728 research outputs found
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration
No full textSystematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses
Flow chart for the selection of included studies.
No full textFrom: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. The PRISMA Statement and the PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration document are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. (http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/CitingAndUsingPRISMA.aspx.</p
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration.
No full textMuch medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration
No full textMuch medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, casecontrol studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www. strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research. © 2007 Vandenbroucke et al
PRISMA checklist 2020.
No full textNote. Template available from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021; 372: n71. (DOCX)</p
Endocrinological effects of high-dose Hypericum perforatum extract WS 5570 in healthy subjects
No full textIn this single-blind study, the effects of acute oral administration of high-dose Hypericum perforatum extract WS 5570 on the cortisol ( COR), adrenocorticotropic hormone ( ACTH), growth hormone (GH), and prolactin (PRL) secretions were examined in 12 healthy male volunteers. In a randomized order, the subjects received placebo or WS 5570 at several dosages (600, 900, and 1,200 mg) at 08.00 h on 4 different days. After insertion of an intravenous catheter, blood samples were drawn 1 h prior to administration of placebo or WS 5570 ( 600, 900, or 1,200 mg), at the time of administration, and during 5 h thereafter at intervals of 30 min. The serum concentrations of COR, GH, and PRL as well as the plasma levels of ACTH were determined in each blood sample by means of double antibody radioimmunoassay, fluoroimmunoassay, and chemiluminescence immunometric assay methods. The area under the curve value was used as parameter for COR, ACTH, GH, and PRL responses. Repeated-measures Anova revealed a significant stimulatory effect of WS 5570 on the ACTH secretion, whereas COR and PRL secretions were not significantly influenced. Moreover, there was a stimulatory peak of GH release 240 min after challenge with WS 5570 in some but not all volunteers, without reaching statistical significance in comparison with placebo. Mean arterial blood pressure and heart rate remained unchanged after administration of WS 5570. Apparently, WS 5570 at the dosages given in this study inconsistently causes endocrinological effects in healthy subjects by influencing central neurotransmitters. Copyright (C) 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
- …
