Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement.

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Pub Date : 2020-09-14 DOI:10.31222/osf.io/jb4dx
M. Page, J. McKenzie, P. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. Hoffmann, C. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, J. Tetzlaff, D. Moher
{"title":"Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement.","authors":"M. Page, J. McKenzie, P. Bossuyt, I. Boutron, T. Hoffmann, C. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, J. Tetzlaff, D. Moher","doi":"10.31222/osf.io/jb4dx","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVES\nTo describe the processes used to update the PRISMA 2009 statement for reporting systematic reviews, present results of a survey conducted to inform the update, summarise decisions made at the PRISMA update meeting, and describe and justify changes made to the guideline.\n\n\nMETHODS\nWe 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.\n\n\nRESULTS\nThe 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.\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS\nThe 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.","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"901","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/jb4dx","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 901

Abstract

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, summarise 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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
更新系统审查报告指南:制定PRISMA 2020声明。
目的描述用于更新PRISMA 2009声明以报告系统审查的流程,介绍为更新提供信息而进行的调查结果,总结PRISMA更新会议上做出的决定,并描述和证明对指南所做的更改。方法我们审查了60份带有系统审查报告指南的文件,以对PRISMA 2009年声明提出修改建议。我们邀请了220名系统综述方法学家和期刊编辑完成了一项关于建议修改的调查。由21名成员组成的面对面会议讨论了这些项目的成果。会后,我们起草了PRISMA 2020声明,并根据合著者的反馈和15名系统评审员的方便样本对其进行了完善。结果对60份文件的审查表明,PRISMA 2009年声明涉及的所有主题都可以修改。在110名调查对象中,超过66%的人建议保留原始清单中的6个项目,并使用我们建议的措辞修改其中的15个项目。现场会议的与会者支持对几个项目的措辞进行修订,但建议对大多数项目进行改写,以提高清晰度,并对指南的6个草案进行了进一步完善。结论PRISMA 2020声明包括系统审查的最新报告指南。我们希望,提供对制定过程的详细描述将提高对该准则的接受和接受程度,并有助于制定和更新未来的报告准则。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
期刊最新文献
Artificial intelligence to semi-automate trustworthiness assessment of randomized controlled trials: correspondence: response to Au et al. Carbon emissions associated with clinical trials: A scoping review. Shortcomings in reporting country-level participation in multi-centre randomised controlled trials involving Ireland as a collaborating partner: A meta-research study. A scoping review of the assessment reports of genetic or genomic tests reveals inconsistent consideration of key dimensions of clinical utility. Corrigendum to 'Methodological systematic review recommends improvements to conduct and reporting when meta-analyzing interrupted time series studies'. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 145 (2022) 55-69.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1