to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews of RCTs. The tool measures overall quality, where a score of 8 or higher is considered high quality, 4 to 7 is moderate quality, and 0 to 3 is low quality.