10,032 research outputs found
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
No full textÍtems de referencia para publicar Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: La Declaración PRISMA
No full textArtículo original: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
The original authors have not revised and verified the Spanish translation, and not necessary endorse it.
Los autores originales no han revisado ni verificado la traducción del manuscrito al español, y no necesariamente están de acuerdo con su contenido.
Publicación del artículo original: 21 Julio 2009
Derechos: © 2009 Moher et al. Este es un artículo de acceso abierto distribuido bajo las condiciones de The Creative Commons Attribution License, que permite el uso ilimitado, su distribución y reproducción en cualquier medio, siempre y cuando se acredite el autor y su fuente original.
Procedencia: No comisionado; revisión científica externa. Para promover la publicación de la Declaración PRISMA, el artículo se ha publicado como acceso abierto y se puede encontrar en la página web de PLoS Medicine (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/) y también se ha publicado en Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, y Open Medicine. Los autores tienen unánimemente los derechos de este artículo. Para más detalles de su uso ver la página web de PRISMA (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).
Traducción y adaptación al español: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto, Johana Prieto, Maria Manera, Eduard Baladia, Rodrigo Martínez-Rodríguez y Julio Basulto.
Autor de correspondencia de la traducción: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto ([email protected]
Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement
No full textImportance: Systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy synthesize data from
primary diagnostic studies that have evaluated the accuracy of 1 or more index
tests against a reference standard, provide estimates of test performance, allow
comparisons of the accuracy of different tests, and facilitate the identification
of sources of variability in test accuracy.
Objective: To develop the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) diagnostic test accuracy guideline as a stand-alone
extension of the PRISMA statement. Modifications to the PRISMA statement reflect
the specific requirements for reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
of diagnostic test accuracy studies and the abstracts for these reviews.
Design: Established standards from the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of
Health Research (EQUATOR) Network were followed for the development of the
guideline. The original PRISMA statement was used as a framework on which to
modify and add items. A group of 24 multidisciplinary experts used a systematic
review of articles on existing reporting guidelines and methods, a 3-round Delphi
process, a consensus meeting, pilot testing, and iterative refinement to develop
the PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy guideline. The final version of the PRISMA
diagnostic test accuracy guideline checklist was approved by the group.
Findings: The systematic review (produced 64 items) and the Delphi process
(provided feedback on 7 proposed items; 1 item was later split into 2 items)
identified 71 potentially relevant items for consideration. The Delphi process
reduced these to 60 items that were discussed at the consensus meeting. Following
the meeting, pilot testing and iterative feedback were used to generate the
27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist. To reflect specific or optimal
contemporary systematic review methods for diagnostic test accuracy, 8 of the 27
original PRISMA items were left unchanged, 17 were modified, 2 were added, and 2
were omitted.
Conclusions and Relevance: The 27-item PRISMA diagnostic test accuracy checklist
provides specific guidance for reporting of systematic reviews. The PRISMA
diagnostic test accuracy guideline can facilitate the transparent reporting of
reviews, and may assist in the evaluation of validity and applicability, enhance
replicability of reviews, and make the results from systematic reviews of
diagnostic test accuracy studies more useful
Developing PRISMA Qualitative Evidence Synthesis reporting guideline (PRISMA-QES)
No full textProtocol for a Methodological Systematic Review for the development of the PRISMA-QE
PRISMA-ScR checklist.
No full textFood insecurity in recent years has increased worldwide due to many planetary events such as the COVID-19 pandemic, geopolitical conflicts, the climate crisis, and globalization of markets. Adolescents are a particularly vulnerable group to food insecurity, as they enter adulthood with less parental supervision and greater personal autonomy, but less legislative or institutional protection. The experience of food insecurity in adolescents is influenced by several environmental factors at different levels (interpersonal, organizational, community, and societal), although they are not usually addressed in the design of interventions, prioritizing the individual behavioural factors. We present a scoping review protocol for assessing and identifying the environmental factors that could influence adolescents’ food insecurity. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and the PRISMA guidelines for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) to prepare the protocol. The search strategy will be performed in the following databases: Pubmed/Medline, EMBASE, Biblioteca Virtual de Salud, EBSCOHost, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library Plus. The reference list of the included studies will also be hand-searched. Grey literature will be search through the electronic database Grey Literature Report, and local, provincial, national, and international organisations’ websites. Assessment of eligibility after screening of titles, abstract and full text, and the resolution of discrepancies will be performed by three independent reviewers. This scoping review will contribute to refine the “logic model of the problem” which constitutes the first step in the intervention mapping protocol. The “logic model of the problem” from the intervention mapping protocol will serve to classify and analyse the environmental factors. The findings from this review will be presented to relevant stakeholders that have a role in shaping the environmental factors.</div
Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration.
No full textBACKGROUND: The promotion of health equity, the absence of avoidable and unfair differences in health outcomes, is a global imperative. Systematic reviews are an important source of evidence for health decision-makers, but have been found to lack assessments of the intervention effects on health equity. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) is a 27 item checklist intended to improve transparency and reporting of systematic reviews. We developed an equity extension for PRISMA (PRISMA-E 2012) to help systematic reviewers identify, extract, and synthesise evidence on equity in systematic reviews. METHODS AND FINDINGS: In this explanation and elaboration paper we provide the rationale for each extension item. These items are additions or modifications to the existing PRISMA Statement items, in order to incorporate a focus on equity. An example of good reporting is provided for each item as well as the original PRISMA item. CONCLUSIONS: This explanation and elaboration document is intended to accompany the PRISMA-E 2012 Statement and the PRISMA Statement to improve understanding of the reporting guideline for users. The PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline is intended to improve transparency and completeness of reporting of equity-focused systematic reviews. Improved reporting can lead to better judgement of applicability by policy makers which may result in more appropriate policies and programs and may contribute to reductions in health inequities. To encourage wide dissemination of this article it is accessible on the International Journal for Equity in Health, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Journal of Development Effectiveness web sites
Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation
No full textPublications of living systematic reviews (LSRs) are increasing rapidly. Guidance facilitating transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of LSRs is needed. This paper reports the development of an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for LSRs (PRISMA-LSR). The PRISMA-LSR extension includes the PRISMA-LSR checklist, the PRISMA-LSR flow diagram, reporting recommendations for the LSR status, and an explanation and elaboration document. This extension has been developed as an “add-on” to the PRISMA 2020 statement, meaning it should be used in addition to the PRISMA 2020 statement. The PRISMA-LSR extension is expected to benefit authors, editors, peer reviewers, and users of LSRs through transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of LSRs
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Br Med J.
No full textAbstract 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
Intensive Structured Self-Monitoring of Blood Glucose and Glycemic Control in Noninsulin-Treated Type 2 Diabetes: The PRISMA Randomized Trial.
No full textOBJECTIVEWe aimed to evaluate the added value of intensive self-monitoring of blood glucose (SMBG), structured in timing and frequency, in noninsulin-treated patients with type 2 diabetes.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSThe 12-month, randomized, clinical trial enrolled 1,024 patients with noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes (median baseline HbA(1c), 7.3% [IQR, 6.9-7.8%]) at 39 diabetes clinics in Italy. After standardized education, 501 patients were randomized to intensive structured monitoring (ISM) with 4-point glycemic profiles (fasting, preprandial, 2-h postprandial, and postabsorptive measurements) performed 3 days/week; 523 patients were randomized to active control (AC) with 4-point glycemic profiles performed at baseline and at 6 and 12 months. Two primary end points were tested in hierarchical order: HbA(1c) change at 12 months and percentage of patients at risk target for low and high blood glucose index.RESULTSIntent-to-treat analysis showed greater HbA(1c) reductions over 12 months in ISM (-0.39%) than in AC patients (-0.27%), with a between-group difference of -0.12% (95% CI, -0.210 to -0.024; P = 0.013). In the per-protocol analysis, the between-group difference was -0.21% (-0.331 to -0.089; P = 0.0007). More ISM than AC patients achieved clinically meaningful reductions in HbA(1c) (>0.3, >0.4, or >0.5%) at study end (P < 0.025). The proportion of patients reaching/maintaining the risk target at month 12 was similar in ISM (74.6%) and AC (70.1%) patients (P = 0.131). At visits 2, 3, and 4, diabetes medications were changed more often in ISM than in AC patients (P < 0.001).CONCLUSIONSUse of structured SMBG improves glycemic control and provides guidance in prescribing diabetes medications in patients with relatively well-controlled noninsulin-treated type 2 diabetes
The PRISMA flow diagram.
No full textFrom: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097For more information, visitwww.prisma-statement.org.</p
- …
