PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

The BMJ

Volumn 372, Issue , 2021, Pages

  Page, Matthew J ^a   Moher, David ^b,v   Bossuyt, Patrick M ^c   Boutron, Isabelle ^d   Hoffmann, Tammy C ^e   Mulrow, Cynthia D ^f   Shamseer, Larissa ^g,v   Tetzlaff, Jennifer M ^h   Akl, Elie A ^i,w   Brennan, Sue E ^a   Chou, Roger ^j   Glanville, Julie ^k   Grimshaw, Jeremy M ^b,v   Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn ^l,x   Lalu, Manoj M ^b,m   Li, Tianjing ^n,y   Loder, Elizabeth W ^o,z   Mayo Wilson, Evan ^p   Mcdonald, Steve ^a   Mcguinness, Luke A ^q   Stewart, Lesley A ^r   Thomas, James ^s   Tricco, Andrea C ^t,aa,ab   Welch, Vivian A ^u,v   Whiting, Penny ^q   Mckenzie, Joanne E ^a   more..

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^d INSERM   (France)

^e BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

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

^g ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^h Evidence Partners Corporation   (Canada)

ⁱ AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^j OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^l ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

^m UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^o HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^p INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^q UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^r UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^s UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^t ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^u BRUYÈRE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^v UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^w MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^x UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^y JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^z University of Toronto ^*  (United Kingdom)

^aa UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^ab QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BULLET; HUMAN; NOMENCLATURE; PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; MEASUREMENT ACCURACY; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; QUALITY CONTROL; STATISTICS;

DATA ACCURACY; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; MEDICAL WRITING; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 85103235741     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n160     Document Type: Review

References (206)

1. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535
2. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006-12. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-9, W64. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8:336-41. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med 2009;3:e123-30.
7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Reprint-preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther 2009;89:873-80. doi:10.1093/ptj/89.9.873
8. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, 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 2009;62:e1-34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
9. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, 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 2009;151:W65-94. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136
11. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
13. Page MJ, 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 2017;6:263. doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8
14. 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. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
15. France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:25. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0
16. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, 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 2015;162:777-84. doi:10.7326/M14-2385
17. Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, et al, PRISMA-IPD Development Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA 2015;313:1657-65. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3656
18. Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al, PRISMAHarms Group. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ 2016;352:i157. doi:10.1136/bmj.i157
19. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al, and the PRISMA-DTA Group. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 2018;319:388-96. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.19163
20. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med 2018;169:467-73. doi:10.7326/M18-0850
21. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
22. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350:g7647. doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647
23. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71.
24. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;S0895-4356(21)00040-8. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003.
25. Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med 2015;13:221. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y
26. Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Moher D, et al. Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study. BMC Med 2019;17:205. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0
27. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.0. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook.
28. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch12.
29. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al, PRISMA for Abstracts Group. PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med 2013;10:e1001419. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419
30. Welch V, Petticrew M, Petkovic J, et al, PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group. Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;70:68-89. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.09.001
31. Thomas J, Kneale D, McKenzie JE. Determining the scope of the review and the questions it will address. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch2.
32. Rehfuess EA, Booth A, Brereton L, et al. Towards a taxonomy of logic models in systematic reviews and health technology assessments: A priori, staged, and iterative approaches. Res Synth Methods 2018;9:13-24. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1254
33. Booth A, Noyes J, Flemming K, Moore G, Tunçalp Ö, Shakibazadeh E. Formulating questions to explore complex interventions within qualitative evidence synthesis. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4(Suppl 1):e001107. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001107
34. Munn Z, Stern C, Aromataris E, Lockwood C, Jordan Z. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:5. doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4
35. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. The National Academies Press, 2011.
36. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS Med 2016;13:e1002028. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
37. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, et al. Defining the criteria for including studies and how they will be grouped for the synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch3.
38. Chamberlain C, O'Mara-Eves A, Porter J, et al. Psychosocial interventions for supporting women to stop smoking in pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2:CD001055. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001055.pub5
39. Dwan KM, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ. Do systematic reviews still exclude studies with "no relevant outcome data"? BMJ 2017;358:j3919. doi:10.1136/bmj.j3919
40. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, et al. Searching for and selecting studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch4.
41. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al, PRISMA-S Group. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2021;10:39. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.
42. Faggion CMJr, Huivin R, Aranda L, Pandis N, Alarcon M. The search and selection for primary studies in systematic reviews published in dental journals indexed in MEDLINE was not fully reproducible. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;98:53-61. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.011
43. Spry C, Mierzwinski-Urban M. The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports. Res Synth Methods 2018;9:521-6. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1330
44. ISSG Search Filter Resource. Glanville J, Lefebvre C, Wright K, eds. The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group. 2020. https://sites.google.com/a/york.ac.uk/issg-search-filters-resource/home.
45. Stansfield C, O'Mara-Eves A, Thomas J. Text mining for search term development in systematic reviewing: A discussion of some methods and challenges. Res Synth Methods 2017;8:355-65. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1250
46. Glanville J. Text mining for information specialists. In: Levay P, Craven J, eds. Systematic Searching: Practical ideas for improving results. Facet Publishing, 2019.
47. Clark J, Glasziou P, Del Mar C, Bannach-Brown A, Stehlik P, Scott AM. A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;121:81-90. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.008
48. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, Cogo E, Foerster V, Lefebvre C. PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:40-6. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021
49. Wang Z, Nayfeh T, Tetzlaff J, O'Blenis P, Murad MH. Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews. PLoS One 2020;15:e0227742. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0227742
50. Waffenschmidt S, Knelangen M, Sieben W, Bühn S, Pieper D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2019;19:132. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0
51. Gartlehner G, Affengruber L, Titscher V, et al. Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;121:20-8. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.005
52. 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 2016;5:140. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0315-4
53. 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 2015;4:5. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-5
54. Marshall IJ, Noel-Storr A, Kuiper J, Thomas J, Wallace BC. Machine learning for identifying randomized controlled trials: an evaluation and practitioner's guide. Res Synth Methods 2018;9:602-14. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1287
55. Noel-Storr A. Working with a new kind of team: harnessing the wisdom of the crowd in trial identification. EFSA J 2019;17(Suppl 1):e170715. doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2019.e170715
56. Nama N, Sampson M, Barrowman N, et al. Crowdsourcing the citation screening process for systematic reviews: validation study. J Med Internet Res 2019;21:e12953. doi:10.2196/12953
57. Li T, Saldanha IJ, Jap J, et al. A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;115:77-89. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.005
58. Robson RC, Pham B, Hwee J, et al. Few studies exist examining methods for selecting studies, abstracting data, and appraising quality in a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;106:121-35. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.10.003
59. e JY, Saldanha IJ, Canner J, Schmid CH, Le JT, Li T. Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 2020;11:354-62. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1396
60. Li T, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ. Collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch5.
61. Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev 2019;8:163. doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9
62. Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2015;4:78. doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0066-7
63. Jackson JL, Kuriyama A, Anton A, et al. The accuracy of Google Translate for abstracting data from non-English-language trials for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 2019;171:677-9. doi:10.7326/M19-0891
64. Jelicic Kadic A, Vucic K, Dosenovic S, Sapunar D, Puljak L. Extracting data from figures with software was faster, with higher interrater reliability than manual extraction. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;74:119-23. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.002
65. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin KMUDS investigators. Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Res Synth Methods 2018;9:2-12. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1277
66. Page MJ, Forbes A, Chau M, Green SE, McKenzie JE. Investigation of bias in meta-analyses due to selective inclusion of trial effect estimates: empirical study. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011863. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011863
67. Mayo-Wilson E, Fusco N, Li T, Hong H, Canner JK, Dickersin KMUDS investigators. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;86:39-50. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.007
68. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, et al. Cherry-picking by trialists and meta-analysts can drive conclusions about intervention efficacy. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;91:95-110. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.07.014
69. López-López JA, Page MJ, Lipsey MW, Higgins JPT. Dealing with effect size multiplicity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 2018;9:336-51. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1310
70. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, et al. Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(10):MR000035. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000035.pub2
71. Lundh A, Boutron I, Stewart L, Hróbjartsson A. What to do with a clinical trial with conflicts of interest. BMJ Evid Based Med 2020;25:157-8. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2019-111230
72. Boutron I, Page MJ, Higgins JPT, et al. Considering bias and conflicts of interest among the included studies. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch7.
73. Hoffmann TC, Oxman AD, Ioannidis JP, et al. Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions. BMJ 2017;358:j2998. doi:10.1136/bmj.j2998
74. Lewin S, Hendry M, Chandler J, et al. Assessing the complexity of interventions within systematic reviews: development, content and use of a new tool (iCAT-SR). BMC Med Res Methodol 2017;17:76. doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0349-x
75. 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 metaanalyses. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:874-82. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.03.006
76. Bai A, Shukla VK, Bak G, et al. Quality Assessment Tools Project Report. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 2012.
77. Büttner F, Winters M, Delahunt E, et al. Identifying the 'incredible'! Part 1: assessing the risk of bias in outcomes included in systematic reviews. Br J Sports Med 2020;54:798-800. doi:10.1136/bjsports-2019-100806
78. 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. doi:10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-W
79. Olivo SA, Macedo LG, Gadotti IC, Fuentes J, Stanton T, Magee DJ. Scales to assess the quality of randomized controlled trials: a systematic review. Phys Ther 2008;88:156-75. doi:10.2522/ptj.20070147
80. Page MJ, Higgins JP, Clayton G, Sterne JA, Hróbjartsson A, Savović J. Empirical evidence of study design biases in randomized trials: systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies. PLoS One 2016;11:e0159267. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0159267
81. Page MJ, Higgins JPT, Sterne JAC. Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch13.
82. Chan AW, Song F, Vickers A, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet 2014;383:257-66. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62296-5
83. Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJReporting Bias Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS One 2013;8:e66844. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0066844
84. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Higgins JPT. Tools for assessing risk of reporting biases in studies and syntheses of studies: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2018;8:e019703. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019703
85. Whiting P, Wolff R, Mallett S, Simera I, Savović J. A proposed framework for developing quality assessment tools. Syst Rev 2017;6:204. doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0604-6
86. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898
87. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ 2016;355:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919
88. Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC. RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2016;23:193-201. doi:10.1093/jamia/ocv044
89. Higgins JPT, Li T, Deeks JJ. Choosing effect measures and computing estimates of effect. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch6.
90. Deeks JJ. Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes. Stat Med 2002;21:1575-600. doi:10.1002/sim.1188
91. Schünemann HJ, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, et al. Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch15.
92. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, Ryan RE, et al. Summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch9.
93. da Costa BR, Rutjes AW, Johnston BC, et al. Methods to convert continuous outcomes into odds ratios of treatment response and numbers needed to treat: meta-epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol 2012;41:1445-59. doi:10.1093/ije/dys124
94. Weir CJ, Butcher I, Assi V, et al. Dealing with missing standard deviation and mean values in meta-analysis of continuous outcomes: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2018;18:25. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0483-0
95. Mavridis D, White IR. Dealing with missing outcome data in metaanalysis. Res Synth Methods 2020;11:2-13. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1349
96. Kahale LA, Diab B, Brignardello-Petersen R, et al. Systematic reviews do not adequately report or address missing outcome data in their analyses: a methodological survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;99:14-23. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.02.016
97. Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction-GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:383-94. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026
98. Schünemann HJ, Higgins JPT, Vist GE, et al. Completing 'Summary of findings' tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch14.
99. Anzures-Cabrera J, Higgins JP. Graphical displays for metaanalysis: An overview with suggestions for practice. Res Synth Methods 2010;1:66-80. doi:10.1002/jrsm.6
100. Lewis S, Clarke M. Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees. BMJ 2001;322:1479-80. doi:10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1479
101. Schriger DL, Altman DG, Vetter JA, Heafner T, Moher D. Forest plots in reports of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study reviewing current practice. Int J Epidemiol 2010;39:421-9. doi:10.1093/ije/dyp370
102. Kossmeier M, Tran US, Voracek M. Charting the landscape of graphical displays for meta-analysis and systematic reviews: a comprehensive review, taxonomy, and feature analysis. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020;20:26. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-0911-9
103. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Collaboration, 2019. doi:10.1002/9781119536604.ch10.
104. McKenzie JE, Beller EM, Forbes AB. Introduction to systematic reviews and meta-analysis. Respirology 2016;21:626-37. doi:10.1111/resp.12783
105. Rice K, Higgins J, Lumley T. A re-evaluation of fixed effect(s) metaanalysis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc 2018;181:205-27. doi:10.1111/rssa.12275.
106. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2011;343:d4002. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002
107. Page MJ, Altman DG, McKenzie JE, 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 2018;95:7-18. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.022
108. Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Bender R, et al. Methods to calculate uncertainty in the estimated overall effect size from a random-effects meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2019;10:23-43. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1319
109. Thompson SG, Higgins JP. How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted? Stat Med 2002;21:1559-73. doi:10.1002/sim.1187
110. Mavridis D, Salanti G. A practical introduction to multivariate meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res 2013;22:133-58. doi:10.1177/0962280211432219
111. Konstantopoulos S. Fixed effects and variance components estimation in three-level meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2011;2:61-76. doi:10.1002/jrsm.35
112. Hedges LV, Tipton E, Johnson MC. Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Res Synth Methods 2010;1:39-65. doi:10.1002/jrsm.5
113. Veroniki AA, Jackson D, Viechtbauer W, et al. Methods to estimate the between-study variance and its uncertainty in meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2016;7:55-79. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1164
114. Langan D, Higgins JPT, Jackson D, et al. A comparison of heterogeneity variance estimators in simulated random-effects meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods 2019;10:83-98. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1316
115. Higgins JPT, López-López JA, Becker BJ, et al. Synthesising quantitative evidence in systematic reviews of complex health interventions. BMJ Glob Health 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000858. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858
116. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 2020;368:l6890. doi:10.1136/bmj.l6890
117. Harris R, Bradburn M, Deeks J, et al. metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J 2008;8:3-28. doi:10.1177/1536867X0800800102.
118. Viechtbauer W. Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package. J Stat Softw 2010;36:1-48. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03.
119. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60. doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
120. Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects metaanalyses. BMJ 2011;342:d549. doi:10.1136/bmj.d549
121. Fisher DJ, Carpenter JR, Morris TP, Freeman SC, Tierney JF. Meta-analytical methods to identify who benefits most from treatments: daft, deluded, or deft approach? BMJ 2017;356:j573. doi:10.1136/bmj.j573
122. Mueller KF, Meerpohl JJ, Briel M, et al. Methods for detecting, quantifying, and adjusting for dissemination bias in meta-analysis are described. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;80:25-33. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.04.015
123. Vevea JL, Coburn K, Sutton A. Publication bias. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC, eds. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation, 2019: 383-430. doi:10.7758/9781610448864.21.
124. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Chan AW, Gamble C, Dwan KM, Williamson PR. Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews. BMJ 2018;362:k3802. doi:10.1136/bmj.k3802
125. Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401-6. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015
126. Schunemann HJ, Brozek J, Guyatt G, et al, eds. Handbook for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations using the GRADE approach. McMaster University, 2013.
127. Berkman ND, Lohr KN, Ansari MT, et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:1312-24. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.023
128. Nikolakopoulou A, Higgins JPT, Papakonstantinou T, et al. CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLoS Med 2020;17:e1003082. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003082
129. Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, et al. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2017;87:4-13. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006
130. Santesso N, Glenton C, Dahm P, et al, GRADE Working Group. GRADE guidelines 26: informative statements to communicate the findings of systematic reviews of interventions. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;119:126-35. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.10.014
131. Boers M. Graphics and statistics for cardiology: designing effective tables for presentation and publication. Heart 2018;104:192-200. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311581
132. Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev 2014;3:54. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-54
133. Sampson M, Tetzlaff J, Urquhart C. Precision of healthcare systematic review searches in a cross-sectional sample. Res Synth Methods 2011;2:119-25. doi:10.1002/jrsm.42
134. Haddaway NR, Westgate MJ. Predicting the time needed for environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps. Conserv Biol 2019;33:434-43. doi:10.1111/cobi.13231
135. McDonagh M, Peterson K, Raina P, et al. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care: Avoiding Bias in Selecting Studies. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2008.
136. McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods 2021;12:55-61. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1411.
137. Altman DG, Cates C. The need for individual trial results in reports of systematic reviews. BMJ 2001;323:776.
138. Hemming K, Taljaard M, McKenzie JE, et al. Reporting of stepped wedge cluster randomised trials: extension of the CONSORT 2010 statement with explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2018;363:k1614. doi:10.1136/bmj.k1614
139. Jap J, Saldanha IJ, Smith BT, Lau J, Schmid CH, Li TData Abstraction Assistant Investigators. Features and functioning of Data Abstraction Assistant, a software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 2019;10:2-14. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1326
140. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 2002;287:2831-4. doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2831
141. Parmelli E, Liberati A, D'Amico R. Reporting of outcomes in systematic reviews: comparison of protocols and published systematic reviews (abstract). XV Cochrane Colloquium; 2007 Oct 23-27; São Paulo, Brazil. 2007:118-9.
142. Dwan K, Kirkham JJ, Williamson PR, Gamble C. Selective reporting of outcomes in randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of cystic fibrosis. BMJ Open 2013;3:e002709. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002709
143. Shah K, Egan G, Huan LN, Kirkham J, Reid E, Tejani AM. Outcome reporting bias in Cochrane systematic reviews: a crosssectional analysis. BMJ Open 2020;10:e032497. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032497
144. Schandelmaier S, Briel M, Varadhan R, et al. Development of the Instrument to assess the Credibility of Effect Modification Analyses (ICEMAN) in randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses. CMAJ 2020;192:E901-6. doi:10.1503/cmaj.200077
145. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Contourenhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:991-6. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
146. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables-binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:158-72. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012
147. Guyatt GH, Thorlund K, Oxman AD, et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profilescontinuous outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2013;66:173-83. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.08.001
148. Santesso N, Carrasco-Labra A, Langendam M, et al. Improving GRADE evidence tables part 3: detailed guidance for explanatory footnotes supports creating and understanding GRADE certainty in the evidence judgments. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;74:28-39. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.12.006
149. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins J, et al, PROBIS group. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225-34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
150. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ 2017;358:j4008. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008
151. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev 2012;1:7. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-7
152. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Tricco AC. Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting. Syst Rev 2018;7:32. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0699-4
153. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2012;1:2. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-2
154. Sender D, Clark J, Hoffmann TC. Analysis of articles directly related to randomized trials finds poor protocol availability and inconsistent linking of articles. J Clin Epidemiol 2020;124:69-74. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.04.017
155. Koensgen N, Rombey T, Allers K, Mathes T, Hoffmann F, Pieper D. Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;110:34-41. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.012
156. Pieper D, Allers K, Mathes T, et al. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;(2). doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000053.
157. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017;2:MR000033. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub3.
158. Hakoum MB, Anouti S, Al-Gibbawi M, et al. Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey. BMJ Open 2016;6:e011997. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011997
159. Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, Hróbjartsson A. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;8:MR000047. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000047.pub2
160. Taichman DB, Backus J, Baethge C, et al. A disclosure form for work submitted to medical journals: a proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Ann Intern Med 2020;172:429-30. doi:10.7326/M19-3933
161. Haddaway NR. Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science. Environ Evid 2018;7:26. doi:10.1186/s13750-018-0140-4.
162. Goldacre B, Morton CE, DeVito NJ. Why researchers should share their analytic code. BMJ 2019;367:l6365. doi:10.1136/bmj.l6365
163. Mello MM, Lieou V, Goodman SN. Clinical trial participants' views of the risks and benefits of data sharing. N Engl J Med 2018;378:2202-11. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1713258
164. Naudet F, Sakarovitch C, Janiaud P, et al. Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in The BMJ and PLOS Medicine. BMJ 2018;360:k400. doi:10.1136/bmj.k400
165. Saldanha IJ, Smith BT, Ntzani E, Jap J, Balk EM, Lau J. The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR): descriptive characteristics of publicly available data and opportunities for research. Syst Rev 2019;8:334. doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1250-y
166. Wilkinson MD, Dumontier M, Aalbersberg IJ, et al. The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship. Sci Data 2016;3:160018. doi:10.1038/sdata.2016.18
167. Khodashahi M, Rezaieyazdi Z, Sahebari M. Comparison of the therapeutic effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review. Arch Rheumatol 2019;35:107-16. doi:10.5606/ArchRheumatol.2020.7375
168. Keynejad RC, Hanlon C, Howard LM. Psychological interventions for common mental disorders in women experiencing intimate partner violence in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Psychiatry 2020;7:173-90. doi:10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30510-3
169. Chu DK, Akl EA, Duda S, Solo K, Yaacoub S, Schünemann HJCOVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors. Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet 2020;395:1973-87. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31142-9
170. Verhoef LM, van den Bemt BJF, van der Maas A, et al. Downtitration and discontinuation strategies of tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;5:CD010455. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010455.pub3
171. Odor PM, Bampoe S, Gilhooly D, Creagh-Brown B, Moonesinghe SR. Perioperative interventions for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 2020;368:m540. doi:10.1136/bmj.m540
172. Jay MA, Mc Grath-Lone L. Educational outcomes of children in contact with social care in England: a systematic review. Syst Rev 2019;8:155. doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1071-z
173. Freemantle N, Ginsberg DA, McCool R, et al. Comparative assessment of onabotulinumtoxinA and mirabegron for overactive bladder: an indirect treatment comparison. BMJ Open 2016;6:e009122. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2015-009122
174. Bomhof-Roordink H, Gärtner FR, Stiggelbout AM, Pieterse AH. Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review. BMJ Open 2019;9:e031763. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-031763
175. Claire R, Chamberlain C, Davey MA, et al. Pharmacological interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;3:CD010078. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD010078.pub3
176. Brennan SE, McDonald S, Page MJ, et al. Long-term effects of alcohol consumption on cognitive function: a systematic review and doseresponse analysis of evidence published between 2007 and 2018. Syst Rev 2020;9:33. doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1220-4
177. Allida S, Cox KL, Hsieh CF, Lang H, House A, Hackett ML. Pharmacological, psychological, and non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for treating depression after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;1:CD003437. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD003437.pub4
178. Hollands GJ, Carter P, Anwer S, et al. Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;9:CD012573. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012573.pub3.
179. Kunzler AM, Helmreich I, König J, et al. Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;7:CD013684. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013684.
180. Munthe-Kaas HM, Berg RC, Blaasvar N. Effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Syst Rev 2018;14:1-281. doi:10.4073/csr.2018.3.
181. Das JK, Salam RA, Mahmood SB, et al. Food fortification with multiple micronutrients: impact on health outcomes in general population. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;12:CD011400. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD011400.pub2
182. Hunter BM, Harrison S, Portela A, Bick D. The effects of cash transfers and vouchers on the use and quality of maternity care services: A systematic review. PLoS One 2017;12:e0173068-68. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0173068
183. Kyburz KS, Eliades T, Papageorgiou SN. What effect does functional appliance treatment have on the temporomandibular joint? A systematic review with meta-analysis. Prog Orthod 2019;20:32. doi:10.1186/s40510-019-0286-9
184. Pantoja T, Grimshaw JM, Colomer N, Castanon C, Leniz Martelli J. Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;12:CD001174. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001174.pub4
185. Kock L, Brown J, Hiscock R, Tattan-Birch H, Smith C, Shahab L. Individual-level behavioural smoking cessation interventions tailored for disadvantaged socioeconomic position: a systematic review and meta-regression. Lancet Public Health 2019;4:e628-44. doi:10.1016/S2468-2667(19)30220-8
186. Roth DE, Leung M, Mesfin E, Qamar H, Watterworth J, Papp E. Vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy: state of the evidence from a systematic review of randomised trials. BMJ 2017;359:j5237. doi:10.1136/bmj.j5237
187. Karjalainen TV, Jain NB, Heikkinen J, Johnston RV, Page CM, Buchbinder R. Surgery for rotator cuff tears. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;12:CD013502. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD013502.
188. Mudano AS, Tugwell P, Wells GA, Singh JA. Tai Chi for rheumatoid arthritis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;9:CD004849. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004849.pub2.
189. Chambergo-Michilot D, Tellez WA, Becerra-Chauca N, Zafra-Tanaka JH, Taype-Rondan A. Text message reminders for improving sun protection habits: A systematic review. PLoS One 2020;15:e0233220. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0233220
190. Kayssi A, Al-Jundi W, Papia G, et al. Drug-eluting balloon angioplasty versus uncoated balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis of the femoropopliteal arteries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;1:CD012510. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD012510.pub2
191. Barker AL, Soh SE, Sanders KM, et al. Aspirin and fracture risk: a systematic review and exploratory meta-analysis of observational studies. BMJ Open 2020;10:e026876. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026876
192. Feng Q, Zhou A, Zou H, et al. Quadruple versus triple combination antiretroviral therapies for treatment naive people with HIV: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4179. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4179
193. Neufeld KJ, Needham DM, Oh ES, et al. Antipsychotics for the Prevention and Treatment of Delirium. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2019. (AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Reviews.) doi:10.23970/AHRQEPCCER219.
194. Gelbenegger G, Postula M, Pecen L, et al. Aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease: a meta-analysis with a particular focus on subgroups. BMC Med 2019;17:198. doi:10.1186/s12916-019-1428-0
195. Sterne JAC, Murthy S, Diaz JV, et al, WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Association between administration of systemic corticosteroids and mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19: a meta-analysis. JAMA 2020;324:1330-41. doi:10.1001/jama.2020.17023
196. Chau S, Herrmann N, Ruthirakuhan MT, Chen JJ, Lanctôt KL. Latrepirdine for Alzheimer's disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015;(4):CD009524. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009524.pub2.
197. Stone R, de Hoop T, Coombes A, et al. What works to improve early grade literacy in Latin America and the Caribbean? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Syst Rev 2020;16:e1067. doi:10.1002/cl2.1067.
198. Ghasemiesfe M, Barrow B, Leonard S, Keyhani S, Korenstein D. Association between marijuana use and risk of cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open 2019;2:e1916318. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.16318
199. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Mayr V, Dobrescu AI, et al. Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020;4:CD013574. doi:10.1002/14651858.Cd013574.
200. Kettrey HH, Marx RA, Tanner-Smith EE. Effects of bystander programs on the prevention of sexual assault among adolescents and college students: A systematic review. Campbell Syst Rev 2019;15:e1013. doi:10.4073/csr.2019.1.
201. Jud L, Fotouhi J, Andronic O, et al. Applicability of augmented reality in orthopedic surgery - A systematic review. BMC Musculoskelet Disord 2020;21:103. doi:10.1186/s12891-020-3110-2
202. Semahegn A, Torpey K, Manu A, Assefa N, Tesfaye G, Ankomah A. Psychotropic medication non-adherence and its associated factors among patients with major psychiatric disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2020;9:17. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-1274-3
203. Tanjong Ghogomu E, Suresh S, Rayco-Solon P, et al. Deworming in non-pregnant adolescent girls and adult women: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Syst Rev 2018;7:239. doi:10.1186/s13643-018-0859-6
204. Chou R, Dana T, Fu R, et al. Screening for hepatitis C virus infection in adolescents and adults: updated evidence report and systematic review for the US Preventive Services Task Force. JAMA 2020; doi:10.1001/jama.2019.20788
205. Buchbinder R, Johnston RV, Rischin KJ, et al. Percutaneous vertebroplasty for osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018;11:CD006349. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD006349.pub4.
206. Ritchie SJ, Tucker-Drob EM. How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychol Sci 2018;29:1358-69. doi:10.1177/0956797618774253