Throughout 20, we circulated an initial draft and five revisions of the checklist and explanation and elaboration paper to co-authors for feedback. We discussed proposed content and wording of the PRISMA 2020 statement, as informed by the review and survey results, at a 21-member, two-day, in-person meeting in September 2018 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Systematic review methodologists and journal editors were invited to complete the online survey (110 of 220 invited responded). Respondents were asked whether they believed we should keep each PRISMA 2009 item as is, modify it, or remove it, and whether we should add each additional item. These reviews of the literature were used to inform the content of a survey with suggested possible modifications to the 27 items in PRISMA 2009 and possible additional items. We identified possible modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement by reviewing 60 documents providing reporting guidance for systematic reviews (including reporting guidelines, handbooks, tools, and meta-research studies). We identified PRISMA 2009 items that were often reported incompletely by examining the results of studies investigating the transparency of reporting of published reviews.
PRISMA APP REVIEW UPDATE
To capture these advances in the reporting of systematic reviews necessitated an update to the PRISMA 2009 statement.Ī complete description of the methods used to develop PRISMA 2020 is available elsewhere. In addition, the publishing landscape has transformed, with multiple avenues now available for registering and disseminating systematic review protocols, disseminating reports of systematic reviews, and sharing data and materials, such as preprint servers and publicly accessible repositories. Terminology used to describe particular review processes has also evolved, as in the shift from assessing “quality” to assessing “certainty” in the body of evidence. Evidence on sources of bias in systematic reviews has accrued, culminating in the development of new tools to appraise the conduct of systematic reviews. For example, technological advances have enabled the use of natural language processing and machine learning to identify relevant evidence, methods have been proposed to synthesise and present findings when meta-analysis is not possible or appropriate, and new methods have been developed to assess the risk of bias in results of included studies. Many innovations in the conduct of systematic reviews have occurred since publication of the PRISMA 2009 statement. Evidence from observational studies suggests that use of the PRISMA 2009 statement is associated with more complete reporting of systematic reviews, although more could be done to improve adherence to the guideline. The recommendations have been widely endorsed and adopted, as evidenced by its co-publication in multiple journals, citation in over 60,000 reports (Scopus, August 2020), endorsement from almost 200 journals and systematic review organisations, and adoption in various disciplines. The PRISMA 2009 statement comprised a checklist of 27 items recommended for reporting in systematic reviews and an “explanation and elaboration” paper providing additional reporting guidance for each item, along with exemplars of reporting. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009) is a reporting guideline designed to address poor reporting of systematic reviews. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on BMJ, PLOS Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and International Journal of Surgery journal websites. In this article, 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 structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. 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.
0 kommentar(er)
