Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

@article{Shamseer2015PreferredRI,
  title={Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation},
  author={Larissa Shamseer and David Moher and Michael Clarke and Davina Ghersi and Alessandro Liberati and Mark Petticrew and Paul Shekelle and Lesley A Stewart},
  journal={BMJ : British Medical Journal},
  year={2015},
  volume={349}
}
Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics… Expand

Paper Mentions

Observational Clinical Trial
Parents' mental health contributes to their feeding practices how they perceive and respond to their children's behavior. Suboptimal feeding practices may promote dysfunctional eating… Expand
ConditionsFeeding Behavior, Parent-Child Relations, Stress
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement
TLDR
A reporting guideline is described, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015), which consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Expand
PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews
TLDR
The 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. Expand
PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews*
TLDR
The 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. Expand
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. Expand
Reporting and methodological quality of COVID-19 systematic reviews needs to be improved: an evidence mapping
TLDR
This study systematically evaluated the methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19, summarizing and analyzing trends in their clinical topics, author countries, and study populations. Expand
Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines.
TLDR
Generation of a comprehensive item bank through review and mapping of the literature facilitates identification of missing items, and those needing modification, which may not otherwise be identified by the guideline development team or from other activities commonly used to develop reporting guidelines. Expand
Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines
TLDR
Examination of compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014 found transparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Expand
ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps
TLDR
ROSES (RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses), a pro forma and flow diagram designed specifically for systematic reviews and systematic maps in the field of conservation and environmental management, is introduced. Expand
About systematic reviews
  • M. Boeckstyns
  • Medicine
  • The Journal of hand surgery, European volume
  • 2015
TLDR
Meta-analysis of randomized studies is rarely a viable option in hand surgery research, given that randomized trials are infrequent, so other study designs, including non-randomized studies, quasi-experimental studies, interrupted time series or even retrospective studies, can be included in systematic reviews. Expand
An assessment of the extent to which the contents of PROSPERO records meet the systematic review protocol reporting items in PRISMA-P.
TLDR
Where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of a priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended, which presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 201 REFERENCES
An international registry of systematic-review protocols
TLDR
The aim is for the registry to include details of all ongoing systematic reviews with a health-related outcome in the broadest sense, and will encompass systematic reviews of health-care interventions, and reviews of the social determinants of health, of service delivery, and of risk factors and genetic associations. Expand
Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography.
TLDR
A number of useful assessment tools have been identified and a need to agree on critical elements for assessing susceptibility to bias in observational epidemiology and to develop appropriate evaluation tools. Expand
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement
TLDR
A reporting guideline is described, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015), which consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Expand
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews
TLDR
There were large differences between Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews in the quality of reporting several characteristics, and the view that readers should not accept SRs uncritically is substantiated. Expand
The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews
TLDR
There has been international support and an enthusiastic response to the principle of prospective registration of protocols for systematic reviews and to the development of PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews with health-related outcomes. Expand
An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies.
TLDR
This evidence-based guideline facilitates the improvement of search quality through peer review, and thus the improvement in quality of systematic reviews, and is relevant for librarians/information specialists, journal editors, developers of knowledge translation tools, research organizations, and funding bodies. Expand
Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process
TLDR
It was found that making changes after seeing the results for included studies can lead to biased and misleading interpretation if the importance of the outcome (primary or secondary) is changed on the basis of those results. Expand
Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews
TLDR
Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical decision-making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies. Expand
A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews.
TLDR
Little research has been conducted on when and how to update SRs in contrast to other methodological areas of conducting SRs (e.g., publication bias, variance imputation). Expand
Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases.
TLDR
There was convincing evidence that outcome reporting bias exists and has an impact on the pooled summary in systematic reviews, and empirical evidence suggests that published studies tended to report a greater treatment effect than those from the grey literature. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...