Ensuring rigor in systematic reviews: Part 6, reporting guidelines

Heart & Lung ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 52 ◽  
pp. 22-25
Author(s):  
Janene Batten ◽  
Alexandria Brackett
2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 283-325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarah A. Avellar ◽  
Jaime Thomas ◽  
Rebecca Kleinman ◽  
Emily Sama-Miller ◽  
Sara E. Woodruff ◽  
...  

Background: Systematic reviews—which identify, assess, and summarize existing research—are usually designed to determine whether research shows that an intervention has evidence of effectiveness, rather than whether an intervention will work under different circumstances. The reviews typically focus on the internal validity of the research and do not consistently incorporate information on external validity into their conclusions. Objectives: In this article, we focus on how systematic reviews address external validity. Methods: We conducted a brief scan of 19 systematic reviews and a more in-depth examination of information presented in a systematic review of home visiting research. Results: We found that many reviews do not provide information on generalizability, such as statistical representativeness, but focus on factors likely to increase heterogeneity (e.g., numbers of studies or settings) and report on context. The latter may help users decide whether the research characteristics—such as sample demographics or settings—are similar to their own. However, we found that differences in reporting, such as which variables are included and how they are measured, make it difficult to summarize across studies or make basic determinations of sample characteristics, such as whether the majority of a sample was unemployed or married. Conclusion: Evaluation research and systematic reviews would benefit from reporting guidelines for external validity to ensure that key information is reported across studies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-91
Author(s):  
Lenko Saric ◽  
Svjetlana Dosenovic ◽  
Jakov Mihanovic ◽  
Livia Puljak

Aim: To analyze whether instructions for authors of biomedical conference abstracts mention guidelines for writing randomized controlled trial and systematic review abstracts and to evaluate reasons for their absence from instructions. Materials & methods: We analyzed instructions for authors of biomedical conferences advertized in 2019 and assessed whether they mentioned Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. We surveyed contact persons from abstract/publication committees of selected conferences to analyze why relevant guidelines were missing. Results: Instructions for abstracts were available for 819 conferences. Only two (0.2%) had reporting instructions for randomized controlled trial/systematic review authors. Almost half of the contacted conference organizers whose response we received were not aware of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Abstracts and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts guidelines. Conclusion: Conference organizers do not require and are not familiar enough with reporting guidelines.


2020 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 60-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Page ◽  
Joanne E. McKenzie ◽  
Patrick M. Bossuyt ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 106 ◽  
pp. 70-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Konstantinos I. Bougioukas ◽  
Emmanouil Bouras ◽  
Fani Apostolidou-Kiouti ◽  
Stamatia Kokkali ◽  
Malamatenia Arvanitidou ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 102 (5) ◽  
pp. 780-784 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth R. McLeroy ◽  
Mary E. Northridge ◽  
Hector Balcazar ◽  
Michael R. Greenberg ◽  
Stewart J. Landers

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew James Page ◽  
Joanne McKenzie ◽  
Patrick Bossuyt ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
...  

Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, aimed to help systematic reviewers prepare a transparent report of their review. Advances in systematic review methodology and terminology over the last decade necessitated an update to the guideline. A detailed description of the updating process may provide a useful roadmap for others embarking on a similar initiative.Objectives: To (i) describe the processes used to update the PRISMA 2009 statement for reporting systematic reviews, (ii) present results of a survey conducted to inform the update, (iii) summarise decisions made at the PRISMA update meeting, and (iv) describe and justify changes made to the guideline.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We invited 220 systematic review methodologists and journal editors to complete a survey about the suggested modifications. The results of these projects were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, we drafted the PRISMA 2020 statement and refined it based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers. Results: The review of 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews resulted in a bank of 221 unique reporting items and revealed that all topics addressed by the PRISMA 2009 statement could be modified or supplemented with additional guidance. Of the 110 respondents to the survey, more than 66% recommended keeping six of the 27 PRISMA 2009 checklist items as they were and modifying 15 of the checklist items using wording suggested by us; there was no consensus on what to do with the remaining six items. Attendees at the in-person meeting supported the revised wording for several items but suggested rewording for most items to enhance clarity, and further refinements were made over six drafts of the guideline. Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews and reflects advances over the last decade in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. We hope that providing this detailed description of the development process will enhance the acceptance and uptake of the guideline and assist those developing and updating future reporting guidelines.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tiziano Innocenti ◽  
Daniel Feller ◽  
Silvia Giagio ◽  
Stefano Salvioli ◽  
Silvia Minnucci ◽  
...  

ABSTRACTObjectiveThe aim of this study will be to assess the adherence to the reporting quality standards set forth in the PRISMA Statement checklist of a random sample of systematic reviews (SRs) published in rehabilitation journals, and to assess the association between this adherence and the risk of bias of these SRs.Methods and AnalysisA cross-sectional analysis is planned on a random sample of 200 SRs published between 2011and 2020 in the 68 journals indexed under “rehabilitation” category in InCites Journal Citation Report.Randomization will be stratified by publication date and journal ranking (quartile range; Q1-2 and Q3-4) to include an equal number of studies from 2011 to 2015 (Q1-Q2=50 and Q3-Q4=50) and from 2016 to 2020 (Q1-Q2=50 and Q3-Q4=50). SRs (with or without meta-analysis) published between 2011 and 2020 as full-text scientific articles in the 68 rehabilitation journals will be included. Narrative reviews, mixed-methods reviews, meta-ethnography reviews, umbrella reviews, scoping reviews, editorials, letters and news reports will be excluded. The primary analysis will address the completeness of the reporting for each study and the relationship between PRISMA adherence and risk of bias. This will be a descriptive analysis through descriptive statistics and graphical representation.Ethics and DisseminationSeveral studies have shown the positive influence of reporting guidelines on the completeness of research reporting but no one investigated the use and the appropriateness of reporting guidelines in physical therapy research. Therefore, this study will add relevant knowledge that may contribute to improve further the reporting of rehabilitation research. The results of this research will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will be presented at relevant (inter)national scientific events.


2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Ran Tan ◽  
Wai Ching Lam ◽  
Chung Wah Cheng ◽  
Liang Yao ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Moxibustion is a common intervention of Chinese medicine (CM). Systematic reviews (SRs) on moxibustion are increasing. Although the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement provides guidelines for SRs, the quality of moxibustion-related SRs is still not satisfactory. In particular, descriptions of the interventions and the rationale for using moxibustion are insufficient. To address these inadequacies, the working group developed this PRISMA extension for reporting SRs of moxibustion (PRISMA-M 2020). Methods A group of CM clinical professionals, methodologists of SRs, reporting guideline developers, and journal editors developed this PRISMA-M 2020 through a comprehensive process that includes registration, literature review, consensus meetings, Delphi exercises for soliciting comments, and revision, resulting in this final draft. Results Seven of the 27 PRISMA checklist items, namely title (1), rationale (3), eligibility criteria (6), data item (11), additional analyses (16), study characteristics (18), and additional analysis (23), were extended, with specific reference to the application of moxibustion. Illustrative examples and explanations for each item are provided. Conclusion The PRISMA-M 2020 will help improve the reporting quality of SRs with moxibustion. Systematic review registration We have registered it on the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) network, particularly under the item of PRISMA-TCM: http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-systematic-reviews/#65.


PLoS Medicine ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (10) ◽  
pp. e1001333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vivian Welch ◽  
Mark Petticrew ◽  
Peter Tugwell ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Jennifer O'Neill ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document