PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews

@article{Zorzela2016PRISMAHC,
  title={PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews},
  author={Liliane Zorzela and Yoon Kong Loke and John P. A. Ioannidis and Su Golder and Pasqualina Santaguida and Douglas G. Altman and David Moher and Sunita Vohra},
  journal={British Medical Journal},
  year={2016},
  volume={352}
}
Introduction For any health intervention, accurate knowledge of both benefits and harms is needed. Systematic reviews often compound poor reporting of harms in primary studies by failing to report harms or doing so inadequately. While the PRISMA statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) helps systematic review authors ensure complete and transparent reporting, it is focused mainly on efficacy. Thus, a PRISMA harms checklist has been developed to improve… 
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
TLDR
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 are presented.
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
TLDR
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 are presented.
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review
TLDR
The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009, where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs.
Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR): a protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
TLDR
An international and multidisciplinary expert advisory board will be established that will oversee the conduct of the project and provide methodological support, and a modified Delphi exercise will be used to achieve a high level of expert agreement on the list of items to be included in the PRIOR reporting guideline.
Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews
TLDR
An overview of aspects of statistical reporting in trials and systematic reviews of health interventions and how to enhance research transparency and contribute improve quality of biomedical publications is summarised.
Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs): protocol
TLDR
The protocol for developing an extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs will benefit LSR authors, editors, and peer reviewers of LSR’s, as well as different users of L SRs, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders.
...
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 90 REFERENCES
Quality of reporting in systematic reviews of adverse events: systematic review
TLDR
Systematic reviews compound the poor reporting of harms data in primary studies by failing to report on harms or doing so inadequately, and the need for a reporting guideline specific for reviews of harms is determined.
Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement
TLDR
This work searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library using a wide array of terms related to harms and identified pertinent evidence and made recommendations on the appropriate reporting of harms in RCTs.
Challenges in Systematic Reviews That Assess Treatment Harms
To be useful to decision makers, an evidence synthesis of a medical intervention should assess the balance of benefits and harms (1, 2). Harms from medical interventions include adverse drug events
Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach
TLDR
This discussion paper was developed by consensus among experienced reviewers, members of the Adverse Effects Subgroup of The Cochrane Collaboration, and supplemented by a consultation of content experts in reviews methodology, as well as those working in drug safety.
Assessing harmful effects in systematic Reviews
TLDR
Systematic reviews of harmful effects are more likely to yield information pertinent to clinical decision-making if they address a focused question, which will enable clear decisions to be made about the type of research to include in the review.
Room for improvement? A survey of the methods used in systematic reviews of adverse effects
TLDR
Where methodological research is most needed to improve systematic reviews of adverse effects of health care interventions, a descriptive analysis of systematic reviews published between 1994 and 2005 found the methodology around identification and quality assessment of primary data is the main concern.
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation
TLDR
An international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols—PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015.
...
...