scholarly journals PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: Common Questions on Tracking Records and the Flow Diagram

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Melissa Rethlefsen ◽  
Matthew James Page
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Information Source ◽  
Original Version ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Sufficient Detail ◽  
The Common ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Systematic Review Process

PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S are newly released guidelines to help systematic review teams report their reviews clearly, transparently, and with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. PRISMA 2020, the updated version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, is complemented by PRISMA-S, an extension to PRISMA focusing on reporting the search components of systematic reviews. Several significant changes were implemented in PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S when compared with the original version of PRISMA in 2009, including the recommendation to report search strategies for all databases, registries, and websites that were searched. PRISMA-S also recommends reporting the number of records identified from each information source. One of the most challenging aspects of the new guidance from both documents has been changes to the flow diagram. In this article, we review some of the common questions about using the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and tracking records through the systematic review process.

Partnering Up: Including Managers as Research Partners in Systematic Reviews

2020 ◽  
pp. 109442812096570
Author(s):  
Garima Sharma ◽  
Pratima (Tima) Bansal
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Practical Knowledge ◽  
Management Practice ◽  
Academic Research ◽  
Knowledge Systems ◽  
Business Sustainability ◽  
Research Endeavor ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews of academic research have not impacted management practice as much as many researchers had hoped. Part of the reason is that researchers and managers differ so significantly in their knowledge systems—in both what they know and how they know it. Researchers can overcome some of these challenges by including managers as knowledge partners in the research endeavor; however, doing so is rife with challenges. This article seeks to answer, how can researchers and managers navigate the tensions related to differences in their knowledge systems to create more impactful systematic reviews? To answer this question, we embarked on a data-guided journey of the experience of the Network for Business Sustainability, which had undertaken 15 systematic reviews that involved researchers and managers. We interviewed previous participants of the projects, observed different systematic review processes, and collected archival data to learn more about researcher-manager collaborations in the systematic review process. This article offers guidance to researchers in imbricating academic with practical knowledge in the systematic review process.

scholarly journals Adopting a toolkit to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process: a case report

2021 ◽  
Vol 109 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Q. Eileen Wafford ◽  
Linda C. O’Dwyer
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Project Management ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Extensive Experience ◽  
Process Flow Diagram ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Process Elements ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Background: The proliferation of systematic reviews has impacted library operations and activities as librarians support, collaborate, and perform more tasks in the systematic review process. This case report describes a toolkit that librarians with extensive experience in supporting multiple review teams use to manage time, resources, and expectations in the systematic review process.Case Presentation: The toolkit is a compilation of documents that we use to effectively communicate with and help review teams understand and navigate each stage of the systematic review process. Elements included in the toolkit and discussed in this case report are intake forms, communication templates and memoranda, a process flow diagram, library guides on tools for retrieval and data appraisal, and established standards for guidance during the write-up stage. We describe the use of the toolkit for both education and project management, with a focus on its use in helping manage team time, resources, and expectations.Discussion: The systematic review toolkit helps librarians connect systematic review steps and tasks to actionable items. The content facilitates and supports discussion and learning by both librarians and team members. This toolkit helps librarians share important information and resources for each stage of the process.

scholarly journals Canvas Framework for Performing Systematic Reviews Analysis

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 65
Author(s):  
Fernando Almeida
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Review Of The Literature ◽  
New Approach ◽  
Good Practices ◽  
Scientific Domain ◽  
Research Theme ◽  
New Directions ◽  
Systematic Review Process

<p class="Textoindependiente21">The systematic review of the literature is a fundamental methodology for analyzing critically the existing literature on a given research theme. They are designed to be methodical, replicable and guide the author in identifying the main lines of investigation and conclusions in each scientific domain and, in addition, help them in the identification of new directions of research. However, the systematic review process is typically viewed as too heterogeneous, complex and time-consuming. In this sense, it is pertinent to propose a new approach for conducting systematic reviews that may be more agile, not only in terms of development, but also in the analysis of the results of a systematic review process. This article presents a canvas framework for conducting a systematic review composed of nine blocks and based on a set of identified good practices found in the literature, in which it is possible to easily identify all the steps of the process, options taken, and main results.</p>

scholarly journals Cochrane Interactive Learning

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Ghezzi-Kopel
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Interactive Learning ◽  
Educational Tool ◽  
Learning Tool ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Cochrane Interactive Learning (CIL) is a modular, self-directed, educational tool for researchers performing systematic reviews. Systematic reviews present unbiased, transparent, and reproducible syntheses of all research pertaining to a well-formulated question and are a critical tool to inform clinical practice and decision-making. Researchers must adhere to a rigorous set of standards when performing systematic reviews, and robust training is required to learn the complex requirements of the methodology. CIL provides an accessible, well-designed, step-by-step guide for navigating the systematic review process. This resource review outlines the major features of CIL and discusses the usability and accessibility of this learning tool for both researchers and librarians.

scholarly journals The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew James Page ◽  
Joanne McKenzie ◽  
Patrick Bossuyt ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Health Care Providers ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Flow Diagram ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Item Checklist ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did and what they found. Over the last decade, there have been many advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, which have necessitated an update to the guideline.Objectives: To develop the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting systematic reviews.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We sought feedback on the suggested modifications through an online survey of 110 systematic review methodologists and journal editors. The results of the review and survey were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, drafts of the PRISMA 2020 checklist, abstract checklist, explanation and elaboration and flow diagram were generated and refined iteratively based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers.Results: In this statement paper, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. The checklist includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement.Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to facilitate transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews. Improved reporting should benefit users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, health care providers, patients and other stakeholders. In order to achieve this, we encourage authors, editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the guideline.

scholarly journals Is there a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process?

2018 ◽  
Vol 106 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Wissinger
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Graduate Students ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Methodology ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Basic Education ◽  
Health Sciences ◽  
Research Projects ◽  
Training Opportunities ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews are a well-established and well-honed research methodology in the medical and health sciences fields. As the popularity of systematic reviews has increased, disciplines outside the sciences have started publishing them. This increase in familiarity has begun to trickle down from practitioners and faculty to graduate students and recently undergraduates. The amount of work and rigor that goes into producing a quality systematic review may make these types of research projects seem unattainable for undergraduate or graduate students, but is this an accurate assumption? This commentary discusses whether there is a place for undergraduate and graduate students in the systematic review process. It explains the possible benefits of having undergraduate and graduate students engage in systematic reviews and concludes with ideas for creating basic education or training opportunities for researchers and students who are new to the systematic review process.

Systematic Reviews

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julia H. Littell
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Qualitative Data ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Research Synthesis ◽  
Helping Professions ◽  
Statistical Procedures ◽  
Quantitative Studies ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews summarize a body of empirical evidence to address important questions for practice and social policy. Widely used to compile evidence about intervention effects in the helping professions, systematic reviews can also be used to assess rates, trends, associations, and variations on many topics. Credible reviews are based on the science of research synthesis, which provides the theoretical and empirical foundations that undergird efforts to minimize bias and error at each step in the review process to ensure that systematic reviews are comprehensive and their conclusions are accurate. Methods for the synthesis of quantitative studies are well developed. Meta-analysis, a set of statistical procedures, is often used in quantitative reviews, but meta-analysis is only one part of the systematic review process; other steps are needed to limit bias and error. Methods for systematic reviews of qualitative research are under development, as are strategies to combine quantitative and qualitative data in reviews.

scholarly journals Carrying out systematic literature reviews: an introduction

2019 ◽  
Vol 28 (15) ◽  
pp. 1008-1014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan Davies
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Starting Point ◽  
Literature Reviews ◽  
Good Starting Point ◽  
The Common ◽  
Systematic Review Process

Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for a specific topic of interest, summarising the results of multiple studies to aid in clinical decisions and resource allocation. They remain among the best forms of evidence, and reduce the bias inherent in other methods. A solid understanding of the systematic review process can be of benefit to nurses that carry out such reviews, and for those who make decisions based on them. An overview of the main steps involved in carrying out a systematic review is presented, including some of the common tools and frameworks utilised in this area. This should provide a good starting point for those that are considering embarking on such work, and to aid readers of such reviews in their understanding of the main review components, in order to appraise the quality of a review that may be used to inform subsequent clinical decision making.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document