Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Abstract
Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- BMJ
- Topic
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- Ottawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
- Funders
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public HealthAgency for Healthcare Research and QualityQueen's UniversityNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchNational Health and Medical Research CouncilCancer Research UKPortland VA Research FoundationMedical Research CouncilLondon School of Hygiene and Tropical MedicineUniversity of OttawaMcMaster UniversityJohns Hopkins UniversityMonash UniversityOttawa Hospital Research InstituteBrown UniversityUniversity of OxfordUniversity of TorontoKaiser Permanente
- Keywords
- Systematic reviewChecklistDocumentationProtocol (science)GuidelineMeta-analysisTransparency (behavior)MEDLINEComputer scienceMedicinePsychologyAlternative medicinePolitical sciencePathologyComputer security
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes