How to do a systematic review

International Journal of Stroke

Volumn 13, Issue 2, 2018, Pages 138-156

  Pollock, Alex ^a   Berge, Eivind ^b  

^a GLASGOW CALEDONIAN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b OSLO UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Norway)

Author keywords

Cochrane; methods; protocol; rehabilitation; synthesis; Systematic review

Indexed keywords

CEREBROVASCULAR ACCIDENT; DATA SYNTHESIS; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PLANNING; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL; REVIEW; STROKE REHABILITATION; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; LITERATURE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT;

DATA ACCURACY; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT (HEALTH CARE); REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; STROKE; STROKE REHABILITATION;

EID: 85040823620     PISSN: 17474930     EISSN: 17474949     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1747493017743796     Document Type: Review

References (127)

1. Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71–72.
2. Fain JA. Reading, understanding and applying nursing research, 5th ed. Philadelphia: FA Davis Company, 2017.
3. Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, Clarke M, Mulrow CD, Oxman AD. Chapter 1: Introduction. In: Higgins JPT, Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org
4. Bastian H. The power of sharing knowledge: consumer participation in the cochrane collaboration, Oxford: UK Cochrane Centre, 1994.
5. Langhorne P, Bernhardt J, Kwakkel G. Stroke rehabilitation. Lancet 2011; 377: 1693–1702.
6. Lindsay P, Furie KL, Davis SM, Donnan GA, Norrving B. World Stroke Organization global stroke services guidelines and action plan. Int J Stroke 20149 Suppl A100): 4–13.
7. Intercollegiate Stroke Working Party. Sentinel stroke national audit programme (SSNAP) post-acute stroke service commissioning audit. London: Royal College of Physicians, 2015.
8. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open 2017; 7: e012545.
9. PLoS Medicine Editors. Many reviews are systematic but some are more transparent and completely reported than others. PLoS Med 2007; 4: e147.
10. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014; 383: 156–165.
11. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet 2009; 374: 86–89.
12. Berge E, Salman RA, van der Worp HB, Increasing value and reducing waste in stroke research. Lancet Neurol 2017; 16: 399–408.
13. Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J. An introduction to systematic reviews, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 2012.
14. Snilstveit B, Oliver S, Vojtkova M. Narrative approaches to systematic review and synthesis of evidence for international development policy and practice. J Dev Effect 2012; 4: 409–429.
15. Wardlaw JM, Murray V, Berge E, del Zoppo GJ. Thrombolysis for acute ischaemic stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 7: CD000213.
16. Stroke Unit Trialists Collaboration. Organised inpatient (stroke unit) care for stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013; 9: CD000197.
17. Saunders DH, Sanderson M, Hayes S, Physical fitness training for stroke patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016; 3: CD003316.
18. Riva JJ, Malik KMP, Burnie SJ, Endicott AR, Busse JW. What is your research question? An introduction to the PICOT format for clinicians. J Canad Chiropract Assoc 2012; 56: 167–171.
19. Higgins JPT and Green S (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org
20. Joanna Briggs Institute. Joanna Briggs Institute reviewers' manual, Australia: University of Adelaide, 2014.
21. Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, et al. (eds) Finding what works in health care. Standards for systematic reviews. Washington: National Academies Press, 2011
22. Higgins JPT, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Churchill R. Methodological expectations of cochrane intervention reviews (MECIR), London: Cochrane, 2016.
23. Higgins JPT, Altman DG and Sterne JAC. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins JPT and Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org
24. Joanna Briggs Institute. JBI Critical appraisal tools University of Adelaide, Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute, http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.html (accessed 30 April 2017)
25. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 1.
26. Brazzelli M, Sandercock PA, Chappell FM, Magnetic resonance imaging versus computed tomography for detection of acute vascular lesions in patients presenting with stroke symptoms. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009; 4: CD007424.
27. Lees R, Selvarajah J, Fenton C, Test accuracy of cognitive screening tests for diagnosis of dementia and multidomain cognitive impairment in stroke. Stroke 2014; 45: 3008–3018.
28. Cochrane Methods. Handbook for DTA reviews, http://methods.cochrane.org/sdt/handbook-dta-reviews (accessed 4 November 2017)
29. Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: 529–536.
30. CASP. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) Checklists, www.casp-uk.net/checklists (accessed 30 April 2017)
31. CEBM. Centre for evidence-based medicine (CEBM) critical appraisal tools, www.cebm.net/critical-appraisal/ (accessed 30 April 2017)
32. PRISMA. Transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Extensions in development, www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/InDevelopment.aspx (2015, accessed 30 April 2017)
33. Feigin VL, Lawes CM, Bennett DA, Barker-Collo SL, Parag V. Worldwide stroke incidence and early case fatality reported in 56 population-based studies: a systematic review. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 355–369.
34. Pendlebury ST, Rothwell PM. Prevalence, incidence, and factors associated with pre-stroke and post-stroke dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Neurol 2009; 8: 1006–1018.
35. Coupar F, Pollock A, Rowe P, Weir C, Langhorne P. Predictors of upper limb recovery after stroke: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin Rehabil 2012; 26: 291–313.
36. Cochrane. Cochrane methods prognosis. Resources and publications, http://methods.cochrane.org/prognosis/our-publications (accessed 30 April 2017)
37. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis of Observational studies in epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 2000; 283: 2008–2012.
38. Banks JL, Marotta CA. Outcomes validity and reliability of the modified Rankin scale: implications for stroke clinical trials: a literature review and synthesis. Stroke 2007; 38: 1091–1096.
39. Boger EJ, Demain S, Latter S. Self-management: a systematic review of outcome measures adopted in self-management interventions for stroke. Disabil Rehabil 2013; 35: 1415–1428.
40. De Vet HCW, Terwee CB, Mokkink LB and Knol DL. Chapter 9. Systematic reviews of measurement properties. In: Measurement in Medicine. A Practical Guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011
41. COSMIN. Systematic reviews of measurement properties, www.cosmin.nl/Systematic%20reviews%20of%20measurement%20properties.html (accessed 30 April 2017)
42. Boers M, Kirwan JR, Wells G, Developing core outcome measurement sets for clinical trials: OMERACT filter 2.0. J Clin Epidemiol 2014; 67: 745–753.
43. Peoples H, Satink T, Steultjens E. Stroke survivors' experiences of rehabilitation: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Scand J Occup Ther 2011; 18: 163–171.
44. Greenwood N, Mackenzie A, Cloud GC, Wilson N. Informal primary carers of stroke survivors living at home-challenges, satisfactions and coping: a systematic review of qualitative studies. Disabil Rehabil 2009; 31: 337–351.
45. Cooke A, Smith D, Booth A. Beyond PICO: the SPIDER tool for qualitative evidence synthesis. Qual Health Res 2012; 22: 1435–1443.
46. Booth A, Cleyle S. Clear and present questions: formulating questions for evidence based practice. Libr Hi Tech 2006; 24: 355–368.
47. Wildridge V, Bell L. How CLIP became ECLIPSE: a mnemonic to assist in searching for health policy/management information. Health Inform Libr J 2002; 19: 113–115.
48. Noyes J, Popay J, Pearson A, Hannes K and Booth A. Chapter 20: Qualitative research and Cochrane reviews. In: Higgins JPT and Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org
49. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12: 181.
50. Wong G, Greenhaulgh T, Westhorp G, Pawson R. Development of methodological guidance, publication standards and training materials for realist and meta-narrative reviews: the RAMESES (realist and meta-narrative evidence syntheses: evolving standards) project. Health Serv Deliv Res 2014; 2: 1–251.
51. EPPI Centre. What is a systematic review? EPPI Centre (Evidence Informed Policy and Practice), http://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=67 (2016, accessed 27 April 2017)
52. Campbell Collaboration. What is a systematic review? www.campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/writing-a-campbell-systematic-review/systemic-review.html (accessed 27 April 2017)
53. Waddington H, White H, Snilstveit B, How to do a good systematic review of effects in international development: a tool kit. J Dev Effect 2012; 4: 359–387.
54. Levac D, Colquhoun H, O'Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 69.
55. Green BN, Johnson CD, Adams A. Writing narrative literature reviews for peer-reviewed journals: secrets of the trade. J Chiropr Med 2006; 5: 101–117.
56. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev 2012; 1: 28.
57. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review, London: Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating (EPPI) Centre, 2009.
58. Barnett-Page E, Thomas J. Methods for the synthesis of qualitative research: a critical review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2009; 9: 59.
59. Morley RF, Norman G, Golder S, Griffith P. A systematic scoping review of the evidence for consumer involvement in organisations undertaking systematic reviews: focus on cochrane. Res Involve Engage 2016; 2: 36.
60. NIHR. Funding Programmes: NHS National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), www.nihr.ac.uk/funding-and-support/funding-for-research-studies/funding-programmes/ (accessed 28 April 2017)
61. European Science Foundation. Implementation of medical research in clinical practice. France: Author, 2012
62. Stroke Foundation. Stroke foundation research framework Australia 2017, https://strokefoundation.org.au/what-we-do/research/ (accessed 4 November 2017)
63. Cochrane Stroke Group. Database of research in stroke (DORIS): cochrane stroke group, www.askdoris.org (accesssed 28 April 2017)
64. DeJong G, Horn SD, Conroy B, Nichols D and Healton EB. Opening the black box of post-stroke rehabilitation: stroke rehabilitation patients, processes, and outcomes. Arch Phys Med Rehabil 2005; 86(12 Suppl 2): S1–S7
65. Glasziou P, Meats E, Heneghan C, Shepperd S. What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews? BMJ 2008; 336: 1472–1474.
66. Hoffmann TC, Erueti C, Glasziou PP. Poor description of non-pharmacological interventions: analysis of consecutive sample of randomised trials. BMJ 2013; 347: f3755.
67. Hoffmann TC, Walker MF, Langhorne P, Eames S, Thomas E, Glasziou P. What's in a name? The challenge of describing interventions in systematic reviews: analysis of a random sample of reviews of non-pharmacological stroke interventions. BMJ Open 2015; 5: e009051.
68. Santisteban L, Teremetz M, Bleton JP, Baron JC, Maier MA, Lindberg PG. Upper limb outcome measures used in stroke rehabilitation studies: a systematic literature review. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0154792.
69. Brady MC, Fredrick A, Williams B. People with aphasia: capacity to consent, research participation and intervention inequalities. Int J Stroke 2013; 8: 193–196.
70. Pollock A, Baer G, Campbell P, Physical rehabilitation approaches for the recovery of function and mobility following stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 4: CD001920.
71. Tyson SF, Connell LA, Lennon S, Busse ME. What treatment packages do UK physiotherapists use to treat postural control and mobility problems after stroke? Disab Rehab 2009; 31: 1494–1500.
72. Tyson SF, Connell LA, Busse ME, Lennon S. What is Bobath? A survey of UK stroke physiotherapists’ perceptions of the content of the Bobath concept to treat postural control and mobility problems after stroke. Disab Rehab 2009; 31: 448–457.
73. Bobath B. Adult hemiplegia: evaluation and treatment, 3rd ed. London: Butterworth-Heinemann, 1990.
74. Davies PM. Steps to follow. A guide to the treatment of adult hemiplegia, Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1985.
75. Carr JH, Shepherd RB. A motor relearning programme for stroke, London: Heinemann Medical, 1982.
76. Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, Firkins L. Top ten research priorities relating to life after stroke. Lancet Neurol 2012; 11: 209.
77. Pollock A, St George B, Fenton M, Firkins L. Top 10 research priorities relating to life after stroke – consensus from stroke survivors, caregivers, and health professionals. Int J Stroke 2014; 9: 313–320.
78. Pollock A, St George B, Rowat A, Scottish Stroke Nurses F. Top 10 research priorities relating to stroke nursing. Int J Stroke 2015. October(10 Suppl A100): 164.
79. Rowat A, Pollock A, St George B, Top 10 research priorities relating to stroke nursing: a rigorous approach to establish a national nurse-led research agenda. J Adv Nurs 2016; 72: 2831–2843.
80. Vickrey BG, Brott TG, Koroshetz WJ, Stroke Research Priorities Meeting Steering C. the National Advisory Neurological Dsorders and Stroke Council. Research priority setting: a summary of the 2012 NINDS stroke planning meeting report. Stroke 2013; 44: 2338–2342.
81. Franklin S, Harhen D, Hayes M, S. M and Pollock A. Stakeholder derived top research priorities for aphasia following stroke. In: World congress of the international associations of logopedics and phoniatrics, Dublin, August 21–25 2016
82. Pollock A, Farmer SE, Brady MC, Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; 12: CD010820.
83. Yaffe J, Montgomery P, Hopewell S, Shepard LD. Empty reviews: a description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One 2012; 7: e36626.
84. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci 2010; 5: 56.
85. Grimshaw J, McAuley LM, Bero LA, Systematic reviews of the effectiveness of quality improvement strategies and programmes. Qual Saf Health Care 2003; 12: 298–303.
86. Gotzsche PC. Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis. BMJ 2000; 321: 585–586.
87. Weir MC, Grimshaw JM, Mayhew A, Fergusson D. Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: a case study in systematic reviews of health care professional reminders. J Clin Epidemiol 2012; 65: 756–763.
88. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS One 2010; 5: e9810.
89. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 2002; 287: 2831–2834.
90. Green S and Higgins JPT. Chapter 2: Preparing a Cochrane review. In: Higgins JPT and Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org
91. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 2011; 377: 108–109.
92. Cochrane. Cochrane Library, www.cochranelibrary.com/ (accessed 28 April 2017)
93. NIHR. PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews University of York: NHS National Institute for Health Research, Centre for reviews and dissemination, www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/ (accessed 28 April 2017)
94. Joanna Briggs Institute. Registered systematic reviews University of Adelaide, Australia: Joanna Briggs Institute, http://joannabriggs.org/research/registered_titles.aspx (accessed 28 April 2017)
95. Davies S. Formulating the evidence based practice question: a review of the frameworks. Evidence Based Library and Information Practice 2011; 6: 75–80
96. Hoffmann TC, Glasziou PP, Boutron I, et al. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide. BMJ 2014; 348: g1687
97. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials 2012; 13: 132.
98. MEDLINE. MEDLINE/Pubmed Resources Guide: U.S. National Library of Medinewww.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/pmresources.html (accessed 21 August 2017)
99. Embase. Excerpta medica database. Elsevier, www.elsevier.com/solutions/embase-biomedical-research#search (accessed 21 August 2017)
100. Cochrane. Cochrane database of systematic reviews (CDSR). John Wiley & Sons, www.cochranelibrary.com/cochrane-database-of-systematic-reviews/ (accessed 21 August 2017)
101. PsychINFO. PsychInfo. A world-class resource for abstractions and citations of behavioral and social science research. American Psychological Association, www.apa.org/pubs/databases/psycinfo/index.aspx (accessed 21 August 2017)
102. PEDro. Physiotherapy Evidence Database Musculoskeletal Health Sydney, School of Public Health: University of Sydney, www.pedro.org.au/ (accessed 21 August 2017)
103. REHABDATA. Explore REHABDATA: National Rehabilitation Information Centre (NARIC), www.naric.com/?q=en/REHABDATA (accessed 21 August 2017)
104. Wanfangdata. E-Resources for China studies. Beijing, China: Chinese Ministry of Science & Technology, www.wanfangdata.com/ (accessed 21 August 2017)
105. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. A comparison of the performance of seven key bibliographic databases in identifying all relevant systematic reviews of interventions for hypertension. Syst Rev 2016; 5: 27.
106. Harden A, Gough D, Quality and relevance appraisal. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, (eds). An introduction to systematic reviews, London: Sage, 2012, pp. 153–178.
107. Katrak P, Bialocerkowski AE, Massy-Westropp N, Kumar S, Grimmer KA. A systematic review of the content of critical appraisal tools. BMC Med Res Methodol 2004; 4: 22.
108. Moher D, Jadad AR, Nichol G, Penman M, Tugwell P, Walsh S. Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists. Control Clin Trials 1995; 16: 62–73.
109. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess 2003; 7: iii–x, 1–173.
110. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Moher D and Boutron I. Chapter 10: Addressing reporting biases. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
111. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG; on behalf of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. Chapter 9: Analysing data and undertaking metaanalyses. In: Higgins JPT, Churchill R, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 5.2.0 (updated June 2017), Cochrane, 2017. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
112. Dixon-Woods M. Using framework-based synthesis for conducting reviews of qualitative studies. BMC Med 2011; 9: 39.
113. Dixon-Woods M, Agarwal S, Jones D, Young B, Sutton A. Synthesising qualitative and quantitative evidence: a review of possible methods. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005; 10: 45–53.
114. Thomas J, Harden A. Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews, London: ESRC National Centre for Research Methods, 2007.
115. Kastner M, Tricco AC, Soobiah C, What is the most appropriate knowledge synthesis method to conduct a review? Protocol for a scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2012; 12: 114.
116. Schünnemann HJ, Oxman AD, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, Glasziou P and Guyatt GH. Chapter 11: Presenting results and ‘Summary of findings’ tables. In: Higgins JPT and Green S (eds) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.handbook.cochrane.org
117. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 2011; 64: 380–382.
118. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008; 336: 924–926.
119. Gough D. Weight of evidence: a framework for the appraisal of the quality and relevance of evidence. Res Papers Educ 2007; 22: 213–228.
120. Pollock A, Campbell P, Baer G, Choo PL, Morris J, Forster A. User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review: using structured methods to enhance the clinical relevance, usefulness and usability of a systematic review update. Syst Rev 2015; 4: 55.
121. Kreis J, Puhan MA, Schunemann HJ, Dickersin K. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect 2013; 16: 323–337.
122. INVOLVE. Public involvement in systematic reviews: supplement to the briefing notes for researchers. Eastleigh: INVOLVE, 2012
123. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ 2008; 337: a1655.
124. Walker MF, Fisher RJ, Korner-Bitensky N, McCluskey A, Carey LM. From what we know to what we do: translating stroke rehabilitation research into practice. Int J Stroke 2013; 8: 11–17.
125. Cahill LS, Carey LM, Lannin NA, Turville M, O'Connor D. Implementation interventions to promote the uptake of evidence-based practices in stroke rehabilitation. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev 2017.
126. Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ 2016; 354: i3507.
127. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 2009; 6: e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 Available from: www.prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA%202009%20flow%20diagram.doc (accessed 4 April 2017).