Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14306/renhyd.20.2.223Keywords:
Access to Information, Checklist, Evidence-Based Medicine, Review, Meta-Analysis.Abstract
Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
Translation with permission of the authors. The original authors have not revised and verified the Spanish translation, and they do not necessarily endorse it.
References
(1) Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7(9):e1000326.
(2) Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457-65.
(3) Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR. Bias due to changes in specified outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS ONE. 2010;5(3):e9810.
(4) Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.
(5) Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias - an updated review. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(7):e66844.
(6) Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Fu R, Abou-Setta AM, Viswanathan MS, et al. Selective Outcome Reporting as a Source of Bias in Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center Under Contract no. 290-2007-10057-I). Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2012.
(7) Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, 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.
(8) Higgins JPT, Green S GS, editores. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0: updated March 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Disponible en: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
(9) Ma B, Guo J, Qi G, Li H, Peng J, Zhang Y, et al. Epidemiology, quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(5):e20185.
(10) Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4(3):e78.
(11) Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S, editores. En: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
(12) Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, 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(7):e1000100.
(13) Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
(14) Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ. 2010;182(1):13-4.
(15) Moher D, Booth A, Stewart L. How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use PROSPERO. BJOG. 2014;121(7):784-6.
(16) Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet. 2011;377(9760):108-9.
(17) Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2.
(18) Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D. Does use of the CONSORT statement impact the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochrane review. Syst Rev. 2012;1:60.
(19) Smidt N, Rutjes AWS, Van der Windt D, Ostelo R, Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, et al. The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology. 2006;67(5):792-7.
(20) Prady SL, Richmond SJ, Morton VM, MacPherson H. A systematic evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials. PLoS ONE. 2008;3(2):e1577.
(21) Williams HC. Cars, CONSORT 2010, and clinical practice. Trials. 2010;11:33.
(22) AHRQ. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. AHRQ Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063- EF. Rockville, Maryland: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2014. Disponible en: http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/60/318/CER-Methods-Guide-140109.pdf
(23) Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, Clarke M, Mulrow CD, Oxman AD. 1.2.2. What is a systematic review? En: Higgins JPT, Green S GS, editores. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0: updated March 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Disponible en: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
(24) Chan A, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K, et al. SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158(3):200-7.
(25) Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC. A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA. 1992;268(2):240-8.
(26) Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:125-33; discussion 133-4.
(27) Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217.
(28) Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L. Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation. PLoS ONE. 2011;6(11):e27319.
(29) Chan A, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PS, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, et al. SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials. BMJ. 2013;346:e7586.
(30) Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration & explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.
(31) David Moher on crystal clear reporting of systematic reviews and EQUATOR Network [Internet]. 2010. Disponible en: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVFYenon1Jo
(32) Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, Yazdi F, Turner L, Thielman J, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804.
(33) Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal ‘Instructions to Authors’. Trials. 2008;9:20.
(34) Hirst A, Altman DG. Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(4):e35621.
(35) Shamseer L, Weeks L, Turner L, Straus S, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Identifying barriers to uptake and implementation of the CONSORT statement. En: The Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication. Chicago, EE. UU.; 2013.
(36) Mills E, Wu P, Gagnier J, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM. An analysis of general medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT found that reporting was not enforced consistently. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(7):662-7.
(37) Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M. Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical research council guidance. BMJ. 2008;337:a1655.
(38) Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM. A systematic review of the use of theory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations. Implement Sci. 2010;5:14.
(39) Carlsen B, Glenton C, Pope C. Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a meta-synthesis of GPs’ attitudes to clinical practice guidelines. Br J Gen Pract. 2007;57(545):971-8.
(40) Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR. Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;1:MR000031.
(41) Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Establishing a new journal for systematic review products. Syst Rev. 2012;1:1.
This journal 