Enhancing Research Reporting with PRISMA 2020 Summary

PRISMA 2020 and its impact on research reporting are highlighted through various images and descriptions. It discusses the importance of following guidelines to avoid problems like missing data and unreplicable research. The evolution of reporting standards, such as PRISMA 2009 and the EQUATOR network, is emphasized for improving transparency and quality in health research.

• Research Reporting
• PRISMA 2020
• EQUATOR Network
• Reporting Standards
• Meta-analyses

aon_ke Follow

Uploaded on Sep 10, 2024 | 1 Views

Download Presentation

Please find below an Image/Link to download the presentation.

The content on the website is provided AS IS for your information and personal use only. It may not be sold, licensed, or shared on other websites without obtaining consent from the author. Download presentation by click this link. If you encounter any issues during the download, it is possible that the publisher has removed the file from their server.

Presentation Transcript

1. Showing our workings PRISMA 2020, search summary tables and us

2. Content Content Background to reporting guidelines PRISMA 2009 PRISMA 2020 PRISMA-S Search Summary Tables 2021 Conclusion

3. Missing data: the phantom menace Missing data: the phantom menace About half of the 200 papers examined should never have been published as they stood; either because the numbers of observations were insufficient to prove the conclusions or because more statistical analysis was essential

4. Before PRISMA: The dark side Before PRISMA: The dark side Non-replicable research waste of patient time and funder money Selective presentation of methods and results Potential biases were unclear Unsubstantiated claims up to the level of fraud Doubts about applicability of research Outcome switching (from protocols)

5. EQUATOR: the Force EQUATOR: the Force 1994Standards of Reporting Trials Group (SORT) 1996Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 1999QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses) 2006Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

6. PRISMA 2009: A new hope PRISMA 2009: A new hope PRISMA Statement http://www.prisma-statement.org/ 27-item checklist of details to be reported (including title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and funding) PRISMA flow diagram/chart

7. PRISMA 2009 PRISMA 2009 PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses Aim: PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses Extensions included PRISMA for Abstracts (2013), Scoping reviews (2018), Network Meta-analysis (2015) etc

8. PRISMA PRISMA 2009: Flow 2009: Flow diagram diagram Simple outline diagram (could be expanded as you saw fit)

9. PRISMA 2009: Searches PRISMA 2009: Searches 7 Describe all information sources (+ search dates) 8 Present at least one database search strategy 9 State process for selecting studies 17 No. of studies screened, assessed, exclusions, flow diagram

10. PRISMA 2009: Did it work? PRISMA 2009: Did it work? As of July 2017, 19,402 citations of the checklist paper (now approximately 90,186 citations!) Suboptimal use: 57 studies examined adherence to PRISMA (2009-2016), and 11 PRISMA items were adhered to by <67% of reviews (Page & Moher (2017))

11. PRISMA 2009: Did it work? PRISMA 2009: Did it work? 2009-2016 2010-2016 PRISMA item 7: Information sources 8: Searches 9: Screening/inclusion methods 17: Screening, exclusions, flow chart 86% 50% 67% 72% 84% 62% 79% 84%

12. PRISMA 2020: whats new? PRISMA 2020: what s new? Still 27 items in the checklist Expanded checklist available including guidance Use of PRISMA for Abstracts checklist is required Flow diagram: 4 versions for new and updated reviews with databases, registers and other resources

13. PRISMA 2020: Search methods PRISMA 2020: Search methods Item 6. Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. Item 7. Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.

14. PRISMA 2020: Search methods PRISMA 2020: Search methods Study selection 16a. Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. 16b. Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.

15. PRISMA 2020: Flow diagram PRISMA 2020: Flow diagram

16. PRISMA 2020: Flow diagram PRISMA 2020: Flow diagram Before 2020, you could expand your flow diagram. Now the flow diagram helpfully prompts what data should be included.

17. PRISMA 2020 and librarians PRISMA 2020 and librarians Many studies are available to show that librarian involvement in reviews is associated with better reporting (but librarians are often not involved or not credited and we ARE busy people). If we are involved in reviews, reporting using the PRISMA 2020 checklist & flow diagram is expected and we ll need to ensure we and our colleagues comply.

18. PRISMA 2020: Buy PRISMA 2020: Buy- -in in For maximum effectiveness, PRISMA 2020 will need buy-in from: Researchers Journal editors Research funders Information Specialists & Librarians (hire more of us!)

19. PRISMA PRISMA- -S S

20. PRISMA PRISMA- -S: 16 S: 16- -item checklist item checklist Information sources and methods (n=7) Search strategies (n=6) Managing records (n=2) Peer review (n=1)

21. Search summary tables Search summary tables The SST presents the search information used to inform the PRISMA flow diagram, the search methods, and additional information gathered by the librarian or information specialist in their search log Reporting these metrics in this manner shows the effectiveness of search strategies for each individual database as well as database searching as a whole (Bethel et al. 2021)

22. Search summary tables Search summary tables 8 key metrics 1. Sensitivity/Recall 2. Precision 3. Number Needed to Read (NNR) 4. Yield 5. Format 6. Number of included references 7. Number of unique references 8. Number of references screened

23. Search summary tables Search summary tables Bethel et al. provide a sample SST Excel sheet to complete as required. For each of the references included in the final synthesis, record each database where they were found and what the format was (e.g. thesis, journal article etc). Also record each of the 8 metrics. Calculate overall sensitivity and precision from your data. Ovid Medline EBSCO CINAHL ProQuest PsycInfo Smith 2021 x x Jones 2020 x x Lee 2021 x x

24. Is it useful? Can we use it? Is it useful? Can we use it? The information in the SST about the search process and results can show what is useful to search, what types of databases, supplemental searches or key terms we could use and what might be helpful for searchers working on similar topics. What constitutes an adequate search may also be clearer. SST is complex and detailed BUT if review synthesis is resourced adequately, we may see more SSTs in published reviews.

25. Conclusions Conclusions More information is better, for transparent, reproducible, searchable, appraisable, systematic and useful reviews Using PRISMA 2020 AND PRISMA-S AND written search descriptions AND search summary tables would be ideal Practically, this will likely not be feasible due to resourcing and journals may not like it (but we can push for as much as is possible)

26. Conclusions Conclusions Reviews reporting only that 'a search was carried out by a mystery librarian using Google, EBSCO and three keywords will be/should be a thing of the past! I predict a huge surge in librarian employment purely due to PRISMA-S! (Dear Santa )

27. Further reading: PRISMA 2020 Further reading: PRISMA 2020 1. Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, et al. PRISMA2020: an R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. 2021. doi:10.1101/2021.07.14.21260492 2. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;134:103 12. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003 3. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n160. doi:10.1136/bmj.n160 4. Page MJ, Moher D, McKenzie JE. Introduction to PRISMA 2020 and implications for research synthesis methodologists. Res Synth Methods 2021;1. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1535 5. 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

28. Further reading: Search summary tables Further reading: Search summary tables 1. Bethel AC, Rogers M, Abbott R. Use of a search summary table to improve systematic review search methods, results, and efficiency. J Med Libr Assoc;109:97 106. doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.809

29. Further reading: PRISMA Further reading: PRISMA- -S and PRESS S and PRESS 1. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc 2021;109:174 200. doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.962 Rethlefsen ML, Ayala AP, Kirtley S, et al. PRISMA-S: PRISMA Search Reporting Extension. OSF. 2021.https://osf.io/ygn9w/ McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. CADTH Methods and guidelines PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Explanation and Elaboration (PRESS E&E). Ottowa: CADTH 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/CP0015_PRESS_Update_Report_2016.pdf McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. 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 2. 3. 4.

30. Further reading: EQUATOR Further reading: EQUATOR 1. Altman DG, Simera I. A history of the evolution of guidelines for reporting medical research: the long road to the EQUATOR Network. J R Soc Med 2016;109:67 77. doi:10.1177/0141076815625599 Altman DG, Simera I, Hoey J, et al. EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research. Open Med 2008;2:e49 50.https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3090180/ The EQUATOR Network. The EQUATOR Network | Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research. 2021.https://www.equator-network.org/ 2. 3.

31. Further reading: Librarians improving reviews Further reading: Librarians improving reviews 1. Aamodt JJM, Huurdeman HC, Str mme H. Librarian co-authored systematic reviews are associated with lower risk of bias compared to systematic reviews with acknowledgement of librarians or no participation by librarians. Evid Based Libr Inf Pract 2019;14:103 27. doi:10.18438/eblip29601 Koffel JB. Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors. PLoS One 2015;10:e0125931. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0125931 Meert D, Torabi N, Costella J. Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews. J Med Libr Assoc 2016;104:267 77. doi:10.5195/jmla.2016.139 Rethlefsen ML, Farrell AM, Osterhaus Trzasko LC, et al. Librarian co-authors correlated with higher quality reported search strategies in general internal medicine systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2015;68:617 26. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.11.025 Schellinger J, Sewell K, Bloss JE, et al. The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine. PLOS ONE 2021;16:e0256833. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0256833 2. 3. 4. 5.