A review of this sub-stream has been published in the current year, with a practitioner-oriented view. The present paper complements that review by focusing on the researchers' need to improve the way MC-IGs are developed and communicated. By providing data generated from a systematic literature review on MC-IGs, the present paper informs researchers about how much and in which way certain aspects of MC-IGs have been considered in the available guidelines. Through a systematic and detailed description of the published MC-IGs, the present article supports researchers to clearly communicate the similarities and differences in their proposed advancements on MC-IGs. Finally, by reflecting on the very nature of the output of MC-IG research, this article suggests open and wide adoption of the design science research strategy to develop and test MC-IGs.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Suzić et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 4 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: