Skip to main content

Currently Skimming:

5 Standards for Reporting Systematic Reviews
Pages 195-222

The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.


From page 195...
... The com mittee recommends three related standards for documenting the SR process, responding to input from peer reviewers and other users and stakeholders, and making the final report publicly avail able. The standards draw extensively from the Preferred Report ing Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)
From page 196...
... The committee recommends three standards for producing a comprehensive SR final report (Box 5-1) , including standards for documenting the SR process, responding to input from peer reviewers and other users and stakeholders, and making the final reports publicly available.
From page 197...
... 5.1.7 Include a results section. Organize the presentation of results around key questions.
From page 198...
... • Gaps in evidence • Future research needs 5.1.9 Include a section describing funding sources* and COI Standard 5.2 Peer review the draft report Required elements: 5.2.1 Use a third party to manage the peer review process 5.2.2 Provide a public comment period for the report and pub licly report on disposition of comments Standard 5.3 Publish the final report in a manner that ensures free public access *
From page 199...
... o Disseminate research to physicians, healthcare providers, pa tients, payers, and policy makers. SOURCE: The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 111th Cong., Subtitle D, § 6301 (March 23, 2010)
From page 200...
... Network was launched to coordinate initiatives to promote transparent and accurate reporting of health research and to assist in the development of reporting guidelines (EQUATOR Network, 2010)
From page 201...
... However, unlike CONSORT, reporting guidelines for SRs and meta-analyses have not been widely adopted by prominent journals. In 2009, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta analyses (PRISMA)
From page 202...
... recommended adherence to SR reporting guidelines. The four journals that endorsed or adopted reporting guidelines published SRs of significantly higher methodological quality than the other journals, and were more likely to report assessing methodological quality of included studies and taking precautions to avoid bias in study selection.
From page 203...
... However, PRISMA is focused on journal articles, which are usually subject to length restrictions in the print version of the article, and the committee's reporting standards are directed at comprehensive, final reports to public sponsors (e.g., AHRQ, PCORI) , which typically do not have word limits.
From page 204...
... , which place a strong emphasis on generating evidence to inform patient and clinical decision making. Therefore, the committee's reporting recommendations build on PRISMA, but incorporate the following revisions: greater specificity in reporting the data collection and study selection process, and eight new checklist items.
From page 205...
... . To improve the usability of SRs for patients and consumers, the committee recommends that final reports include summaries written in nontechnical language (the plain-language summary)
From page 206...
... Review methods: Standard systematic review methodology was employed. Eligibility criteria included English studies evaluating breast, colorectal, ovarian, or prostate cancers.
From page 207...
... • Potential harms of FHx taking: One uncontrolled trial evaluated the impact of FHx-based breast cancer risk information on psychologi cal outcomes and found no evidence of significant harm. Conclusions: Our review indicates a very limited evidence base with which to address all four of the research questions: 1.
From page 208...
... If it is an update, the authors should state why the update is needed and describe in general terms how the evidence base has changed since the previous 4 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 111th Cong., Subtitle D, § 6301(d)
From page 209...
... . 5 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Public Law 111-148, 111th Cong., Subtitle D, § 6301(d)
From page 210...
... •    eport characteristics (e.g., publication period,  R language) •    ationale for each criterion R Analytic framework •     diagram illustrating the chain of logic describing  A and key questions the mechanism by which the intervention could improve a health outcome •    ey questions written in a structured format (e.g.,  K PICO[TS]
From page 211...
... and the date of the most recent literature search or recommendation. Funding and Conflict-of-Interest Section The final report should describe the sources of funding for the SR; the role of the funder in carrying out the review (including approval of the content)
From page 212...
... o Clinical settings o Interventions o Primary and secondary outcome measures o Follow-up period •    bserved patterns of threats to validity across studies,  O strengths, and weaknesses of the evidence, and confidence in the results •    escription of the overall body of evidence across the  D following domains: o Risk of bias o Consistency o Precision o Directness o Reporting bias o Dose–response association o Plausible confounding that would change the observed effect o Strength of association •    indings of differences in responses to the intervention  F for key subgroups (e.g., by age, race, gender, socioeconomic status, and/or clinical findings)
From page 213...
... . Requiring authors to disclose any potential outside influences on their judgment, not just industry relationships, improves the
From page 214...
... The ACA contains a similar requirement for authors of research funded by PCORI.7 RECOMMENDED STANDARD FOR REPORT REVIEW The committee recommends one overarching standard for review by scientific peers, other users and stakeholders, and the public: Standard 5.2–-Peer review the draft report Required elements: 5.2.1 Use a third party to manage the peer review process 7 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at § 6301(h)
From page 215...
... . 5.2.2 Provide a public comment period for the report and publicly report on disposition of comments Rationale SR final reports should be critically reviewed by peer reviewers to ensure accuracy and clarity and to identify any potential methodological flaws (e.g., overlooked studies, methodological errors)
From page 216...
... Allowing public comments encourages publicly funded research that is responsive to the public's interests and concerns and is written in language that is understandable and usable for patient and clinical decision making. Requiring a public comment period is also consistent with the ACA, which directs PCORI to obtain public input on research findings,9 as well as guidance from AHRQ and Cochrane (Higgins and Green, 2008; Whitlock et al., 2010)
From page 217...
... In any case, posting an SR final report on a government website should not qualify as a previous publication, in the same way that journals have agreed that publication of an abstract describing clinical trial results in clinicaltrials.gov (which is required by federal law) does not count as prior publication (ICMJE, 10 The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act at § 6301(d)
From page 218...
... 1996. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: The CONSORT statement.
From page 219...
... 2007. The quality of reports of critical care meta-analyses in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews: An independent appraisal.
From page 220...
... 2009. The PRISMA Statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration.
From page 221...
... :426–432. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)
From page 222...
... 2010. AHRQ Series Paper 3: Identifying, selecting, and refining topics for comparative effectiveness systematic reviews: AHRQ and the Effective Health-Care Program.


This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More information on Chapter Skim is available.