Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

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.

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Meta-analysis in clinical trials

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.

A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research

OBJECTIVE: Intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) is a widely used reliability index in test-retest, intrarater, and interrater reliability analyses. This article introduces the basic concept of ICC in the content of reliability analysis. DISCUSSION FOR RESEARCHERS: There are 10 forms of ICCs. Because each form involves distinct assumptions in their calculation and will lead to different interpretations, researchers should explicitly specify the ICC form they used in their calculation. A thorough review of the research design is needed in selecting the appropriate form of ICC to evaluate reliability. The best practice of reporting ICC should include software information, "model," "type," and "definition" selections. DISCUSSION FOR READERS: When coming across an article that includes ICC, readers should first check whether information about the ICC form has been reported and if an appropriate ICC form was used. Based on the 95% confident interval of the ICC estimate, values less than 0.5, between 0.5 and 0.75, between 0.75 and 0.9, and greater than 0.90 are indicative of poor, moderate, good, and excellent reliability, respectively. CONCLUSION: This article provides a practical guideline for clinical researchers to choose the correct form of ICC and suggests the best practice of reporting ICC parameters in scientific publications. This article also gives readers an appreciation for what to look for when coming across ICC while reading an article.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Systematic 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 meta-analyses.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

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.

A basic introduction to fixed-effect and random-effects models for meta-analysis

There are two popular statistical models for meta-analysis, the fixed-effect model and the random-effects model. The fact that these two models employ similar sets of formulas to compute statistics, and sometimes yield similar estimates for the various parameters, may lead people to believe that the models are interchangeable. In fact, though, the models represent fundamentally different assumptions about the data. The selection of the appropriate model is important to ensure that the various statistics are estimated correctly. Additionally, and more fundamentally, the model serves to place the analysis in context. It provides a framework for the goals of the analysis as well as for the interpretation of the statistics. In this paper we explain the key assumptions of each model, and then outline the differences between the models. We conclude with a discussion of factors to consider when choosing between the two models. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Assessing the Performance of Prediction Models

The performance of prediction models can be assessed using a variety of methods and metrics. Traditional measures for binary and survival outcomes include the Brier score to indicate overall model performance, the concordance (or c) statistic for discriminative ability (or area under the receiver operating characteristic [ROC] curve), and goodness-of-fit statistics for calibration.Several new measures have recently been proposed that can be seen as refinements of discrimination measures, including variants of the c statistic for survival, reclassification tables, net reclassification improvement (NRI), and integrated discrimination improvement (IDI). Moreover, decision-analytic measures have been proposed, including decision curves to plot the net benefit achieved by making decisions based on model predictions.We aimed to define the role of these relatively novel approaches in the evaluation of the performance of prediction models. For illustration, we present a case study of predicting the presence of residual tumor versus benign tissue in patients with testicular cancer (n = 544 for model development, n = 273 for external validation).We suggest that reporting discrimination and calibration will always be important for a prediction model. Decision-analytic measures should be reported if the predictive model is to be used for clinical decisions. Other measures of performance may be warranted in specific applications, such as reclassification metrics to gain insight into the value of adding a novel predictor to an established model.

A Multicountry Study on Nursing Students’ Self‐Perceived Competence and Barriers to Evidence‐Based Practice

BACKGROUND: Nursing education and training are essential in the attainment of evidence-based practice (EBP) competence in nursing students. Although there is a growing literature on EBP among nursing students, most of these studies are confined to a single cultural group. Thus, cross-cultural studies may provide shared global perspectives and theoretical understandings for the advancement of knowledge in this critical area. AIMS: This study compared self-perceived EBP competence among nursing students in four selected countries (India, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Oman) as well as perceived barriers to EBP adoption. METHODS: A descriptive, cross-sectional, and comparative survey of 1,383 nursing students from India, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, and Oman participated in the study. The Evidence-Based Practice Questionnaire (EBP-COQ) and the BARRIERS scale were used to collect data during the months of January 2016 to August 2017. RESULTS: Cross-country comparisons revealed significant differences in EBP competence (F = 24.437, p < .001), knowledge (F = 3.621, p = .013), skills (F = 9.527, p < .001), and attitudes (F = 74.412, p < .001) among nursing students. Three variables including nursing students' gender (β = .301, p < .001), type of institution, (β = -0.339, p = .001), and type of nursing student (β = .321, p < .001) were associated with EBP competence. Barriers to EBP adoption included having no authority to change patient care policies (M = 1.65, SD = 1.05), slow publication of evidence (M = 1.59, SD = 1.01), and paucity of time in the clinical area to implement the evidence (M = 1.59, SD = 1.05). LINKING EVIDENCE TO ACTION: Both academe and hospital administration can play a pivotal role in the successful acquisition of EBP competence in nursing students.