Okay, so... "The effects of comics, as measured in randomized controlled trials: a rapid review" (osf.io/hmtkp/) is going to change a bit and I'd love some feedback and/or suggestions from the #graphicmedicine @GraphicMedicine @NoetheMatt #comics #fotonovela community.

Basically, I am trying to build a regularly updated database of studies (randomized trials) involving comics (and derivatives, such as mangas, graphic novels, manhwas, webcomics, fotonovelas or bandes dessinées). This database would include summaries of studies and assessments.

In my own jargon this would be a living systematic search, data extraction and risk of bias assessments (with no introduction, no conclusions and no results section). It lies in-between a living systematic review and a repository (eg Cochrane CENTRAL).

The reason I skip the introduction, conclusions and results is that they end up taking too much time, would require too many updates and I feel it is inadequate for a comic strip artist / enthusiast to write these sections. Methods and data first.

I chose randomized controlled trials (RCTs) because I'm interested in measurable (quantitative outcomes) and I don't think comics have a big enough effect to offset biases found in non-randomized studies. Also, RCTs in this field are feasible and relatively cheap.

Other study designs aren't less valuable (eg. qualitative studies measuring how people felt reading the comics) and it doesn't take a lot more effort to go from a systematic search for comics RCTs to a systematic search for comics non-RCTs. But I need to focus my time & efforts.

Going back to the database: How could it best fit the needs of other people (comic strip artists, graphic medicine folks, researchers) interested in these studies without making the project too time-consuming?

Example of some stuff that will be included in any case: General introduction, criteria for studies included, search strategy, databases searched, emails sent, when databases were last searched, summarized studies, risk of bias assessments, refs, excluded studies.

Stuff could be made into a single file (eg summarized studies or summarized studies involving fotonovelas) or split into sub-files depending on how big it becomes (eg list of excluded studies + searches).

As an example here is a study summarized (after data extraction). This one is from Shin, 2012 (doi.org/10.1371/journa…) (it's free btw) and involves a fotonovela (photo-novel) meant to increase knowledge of cancer screening. What details do you feel are missing/unecessary?

If I pick up a risk of bias assessment table (red = high risk of stuff which can lead to unreliable results, yellow = unclear risk, green = low risk), do you feel it should point out (Christy, 2016) (Shin, 2012) (Davis, 2017) and (Thompson, 2019) involved fotonovelas?

Etc. Other suggestions or ideas welcome! (But I can't do everything 😅)

One thing I could try is to add sample images or sample pages from comics included in the studies... not sure at which point copyright would be infringed.

If I can be a #research #comics #geek for a second I might call it "Shared Register Of Trials Comparing Comics to Embargo, Lexicon, Literature or Other Comics" (COLLECCTORS) (reversed because I can!) @NoetheMatt

Embargo = they must wait until the end of the study to have the comic
Lexicon = text, words, illustrated text (dictionary, manual)
Literature = other books

Shared because anyone can browse it for free and contribute

Here is an example which would help readers get a hang of what the comics used in the different studies look(ed) like. Might make study names clickable for direct link to the studies. #graphicmedicine @GraphicMedicine @NoetheMatt