RESUMO
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. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. 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. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. 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.
La declaración PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), publicada en 2009, se diseñó para ayudar a los autores de revisiones sistemáticas a documentar de manera transparente el porqué de la revisión, qué hicieron los autores y qué encontraron. Durante la última década, ha habido muchos avances en la metodología y terminología de las revisiones sistemáticas, lo que ha requerido una actualización de esta guía. La declaración PRISMA 2020 sustituye a la declaración de 2009 e incluye una nueva guía de presentación de las publicaciones que refleja los avances en los métodos para identificar, seleccionar, evaluar y sintetizar estudios. La estructura y la presentación de los ítems ha sido modificada para facilitar su implementación. En este artículo, presentamos la lista de verificación PRISMA 2020 con 27 ítems, y una lista de verificación ampliada que detalla las recomendaciones en la publicación de cada ítem, la lista de verificación del resumen estructurado PRISMA 2020 y el diagrama de flujo revisado para revisiones sistemáticas.
RESUMO
Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Assuntos
Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Editoração/normas , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Humanos , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto/métodos , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto/normasRESUMO
The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.
Assuntos
Lista de Checagem , Metanálise como Assunto , Editoração/normas , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Humanos , Controle de Qualidade , Terminologia como AssuntoRESUMO
A primary goal of meta-analysis is to improve the estimation of treatment effects by pooling results of similar studies. This article explains how the most widely used method for pooling heterogeneous studies--the Der Simonian-Laird (DL) estimator--can produce biased estimates with falsely high precision. A classic example is presented to show that use of the DL estimator can lead to erroneous conclusions. Particular problems with the DL estimator are discussed, and several alternative methods for summarizing heterogeneous evidence are presented. The authors support replacing universal use of the DL estimator with analyses based on a critical synthesis that recognizes the uncertainty in the evidence,focuses on describing and explaining the probable sources of variation in the evidence, and uses random-effects estimates that provide more accurate confidence limits than the DL estimator.
Assuntos
Metanálise como Assunto , Intervalos de Confiança , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , SoftwareRESUMO
Many patients of all ages have multiple conditions, yet clinicians often lack explicit guidance on how to approach clinical decision-making for such people. Most recommendations from clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) focus on the management of single diseases, and may be harmful or impractical for patients with multimorbidity. A major barrier to the development of guidance for people with multimorbidity stems from the fact that the evidence underlying CPGs derives from studies predominantly focused on the management of a single disease. In this paper, the investigators from the Improving Guidelines for Multimorbid Patients Study Group present consensus-based recommendations for guideline developers to make guidelines more useful for the care of people with multimorbidity. In an iterative process informed by review of key literature and experience, we drafted a list of issues and possible approaches for addressing important coexisting conditions in each step of the guideline development process, with a focus on considering relevant interactions between the conditions, their treatments and their outcomes. The recommended approaches address consideration of coexisting conditions at all major steps in CPG development, from nominating and scoping the topic, commissioning the work group, refining key questions, ranking importance of outcomes, conducting systematic reviews, assessing quality of evidence and applicability, summarizing benefits and harms, to formulating recommendations and grading their strength. The list of issues and recommendations was reviewed and refined iteratively by stakeholders. This framework acknowledges the challenges faced by CPG developers who must make complex judgments in the absence of high-quality or direct evidence. These recommendations require validation through implementation, evaluation and refinement.
Assuntos
Comorbidade , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/normas , Assistência ao Paciente/normas , Guias de Prática Clínica como Assunto/normas , Congressos como Assunto/normas , Gerenciamento Clínico , Medicina Baseada em Evidências/métodos , Humanos , Assistência ao Paciente/métodosRESUMO
Confidence in evidence summarized in meta-analyses depends on the strength of the underlying studies. This inherent limitation of syntheses appears in the case of a meta-analysis of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors for the treatment of type 2 diabetes because many of the pertinent randomized trials did not handle patient dropout and "rescue" medication properly. Repudiated statistical methods, such as last observation carried forward, and unsophisticated methods for handling postrescue data produce unreliable summary estimates. Future reports of randomized studies and meta-analyses of those studies must focus on posing precise questions about the treatment effect of interest and then implement appropriate statistical methods to account for missing data, patient dropout, and use of rescue medication.
Assuntos
Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Diabetes Mellitus Tipo 2/tratamento farmacológico , Hipoglicemiantes/uso terapêutico , Metanálise como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Inibidores do Transportador 2 de Sódio-Glicose , Humanos , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento , Projetos de Pesquisa/estatística & dados numéricos , Sensibilidade e EspecificidadeAssuntos
Metanálise como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa , Estenose da Valva Aórtica/mortalidade , Estenose da Valva Aórtica/cirurgia , Interpretação Estatística de Dados , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/métodos , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/mortalidade , Humanos , Terminologia como AssuntoRESUMO
OBJECTIVES: To describe the processes used to update the PRISMA 2009 statement for reporting systematic reviews, present results of a survey conducted to inform the update, summarize decisions made at the PRISMA update meeting, and describe and justify changes made to the guideline. METHODS: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We invited 220 systematic review methodologists and journal editors to complete a survey about the suggested modifications. The results of these projects were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, we drafted the PRISMA 2020 statement and refined it based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers. RESULTS: The review of 60 documents revealed that all topics addressed by the PRISMA 2009 statement could be modified. Of the 110 survey respondents, more than 66% recommended keeping six of the original checklist items as they were and modifying 15 of them using wording suggested by us. Attendees at the in-person meeting supported the revised wording for several items but suggested rewording for most to enhance clarity, and further refinements were made over six drafts of the guideline. CONCLUSIONS: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews. We hope that providing this detailed description of the development process will enhance the acceptance and uptake of the guideline and assist those developing and updating future reporting guidelines.
Assuntos
Guias como Assunto/normas , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Consenso , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Fidelidade a Diretrizes , Humanos , Inquéritos e Questionários , Revisões Sistemáticas como AssuntoRESUMO
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. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. 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. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. 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.
Assuntos
Projetos de Pesquisa/normas , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto/métodos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Guias como Assunto , Humanos , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto/normasRESUMO
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. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. 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. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. 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.
Assuntos
Guias como Assunto , Relatório de Pesquisa/normas , Revisões Sistemáticas como Assunto , Lista de Checagem , Humanos , EditoraçãoRESUMO
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. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. 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. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. 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. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.
Assuntos
Lista de Checagem , Editoração , HumanosAssuntos
Envelhecimento/psicologia , Doenças Cardiovasculares/prevenção & controle , Cognição/efeitos dos fármacos , Suplementos Nutricionais , Minerais/uso terapêutico , Infarto do Miocárdio/complicações , Neoplasias/prevenção & controle , Vitaminas/administração & dosagem , Vitaminas/uso terapêutico , Feminino , Humanos , MasculinoRESUMO
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 (www.prisma-statement.org) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.