KT metrics are calculated only from papers uploaded or published on KnowledgeTrend and citations matched between those KnowledgeTrend papers. Imported metadata and external citation counts are excluded.
Research interests
Research interests have not yet been added.
Academic profiles & contact
Publications
2 research records shown
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
Read paperSystematic 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.
Read paperCo-authors
Ottawa Hospital
2 shared publicationsUniversity of York
2 shared publicationsUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia
1 shared publicationOttawa Hospital
1 shared publicationThe University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center
1 shared publicationTrinity College Dublin
1 shared publicationOregon Health & Science University
1 shared publicationMonash Health
1 shared publicationMonash University
1 shared publicationUniversity of Amsterdam
1 shared publicationSouthern California Reproductive Center
1 shared publicationBond University
1 shared publication