PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Page MJ
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8005925 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8008539 | 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:BackgroundMoxibustion 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).MethodsA 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.ResultsSeven 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.ConclusionThe PRISMA-M 2020 will help improve the reporting quality of SRs with moxibustion.Systematic review registrationWe 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 .
| S-EPMC7586688 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
| S-EPMC2707010 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC2844943 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement was developed to help biomedical researchers report randomised controlled trials (RCTs) transparently. We have developed an extension to the CONSORT 2010 Statement for social and psychological interventions (CONSORT-SPI 2018) to help behavioural and social scientists report these studies transparently. METHODS:Following a systematic review of existing reporting guidelines, we conducted an online Delphi process to prioritise the list of potential items for the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist identified from the systematic review. Of 384 international participants, 321 (84%) participated in both rating rounds. We then held a consensus meeting of 31 scientists, journal editors, and research funders (March 2014) to finalise the content of the CONSORT-SPI 2018 checklist and flow diagram. RESULTS:CONSORT-SPI 2018 extends 9 items (14 including sub-items) from the CONSORT 2010 checklist, adds a new item (with 3 sub-items) related to stakeholder involvement in trials, and modifies the CONSORT 2010 flow diagram. This Explanation and Elaboration (E&E) document is a user manual to enhance understanding of CONSORT-SPI 2018. It discusses the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and provides examples of complete and transparent reporting. CONCLUSIONS:The CONSORT-SPI 2018 Extension, this E&E document, and the CONSORT website ( www.consort-statement.org ) are helpful resources for improving the reporting of social and psychological intervention RCTs.
| S-EPMC6066913 | 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 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.ResultsThe final checklist includes 16 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-EPMC7839230 | 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
Project description:ObjectiveComplete, accurate reporting of systematic reviews facilitates assessment of how well reviews have been conducted. The primary objective of this study was to examine compliance of systematic reviews in veterinary journals with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines for literature search reporting and to examine the completeness, bias, and reproducibility of the searches in these reviews from what was reported. The second objective was to examine reporting of the credentials and contributions of those involved in the search process.MethodsA sample of systematic reviews or meta-analyses published in veterinary journals between 2011 and 2015 was obtained by searching PubMed. Reporting in the full text of each review was checked against certain PRISMA checklist items.ResultsOver one-third of reviews (37%) did not search the CAB Abstracts database, and 9% of reviews searched only 1 database. Over two-thirds of reviews (65%) did not report any search for grey literature or stated that they excluded grey literature. The majority of reviews (95%) did not report a reproducible search strategy.ConclusionsMost reviews had significant deficiencies in reporting the search process that raise questions about how these searches were conducted and ultimately cast serious doubts on the validity and reliability of reviews based on a potentially biased and incomplete body of literature. These deficiencies also highlight the need for veterinary journal editors and publishers to be more rigorous in requiring adherence to PRISMA guidelines and to encourage veterinary researchers to include librarians or information specialists on systematic review teams to improve the quality and reporting of searches.
| S-EPMC5490700 | biostudies-literature