scholarly journals Reporting Guidelines and theAmerican Journal of Public Health’s Adoption of Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

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

Biomedical conferences’ author instructions rarely mention guidelines for reporting abstracts of trials and systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-91
Author(s):  
Lenko Saric ◽  
Svjetlana Dosenovic ◽  
Jakov Mihanovic ◽  
Livia Puljak
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Meta Analyses

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.

scholarly journals Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines

2020 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 60-68 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Page ◽  
Joanne E. McKenzie ◽  
Patrick M. Bossuyt ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Item Bank ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Meta Analyses

scholarly journals Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew James Page ◽  
Joanne McKenzie ◽  
Patrick Bossuyt ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

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.

scholarly journals PRISMA extension for moxibustion 2020: recommendations, explanation, and elaboration

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Xuan Zhang ◽  
Ran Tan ◽  
Wai Ching Lam ◽  
Chung Wah Cheng ◽  
Liang Yao ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Reporting Guidelines ◽  
Research Network ◽  
Specific Reference ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Title 1 ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Meta Analyses

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.

Hotspots in Psychology – 2020 Edition

2020 ◽  
Vol 228 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-2
Author(s):  
Michael Bošnjak ◽  
Nadine Wedderhoff
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Methods ◽  
Common Denominator ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract. This editorial gives a brief introduction to the six articles included in the fourth “Hotspots in Psychology” of the Zeitschrift für Psychologie. The format is devoted to systematic reviews and meta-analyses in research-active fields that have generated a considerable number of primary studies. The common denominator is the research synthesis nature of the included articles, and not a specific psychological topic or theme that all articles have to address. Moreover, methodological advances in research synthesis methods relevant for any subfield of psychology are being addressed. Comprehensive supplemental material to the articles can be found in PsychArchives ( https://www.psycharchives.org ).

Parâmetros e efeitos do laser não ablativo no tratamento de melasma facial

2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 342
Author(s):  
Felipe Soares Macedo ◽  
Marthina Santos Rosa ◽  
Suélia De Siqueira Rodrigues Fleury Rosa ◽  
Hellen Batista De Carvalho ◽  
Luisiane De Ávila Santana
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Evidence Database ◽  
Meta Analyses

O uso do laser não ablativo no tratamento do melasma tem sido abordado em diversos estudos, porém, não há consenso na literatura quanto aos parâmetros e feitos de intervenções baseadas neste recurso. O objetivo deste estudo foi identificar e descrever parâmetros e efeitos do laser não ablativo no tratamento de hiperpigmentação de pele (melasma). Trata-se de uma revisão sistemática da literatura baseada no Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). A busca eletrônica compreendeu as seguintes bases de dados: PubMed, Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro), Science Direct e SciELO. Foram identificados inicialmente 641 documentos nas bases de dados eletrônicas, enquanto na busca manual 26 artigos foram encontrados, após leitura e análise 7 artigos foram selecionados. Foram analisados 7 artigos correspondentes as bases de dados PubMed e Science Direct, todos na língua inglesa e publicados a partir do ano de 2010. Apenas um estudo utilizou uma amostra maior que 30 indivíduos, os demais utilizaram em média 16 participantes, com predomínio do sexo feminino e classificação segundo Fitzpatrick entre III-V. O comprimento de onda variou entre 1064 nm a 1550 nm e a energia máxima não ultrapassou 4 J/cm². De acordo com as variáveis avaliadas, os protocolos testados demonstraram que o laser não ablativo foi ineficaz no tratamento de melasma facial, sobretudo após a interrupção da terapia.Palavras-chave: hiperpigmentação, laser não ablativo, fisioterapia dermato-funcional, revisão sistemática.

Les troubles périnéosphinctériens chez les patients souffrant de troubles du comportement alimentaire

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 188-194
Author(s):  
C. Pourtal ◽  
L. Volondat ◽  
S. Lambert ◽  
J. Robert ◽  
M. Rousselet ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Revue De La Littérature ◽  
Prolapsus Rectal ◽  
Comportement Alimentaire ◽  
Prise De Poids ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Troubles Du Comportement ◽  
Troubles Du Comportement Alimentaire

Contexte : Les troubles périnéosphinctériens (TPS) survenant chez les patients souffrant de trouble du comportement alimentaire (TCA) sont des complications sous-abord ées dans la littérature. Le but de cette revue de la littérature était de faire le point sur l’état des connaissances actuelles pour aider le clinicien prenant en charge les TPS à les mettre en lien avec les TCA, et le clinicien prenant en charge les TCA à les prévenir et à les repérer le plus précocement possible, dans une perspective de réduction des risques et des dommages. Méthode : Deux revues de littérature ont été conduites, l’une portant sur les TPS d’origine digestive, l’autre sur les TPS d’origine urinaire. La sélection des articles s’est faite en nous référant aux recommandations PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) et à partir des bases de données PubMed et ScienceDirect. Résultats : Douze articles ont été retenus. Les TPS identifies sont la constipation, l’incontinence fécale, l’incontinence urinaire et le prolapsus rectal. Ils sont secondaires aux effets de la malnutrition sur la composante musculaire ainsi qu’à la pression abdominale exercée par des comportements visant à réguler la prise de poids, tels que les exercices physiques réalisés en hyperpression, les efforts de poussée lors de l’émission des selles et les vomissements provoqués. Conclusion : Une anamnèse précise et méticuleuse chez les personnes présentant un indice de masse corporel bas semble primordiale. L’usage de laxatifs est à proscrire avant un programme de renutrition d’au moins trois semaines.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document