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 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 PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew James Page ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Patrick Bossuyt ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Tammy Hoffmann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Recent Advances ◽  
Sufficient Detail ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Accurate Reporting ◽  
Reporting Recommendations ◽  
Complete Reporting

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present exemplars from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

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 The Clinical Use of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Knee Disorders and Surgery—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Life ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (6) ◽  
pp. 94
Author(s):  
Ewa Trams ◽  
Krzysztof Kulinski ◽  
Katarzyna Kozar-Kaminska ◽  
Stanislaw Pomianowski ◽  
Rafal Kaminski
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Platelet Rich Plasma ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Knee Surgery ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Knee Disorders

In recent years, the interest in biological treatment of knee lesions has increased, especially the application of platelet-rich plasma is of particular note. The number of articles evaluating platelet-rich plasma (PRP) efficacy in the recovery of knee disorders and during knee surgery has exponentially increased over the last decade. A systematic review with meta-analyses was performed by assessing selected studies of local PRP injections to the knee joint. The study was completed in accordance with 2009 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. A multistep search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Clinicaltrials.gov was performed to identify studies on knee surgery and knee lesion treatment with PRP. Of the 4004 articles initially identified, 357 articles focusing on knee lesions were selected and, consequently, only 83 clinical trials were analyzed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool to evaluate risk. In total, seven areas of meta-analysis reported a positive effect of PRP. Among them, 10 sub-analyses demonstrated significant differences in favor of PRP when compared to the control groups (p < 0.05). This study showed the positive effects of PRP, both on the recovery of knee disorders and during knee surgery; however further prospective and randomized studies with a higher number of subjects and with lower biases are needed.

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Effectiveness of Automated External Defibrillators Delivered by Drones

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (12) ◽  
pp. 101
Author(s):  
Tomoya Shirane
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Automated External Defibrillators ◽  
Technology Deployment ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Current Setting ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Cost ◽  
Hospital Cardiac Arrest

BACKGROUND: According to the 2019 annual report by Fire and Disaster Management Agency (FDMA) in Japan, the survival rate of patients with Out-of-Hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) who were rescued by Automated External Defibrillators (AED) was 6.2 times higher than those who were not treated appropriately. Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV) have been evaluated as the means of delivering medical equipment and goods. This study was therefore designed to evaluate the effectiveness of UAV technology applied to AED delivery through a systematic review methodology. METHODS: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA) statement was utilized to guide the review. Electronic databases such as Medline through PubMed and CiNii were searched. Search terms were used in a variety of combinations, including AED, UAV, and drone in English and Japanese. RESULTS: Nine articles were identified through the review process. Most of the studies were conducted in Western countries, and all of them were done after 2016. Seven studies evaluated the time reductions in the delivery of the defibrillation in OHCAs by simulation study methods and/or test flights of UAV. All the studies showed the positive results regarding the time reductions to AED access by bystanders compared with the current setting of no UAV networks. CONCLUSION: The studies included in this review showed UAV technology around AED delivery would have the potential to reduce the time of the defibrillation in OHCA patients. More evidence especially around the real-world utilization and the cost-effectiveness of the technology deployment are expected for the future adaptation.

scholarly journals Does Periodontal Treatment Help in Arterial Hypertension Control? A Systematic Review of Literature

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neus Lanau ◽  
Javier Mareque ◽  
Michel Zabalza
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Blood Pressure ◽  
Periodontal Disease ◽  
Arterial Hypertension ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Periodontal Diseases ◽  
Periodontal Treatment ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Prisma Statement ◽  
Meta Analyses

AbstractArterial hypertension and periodontal diseases are two of the pathologies with more prevalence worldwide. In the last few years, several scientific evidences have demonstrated the relationship between both diseases. Besides the etiopathogenic and causal relationship, some recent publications have pointed out that the therapeutic approach of periodontitis could have positive effects on the control of arterial hypertension.The aim of this systematic review is to determine whether there is a decrease in or better control of blood pressure after performing nonsurgical periodontal treatment in patients with periodontitis.A thorough search in PubMed, Scopus, and ISI Web of Science databases with the keywords “‘periodontal disease’ OR ‘periodontitis’ OR ‘periodontal’ AND ‘blood pressure’ OR ‘hypertension’ OR ‘arterial hypertension’” was conducted. The quality of the reported information was assessed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement for systematic reviews.Eight articles were considered for this systematic review. Five of the studies showed statistically significant reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP) values.Despite the limitations of the review, nonsurgical treatment of periodontal disease seems to reduce SBP values. Further research with larger and longer-term clinical trials are needed to demonstrate this potential positive effect.

scholarly journals Development of a checklist to detect errors in meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions: study protocol

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 455
Author(s):  
Raju Kanukula ◽  
Matthew Page ◽  
Kerry Dwan ◽  
Simon Turner ◽  
Elizabeth Loder ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Core Component ◽  
Step Process ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtual Meeting ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Systematic reviews underpin clinical practice and policies that guide healthcare decisions. A core component of many systematic reviews is meta-analysis, which is a statistical synthesis of results across studies. Errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis can lead to incorrect conclusions regarding the benefits and harms of interventions; and studies have shown that these errors are common. Enabling peer reviewers to better detect errors in meta-analysis through the use of a checklist provides an opportunity for these errors to be rectified before publication. To our knowledge, no such checklist exists. Objective: To develop and evaluate a checklist to detect errors in pairwise meta-analyses in systematic reviews of interventions. Methods: We will undertake a four-step process to develop the checklist. First, we will undertake a systematic review of studies that have evaluated errors in the conduct and interpretation of meta-analysis to generate a bank of items to consider for the checklist. Second, we will undertake a survey of systematic review methodologists and statisticians to seek their views on which items, of the bank of items generated in step 1, are most important to include in the checklist. Third, we will hold a virtual meeting to agree upon which items to include in the checklist. Fourth, before finalising the checklist, we will pilot with editors and peer reviewers of journals. Conclusion: The developed checklist is intended to help journal editors and peer reviewers identify errors in the application and interpretation of meta-analyses in systematic reviews. Fewer errors in the conduct and improved interpretation will lead to more accurate review findings and conclusions to inform clinical practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document