The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Pourquoi ce travail est-il dans la base ?
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Résumé
Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did and what they found. Over the last decade, there have been many advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, which have necessitated an update to the guideline.Objectives: To develop the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting systematic reviews.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We sought feedback on the suggested modifications through an online survey of 110 systematic review methodologists and journal editors. The results of the review and survey were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, drafts of the PRISMA 2020 checklist, abstract checklist, explanation and elaboration and flow diagram were generated and refined iteratively based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers.Results: In this statement paper, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. The checklist includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement.Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to facilitate transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews. Improved reporting should benefit users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, health care providers, patients and other stakeholders. In order to achieve this, we encourage authors, editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the guideline.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
La notice
- Revue
- Thématique
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Domaine
- Decision Sciences
- Établissements canadiens
- BruyèrePublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalQueen's UniversityMcMaster UniversityUniversity of OttawaOttawa Hospital
- Organismes subventionnaires
- National Eye InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Health and Medical Research CouncilOttawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds AssociationMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care Research
- Mots-clés
- ChecklistSystematic reviewGuidelineTerminologyStatement (logic)Presentation (obstetrics)MEDLINEComputer scienceManagement scienceMedical educationPsychologyMedicinePolitical scienceEngineeringPathology
- Résumé présent dans OpenAlex
- oui