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.

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-3j53e5oe33.pdf

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 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.

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-48ibbzju0k.pdf

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

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

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-2f3kzv8slj.pdf

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

Riedel DJ, Gonzalez-Cuyar LF, Zhao XF, Redfi eld RR, Gilliam BL. Plasmablastic lymphoma of the oral cavity: a rapidly progressive lymphoma associated with HIV infection. Lancet Infect Dis 2008; 8: 261–67. In this Grand Round, the references for the sentence “Occasionally, CD138-negative plasmablastic lymphoma cases (such as this case) have been reported” (page 265) should be 32, 34, and 38. Book Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care

/pdf/systematic-reviews-crd-s-guidance-for-undertaking-reviews-in-4hcrkbrbv4.pdf

Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care

Background : Jet-lag commonly affects air travellers who cross several time zones. It results from the body's internal rhythms being out of step with the day-night cycle at the destination. Melatonin is a pineal hormone that plays a central part in regulating bodily rhythms and has been used as a drug to re-align them with the outside world. Objectives : To assess the effectiveness of oral melatonin taken in different dosage regimens for alleviating jet-lag after air travel across several time zones. Search strategy : We searched the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsychLit and Science Citation Index electronically, and the journals 'Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine' and 'Sleep' by hand. We searched citation lists of relevant studies for other relevant trials. We asked principal authors of relevant studies to tell us about unpublished trials. Reports of adverse events linked to melatonin use outside randomised trials were searched for systematically in 'Side Effects of Drugs' (SED) and SED Annuals, 'Reactions Weekly', MEDLINE, and the adverse drug reactions databases of the WHO Uppsala Monitoring Centre (UMC) and the US Food & Drug Administration. Selection criteria : Randomised trials in airline passengers, airline staff or military personnel given oral melatonin, compared with placebo or other medication. Outcome measures should consist of subjective rating of jet-lag or related components, such as subjective wellbeing, daytime tiredness, onset and quality of sleep, psychological functioning, duration of return to normal, or indicators of circadian rhythms. Data collection and analysis : Ten trials met the inclusion criteria. All compared melatonin with placebo; one in addition compared it with a hypnotic, zolpidem. Nine of the trials were of adequate quality to contribute to the assessment, one had a design fault and could not be used in the assessment. Reports of adverse events outside trials were found through MEDLINE, 'Reactions Weekly', and in the WHO UMC database. Main results : Nine of the ten trials found that melatonin, taken close to the target bedtime at the destination (10pm to midnight), decreased jet-lag from flights crossing five or more time zones. Daily doses of melatonin between 0.5 and 5mg are similarly effective, except that people fall asleep faster and sleep better after 5mg than 0.5mg. Doses above 5mg appear to be no more effective. The relative ineffectiveness of 2mg slow-release melatonin suggests that a short-lived higher peak concentration of melatonin works better. Based on the review, the number needed to treat (NNT) is 2. The benefit is likely to be greater the more time zones are crossed, and less for westward flights. The timing of the melatonin dose is important: if it is taken at the wrong time, early in the day, it is liable to cause sleepiness and delay adaptation to local time. The incidence of other side effects is low. Case reports suggest that people with epilepsy, and patients taking warfarin may come to harm from melatonin. Reviewer's conclusions : Melatonin is remarkably effective in preventing or reducing jet-lag, and occasional short-term use appears to be safe. It should be recommended to adult travellers flying across five or more time zones, particularly in an easterly direction, and especially if they have experienced jet-lag on previous journeys. Travellers crossing 2-4 time zones can also use it if need be. The pharmacology and toxicology of melatonin needs systematic study, and routine pharmaceutical quality control of melatonin products must be established. The effects of melatonin in people with epilepsy, and a possible interaction with warfarin, need investigation.

Melatonin for the prevention and treatment of jet lag

As every healthcare intervention carries some risk of harm, clinical decision making needs to be supported by a systematic assessment of the balance of benefit to harm. A systematic review that considers only the favourable outcomes of an intervention, without also assessing the adverse effects, can mislead by introducing a bias favouring the intervention. Much of the current guidance on systematic reviews is directed towards the evaluation of effectiveness; but this differs in important ways from the methods used in assessing the safety and tolerability of an intervention. A detailed discussion of why, how and when to include adverse effects in a systematic review, is required. This discussion paper, which presupposes a basic knowledge of systematic review methodology, was developed by consensus among experienced reviewers, members of the Adverse Effects Subgroup of The Cochrane Collaboration, and supplemented by a consultation of content experts in reviews methodology, as well as those working in drug safety. A logical framework for making decisions in reviews that incorporate adverse effects is provided. We explore situations where a comprehensive investigation of adverse effects is warranted and suggest strategies to identify practicable and clinically useful outcomes. The advantages and disadvantages of including observational and experimental study designs are reviewed. The consequences of including separate studies for intended and unintended effects are explained. Detailed advice is given on designing electronic searches for studies with adverse effects data. Reviewers of adverse effects are given general guidance on the assessment of study bias, data collection, analysis, presentation and the interpretation of harms in a systematic review. Readers need to be able to recognize how strategic choices made in the review process determine what harms are found, and how the findings may affect clinical decisions. Researchers undertaking a systematic review that incorporates adverse effect data should understand the rationale for the suggested methods and be able to implement them in their review.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186%2F1471-2288-7-32.pdf

Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach

Objective: To assess the quality of Cochrane reviews. Design: Ten methodologists affiliated with the Cochrane Collaboration independently examined, in a semistructured way, the quality of reviews first published in 1998. Each review was assessed by two people; if one of them noted any major problems, they agreed on a common assessment. Predominant types of problem were categorised. Setting: Cyberspace collaboration coordinated from the Nordic Cochrane Centre. Studies: All 53 reviews first published in issue 4 of the Cochrane Library in 1998. Main outcome measure: Proportion of reviews with various types of major problem. Results: No problems or only minor ones were found in most reviews. Major problems were identified in 15 reviews (29%). The evidence did not fully support the conclusion in nine reviews (17%), the conduct or reporting was unsatisfactory in 12 reviews (23%), and stylistic problems were identified in 12 reviews (23%). The problematic conclusions all gave too favourable a picture of the experimental intervention. Conclusions: Cochrane reviews have previously been shown to be of higher quality and less biased on average than other systematic reviews, but improvement is always possible. The Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve editorial processes and the quality of its reviews. Meanwhile, the Cochrane Library remains a key source of evidence about the effects of healthcare interventions. Its users should interpret reviews cautiously, particularly those with conclusions favouring experimental interventions and those with many typographical errors. What is already known on this topic Cochrane reviews are, on average, more systematic and less biased than systematic reviews published in paper journals Errors and biases also occur in Cochrane reviews What this study adds Too often, reviewers9 conclusions over-rated the benefits of new interventions Readers of Cochrane reviews should remain cautious, especially regarding conclusions that favour new interventions The Cochrane Collaboration has taken steps to improve the quality of reviews

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/323/7317/829.full.pdf

Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998

Minoxidil: hope for the bald?

Pharmaceutical companies and patients9 organisations are unequal partners in a collaboration that has developed over the years—and this raises serious questions

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/326/7400/1208.full.pdf

Andrew Herxheimer

Papers

Melatonin for the prevention and treatment of jet lag

Systematic reviews of adverse effects: framework for a structured approach

Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998

Minoxidil: hope for the bald?

Relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and patients' organisations.