Showing papers by "Alessandro Liberati published in 2009"

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1). Box 1 Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

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

Abstract: 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 Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

Abstract: Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Us...

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Abstract: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are 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. Realising 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 website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement (Chinese edition)

Abstract: Provide a structured summary including, as applicable, background, objectives, data sources, study eligibility criteria, participants, interventions, study appraisal and synthesis methods, results, limitations, conclusions and implications of key findings, systematic review registration number 2 Structured summary

Compliance of clinical trial registries with the World Health Organization minimum data set: a survey

Abstract: Background Since September 2005 the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has required that trials be registered in accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) minimum dataset, in order to be considered for publication. The objective is to evaluate registries' and individual trial records' compliance with the 2006 version of the WHO minimum data set.

Informing women about hormone replacement therapy: the consensus conference statement

Abstract: The risks/benefits balance of hormone replacement therapy is controversial. Information can influence consumers' knowledge and behavior; research findings about hormone replacement therapy are uncertain and the messages provided by the media are of poor quality and incomplete, preventing a fully informed decision making process. We therefore felt that an explicit, rigorous and structured assessment of the information needs on this issue was urgent and we opted for the organisation of a national consensus conference (CC) to assess the current status of the quality of information on hormone replacement therapy (HRT) and re-visit recent research findings on its risks/benefits. We chose a structured approach based on the traditional CC method combined with a structured preparatory work supervised by an organising committee (OC) and a scientific board (SB). The OC and SB chose the members of the CC's jury and appointed three multidisciplinary working groups (MWG) which were asked to review clinical issues and different aspects of the quality of information. Before the CC, the three MWGs carried out: a literature review on the risk/benefit profile of HRT and two surveys on the quality of information on lay press and booklets targeted to women. A population survey on women's knowledge, attitude and practice was also carried out. The jury received the documents in advance, listened the presentations during the two-day meeting of the CCs, met immediately after in a closed-door meeting and prepared the final document. Participants were researchers, clinicians, journalists as well as consumers' representatives. Key messages in the CC's deliberation were: a) women need to be fully informed about the transient nature of menopausal symptoms, about HRT risks and benefits and about the availability of non-pharmacological interventions; b) HRT is not recommended to prevent menopausal symptoms; c) the term "HRT" is misleading and "post menopausal hormone therapy" should be the preferred definition. This CC led to the identification of specific information drawbacks. Women are exposed to messages that are often partial, non evidence-based nor transparently developed. The structured and participative methodology of this CC allowed a multidisciplinary perspective and a substantial lay people input.

Measuring the impact of evidence: the Cochrane systematic review of organised stroke care.

Abstract: In 2007, the first commentary hosted by this Cochrane’s Corner focussed on stroke units and discussed the principle that a valid combination of results from a series of unbiased primary studies can provide influential information that would not be otherwise available by individual studies [1]. We now present a case study of the role played by the stroke unit Cochrane review in the complicated process that led to changes in clinical practice and health policy. Our hypothesis is that the theoretical and pragmatic value of this systematic review goes beyond the mere increase in the number of patients considered in one study: robust results from a methodologically sound systematic review including trials performed in different setting and with different standards can increase the applicability of the conclusion.

Informing women about hormone replacement therapy.

Abstract: To the Editor: Bluming and Tavris1 in their article reviewed the state of art regarding hormone replacement therapy (HRT) underling, among others, that “the findings reported in the press release and interviews of the principal investigators were often distorted over simplified or wrong.” Considering the relevance of the information provided to women by physicians and published by media, the PartecipaSalute project—coordinated by Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri with the collaboration of Italian Cochrane Centre and Zadig, scientific publishing company—and the National Guidelines System based at the Istituto Superiore di Sanità launched a Consensus Conference titled “Informing women about HRT”. The final statement2 is shortly summarized in the following points: