Viewpoints on the PRIOR statement-a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Yang N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10061445 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Mar
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Viewpoints on the PRIOR statement-a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews.
Yang Nan N Liu Hui H Zhang Kaiping K Chen Yaolong Y Estill Janne J
Annals of translational medicine 20230106 5
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.DesignDevelopment of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.ParticipantsCore team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist.SettingInternational consensus.InterventionFour stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline.ResultsFrom the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews.ConclusionsPRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.
| S-EPMC9361065 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8005924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
| S-EPMC8007028 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8008539 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionGuidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and 'overviews of systematic reviews' (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We aim to evaluate the impact and use of systematic reviews with and without pairwise meta-analysis or network meta-analyses (NMAs) and overviews in clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations.Methods and analysisCPGs will be retrieved from Turning Research Into Practice and Epistemonikos (2017-2018). The retrieved citations will be sorted randomly and then screened sequentially by two independent reviewers until 50 CPGs have been identified. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the management of any clinical condition. We will assess whether reviews or overviews were cited in a recommendation as part of the development process for guidelines. Data extraction will be done independently by two authors and compared. We will assess the risk of bias by examining how each guideline developed clinical recommendations. We will calculate the number and frequency of citations of reviews with or without pairwise meta-analysis, reviews with NMAs and overviews, and whether they were systematically or non-systematically developed. Results will be described, tabulated and categorised based on review type (reviews or overviews). CPGs reporting the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be compared with those using a different system, and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological CPGs will be compared.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval is required. We will present at the Cochrane Colloquium and the Guidelines International Network conference.
| S-EPMC7044835 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7190266 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3090117 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Despite the increasing number of radiological case reports, the majority lack a standardised methodology of writing and reporting. We therefore develop a reporting guideline for radiological case reports based on the CAse REport (CARE) statement. We established a multidisciplinary group of experts, comprising 40 radiologists, methodologists, journal editors and researchers, to develop a reporting guideline for radiological case reports according to the methodology recommended by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research network. The Delphi panel was requested to evaluate the significance of a list of elements for potential inclusion in a guideline for reporting mediation analyses. By reviewing the reporting guidelines and through discussion, we initially drafted 46 potential items. Following a Delphi survey and discussion, the final CARE-radiology checklist is comprised of 38 items in 16 domains. CARE-radiology is a comprehensive reporting guideline for radiological case reports developed using a rigorous methodology. We hope that compliance with CARE-radiology will help in the future to improve the completeness and quality of case reports in radiology.
| S-EPMC11672047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWhen conducting an Overviews of Reviews on health-related topics, it is unclear which combination of bibliographic databases authors should use for searching for SRs. Our goal was to determine which databases included the most systematic reviews and identify an optimal database combination for searching systematic reviews.MethodsA set of 86 Overviews of Reviews with 1219 included systematic reviews was extracted from a previous study. Inclusion of the systematic reviews was assessed in MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Epistemonikos, PsycINFO, and TRIP. The mean inclusion rate (% of included systematic reviews) and corresponding 95% confidence interval were calculated for each database individually, as well as for combinations of MEDLINE with each other database and reference checking.ResultsInclusion of systematic reviews was higher in MEDLINE than in any other single database (mean inclusion rate 89.7%; 95% confidence interval [89.0-90.3%]). Combined with reference checking, this value increased to 93.7% [93.2-94.2%]. The best combination of two databases plus reference checking consisted of MEDLINE and Epistemonikos (99.2% [99.0-99.3%]). Stratification by Health Technology Assessment reports (97.7% [96.5-98.9%]) vs. Cochrane Overviews (100.0%) vs. non-Cochrane Overviews (99.3% [99.1-99.4%]) showed that inclusion was only slightly lower for Health Technology Assessment reports. However, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and reference checking remained the best combination. Among the 10/1219 systematic reviews not identified by this combination, five were published as websites rather than journals, two were included in CINAHL and Embase, and one was included in the database ERIC.ConclusionsMEDLINE and Epistemonikos, complemented by reference checking of included studies, is the best database combination to identify systematic reviews on health-related topics.
| S-EPMC7268249 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLiterature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.MethodsThe checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.ResultsThe final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.ConclusionsThe intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.
| S-EPMC8270366 | biostudies-literature