Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 118, Issue , 2020, Pages 60-68

  Page, Matthew J ^a   McKenzie, Joanne E ^a   Bossuyt, Patrick M ^b   Boutron, Isabelle ^c,d,e   Hoffmann, Tammy ^f   Mulrow, Cynthia D ^g   Shamseer, Larissa ^h   Moher, David ^h,i  

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c INSERM   (France)

^d UNIVERSITÉ PARIS DESCARTES   (France)

^e HÔTEL DIEU   (France)

^f BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^g UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^h UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

ⁱ OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Methodology; Quality; Reporting; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFLICT OF INTEREST; EXERCISE; FUNDING; HUMAN; MEDICAL RESEARCH; META ANALYSIS; PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES; RISK ASSESSMENT; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; CHECKLIST; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PUBLISHING;

CHECKLIST; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85076027436     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.010     Document Type: Article

References (74)

1. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Group, P., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med, 6(7), 2009, e1000097.
2. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, 6(7), 2009, e1000100.
3. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Group, P., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 151 (2009), 264–269.
4. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Group, P., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ, 339, 2009, b2535.
5. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Group, P., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), 1006–1012.
6. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 62 (2009), e1–e34.
7. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339, 2009, b2700.
8. Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 151 (2009), W65–W94.
9. O'Mara-Eves, A., Thomas, J., McNaught, J., Miwa, M., Ananiadou, S., Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev, 4, 2015, 5.
10. Shemilt, I., Khan, N., Park, S., Thomas, J., Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the efficiency of study identification methods in systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 5(1), 2016, 140.
11. Mortensen, M.L., Adam, G.P., Trikalinos, T.A., Kraska, T., Wallace, B.C., An exploration of crowdsourcing citation screening for systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 8:3 (2017), 366–386.
12. Higgins, J.P.T., Lopez-Lopez, J.A., Becker, B.J., Davies, S.R., Dawson, S., Grimshaw, J.M., et al. Synthesising quantitative evidence in systematic reviews of complex health interventions. BMJ Glob Health, 4(Suppl 1), 2019, e000858.
13. McKenzie, J.E., Brennan, S.E., Chapter 12: synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., et al. (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, 2nd ed., 2019, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester (UK).
14. Hoffmann, T.C., Oxman, A.D., Ioannidis, J.P., Moher, D., Lasserson, T.J., Tovey, D.I., et al. Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions. BMJ, 358, 2017, j2998.
15. Glasziou, P.P., Chalmers, I., Green, S., Michie, S., Intervention synthesis: a missing link between a systematic review and practical treatment(s). PLoS Med, 11(8), 2014, e1001690.
16. Li, T., Vedula, S.S., Hadar, N., Parkin, C., Lau, J., Dickersin, K., Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 162 (2015), 287–294.
17. Lakens, D., Hilgard, J., Staaks, J., On the reproducibility of meta-analyses: six practical recommendations. BMC Psychol, 4(1), 2016, 24.
18. Whiting, P., Savovic, J., Higgins, J.P., Caldwell, D.M., Reeves, B.C., Shea, B., et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 69 (2016), 225–234.
19. Shea, B.J., Reeves, B.C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., et al. Amstar 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 358, 2017, j4008.
20. Moher, D., Schulz, K.F., Simera, I., Altman, D.G., Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med, 7(2), 2010, e1000217.
21. Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A.C., et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med, 13(5), 2016, e1002028.
22. Page, M.J., Moher, D., Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev, 6(1), 2017, 263.
23. Page, M.J., Altman, D.G., Shamseer, L., McKenzie, J.E., Ahmadzai, N., Wolfe, D., et al. Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 94 (2018), 8–18.
24. Page, M.J., Altman, D.G., McKenzie, J.E., Shamseer, L., Ahmadzai, N., Wolfe, D., et al. Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 95 (2018), 7–18.
25. Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., Mulrow, C.M., et al. Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Available at osf.io/2v7mk. (Accessed 14 February 2018)
26. Higgins, J.P.T., Green, S., (eds.) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011], 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration, London, UK Available at www.cochrane-handbook.org.
27. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. 2011, The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
28. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-E, 2014, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD Available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov. (Accessed 3 December 2019)
29. Aromataris, E., Munn, Z., Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewer's Manual. 2017, The Joanna Briggs Institute, Adelaide, Australia Available at https://reviewersmanual.joannabriggs.org/.
30. Higgins, J.P., Lane, P.W., Anagnostelis, B., Anzures-Cabrera, J., Baker, N.F., Cappelleri, J.C., et al. A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 4:4 (2013), 351–366.
31. Ioannidis, J.P., The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 94:3 (2016), 485–514.
32. Hammad, T.A., Neyarapally, G.A., Pinheiro, S.P., Iyasu, S., Rochester, G., Dal Pan, G., Reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials with a focus on drug safety: an empirical assessment. Clin Trials 10 (2013), 389–397.
33. Riaz, I.B., Khan, M.S., Riaz, H., Goldberg, R.J., Disorganized systematic reviews and meta-analyses: time to systematize the conduct and publication of these study overviews?. Am J Med, 129, 2016 339.e11-8.
34. Schulz, K.F., Altman, D.G., Moher, D., CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 340, 2010, c332.
35. Chan, A.W., Tetzlaff, J.M., Altman, D.G., Laupacis, A., Gotzsche, P.C., Krleza-Jeric, K., et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med 158 (2013), 200–207.
36. Bossuyt, P.M., Reitsma, J.B., Bruns, D.E., Gatsonis, C.A., Glasziou, P.P., Irwig, L., et al. Stard 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies. BMJ, 351, 2015, h5527.
37. Nosek, B.A., Alter, G., Banks, G.C., Borsboom, D., Bowman, S.D., Breckler, S.J., et al. Scientific standards. Promoting an open research culture. Science 348 (2015), 1422–1425.
38. Gamble, C., Krishan, A., Stocken, D., Lewis, S., Juszczak, E., Dore, C., et al. Guidelines for the content of statistical analysis plans in clinical trials. JAMA 318 (2017), 2337–2343.
39. Higgins, J.P.T., Lasserson, T., Chandler, J., Tovey, D., Churchill, R., Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (v1.04). 2017, Cochrane, London.
40. McInnes, M.F., Moher, D., Thombs, B.D., McGrath, T.A., Bossuyt, P.M., the PRISMA-DTA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 319 (2018), 388–396.
41. McGrath, T.A., Alabousi, M., Skidmore, B., Korevaar, D.A., Bossuyt, P.M.M., Moher, D., et al. Recommendations for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a systematic review. Syst Rev, 6(1), 2017, 194.
42. Welch, V., Petticrew, M., Tugwell, P., Moher, D., O'Neill, J., Waters, E., et al. PRISMA-equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med, 9(10), 2012, e1001333.
43. Welch, V., Petticrew, M., Petkovic, J., Moher, D., Waters, E., White, H., et al. Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration. Int J Equity Health, 14, 2015, 92.
44. Beller, E.M., Glasziou, P.P., Altman, D.G., Hopewell, S., Bastian, H., Chalmers, I., et al. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med, 10, 2013, e1001419.
45. Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D.M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C.H., Cameron, C., et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med 162 (2015), 777–784.
46. Stewart, L.A., Clarke, M., Rovers, M., Riley, R.D., Simmonds, M., Stewart, G., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA 313 (2015), 1657–1665.
47. Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev, 4, 2015, 1.
48. Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, 2015, g7647.
49. Zorzela, L., Loke, Y.K., Ioannidis, J.P., Golder, S., Santaguida, P., Altman, D.G., et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ, 352, 2016, i157.
50. Farid-Kapadia, M., Joachim, K.C., Balasingham, C., Clyburne-Sherin, A., Offringa, M., Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?-two systematic reviews. Syst Rev, 6(1), 2017, 31.
51. Guise, J.M., Butler, M.E., Chang, C., Viswanathan, M., Pigott, T., Tugwell, P., et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews - paper 6: PRISMA-CI extension statement & checklist. J Clin Epidemiol 90 (2017), 43–50.
52. Guise, J.M., Butler, M., Chang, C., Viswanathan, M., Pigott, T., Tugwell, P., et al. AHRQ series on complex intervention systematic reviews-paper 7: PRISMA-CI elaboration and explanation. J Clin Epidemiol 90 (2017), 51–58.
53. Tricco, A.C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K.K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 169 (2018), 467–473.
54. Tong, A., Flemming, K., McInnes, E., Oliver, S., Craig, J., Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol, 12, 2012, 181.
55. Kable, A.K., Pich, J., Maslin-Prothero, S.E., A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Educ Today 32:8 (2012), 878–886.
56. Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., Pawson, R., RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med, 11, 2013, 21.
57. Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., Pawson, R., RAMESES publication standards: meta-narrative reviews. BMC Med, 11, 2013, 20.
58. Gagnier, J.J., Morgenstern, H., Altman, D.G., Berlin, J., Chang, S., McCulloch, P., et al. Consensus-based recommendations for investigating clinical heterogeneity in systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 13, 2013, 106.
59. Montgomery, P., Underhill, K., Gardner, F., Operario, D., Mayo-Wilson, E., The Oxford Implementation Index: a new tool for incorporating implementation data into systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 66 (2013), 874–882.
60. Stovold, E., Beecher, D., Foxlee, R., Noel-Storr, A., Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev, 3, 2014, 54.
61. Atkinson, K.M., Koenka, A.C., Sanchez, C.E., Moshontz, H., Cooper, H., Reporting standards for literature searches and report inclusion criteria: making research syntheses more transparent and easy to replicate. Res Synth Methods 6:1 (2015), 87–95.
62. Vries, R.B.M., Hooijmans, C.R., Langendam, M.W., Luijk, J., Leenaars, M., Ritskes-Hoitinga, M., et al. A protocol format for the preparation, registration and publication of systematic reviews of animal intervention studies. Evid Based Preclinical Med, 2(1), 2015, e00007.
63. Paynter, R., Banez, L.L., Berliner, E., Erinoff, E., Lege-Matsuura, J., Potter, S., et al. AHRQ methods for effective health care. EPC methods: an exploration of the use of text-mining software in systematic reviews. 2016, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), Rockville (MD).
64. Churchill, R., Lasserson, T., Chandler, J., Tovey, D., Higgins, J.P.T., Standards for the reporting of new Cochrane intervention reviews. Higgins, J.P.T., Lasserson, T., Chandler, J., Tovey, D., Churchill, R., (eds.) Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (v1.04), 2017, Cochrane, London.
65. Chandler, J., Lasserson, T., Higgins, J.P.T., Tovey, D., Churchill, R., Standards for the planning, conduct and reporting of updates of Cochrane Intervention Reviews. Higgins, J.P.T., Lasserson, T., Chandler, J., Tovey, D., Churchill, R., (eds.) Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (v1.04), 2017, Cochrane, London.
66. The Methods Group of the Campbell Collaboration. Methodological expectations of Campbell Collaboration intervention reviews: reporting standards. Campbell Policies Guidel Ser No. 4, 2017.
67. Boers, M., Graphics and statistics for cardiology: designing effective tables for presentation and publication. Heart 104 (2018), 192–200.
68. Muller, V.I., Cieslik, E.C., Laird, A.R., Fox, P.T., Radua, J., Mataix-Cols, D., et al. Ten simple rules for neuroimaging meta-analysis. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 84 (2018), 151–161.
69. Mayo-Wilson, E., Li, T., Fusco, N., Dickersin, K., Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Res Synth Methods 9:1 (2018), 2–12.
70. Appelbaum, M., Cooper, H., Kline, R.B., Mayo-Wilson, E., Nezu, A.M., Rao, S.M., Journal article reporting standards for quantitative research in psychology: the APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol 73:1 (2018), 3–25.
71. Levitt, H.M., Bamberg, M., Creswell, J.W., Frost, D.M., Josselson, R., Suarez-Orozco, C., Journal article reporting standards for qualitative primary, qualitative meta-analytic, and mixed methods research in psychology: the APA Publications and Communications Board task force report. Am Psychol 73:1 (2018), 26–46.
72. Haddaway, N.R., Macura, B., Whaley, P., Pullin, A.S., 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. Environ Evid, 7, 2018, 7.
73. Johnson, B.T., Hennessy, E.A., Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: best practice methods for research syntheses. Soc Sci Med 233 (2019), 237–251.
74. Blanco, D., Altman, D., Moher, D., Boutron, I., Kirkham, J.J., Cobo, E., Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research. BMJ Open, 9(5), 2019, e026589.