The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/358/bmj.j4008.full.pdf

AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

https://www.commed.vcu.edu/Chronic_Disease/2012/cochranrvwrschbias.pdf

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

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n160.full.pdf

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.

Cost Effectiveness in Health and Medicine.

Placebo

Informing the patient: the "forgotten" link.

The objective of the present study was to assess how clearly and transparently reported are the editorial policies of highly ranked dental journals regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts. A total of 92 dental journals classified by impact factor had their websites scrutinized between 22 July and 6 September 2021 for all information on their policies regarding the handling of submitted manuscripts by editors. The information included items that could indicate potential risk of editorial bias. A total of 49 (53.3%) of the selected journals allowed the submission of all types of manuscripts, while 26 (28.3%) journals did not allow some types of manuscripts to be submitted (some manuscripts are only commissioned). The criteria for the acceptance of submitted manuscripts were clearly reported in eight (8.7%) journals, and only one reported the criteria in a hierarchical fashion. Sixteen (17.4%) journals reported a policy for handling the submitted manuscript when an editor was the author of the manuscript. Nine (9.8%) journals reported the possibility of a rebuttal letter by authors after manuscript rejection, but for most (62%) journals this information was not reported. The reporting of editorial policies regarding the peer-review process in highly ranked dental journals should be improved. 

Are highly ranked dental journals at risk of editorial bias? An examination of information on the reporting of peer-review practices

Evaluating benefits and harm of therapies

Background To develop and test an approach to test reproducibility of SRs. Methods Case study. We have developed an approach to test reproducibility retrospectively while focusing on the whole conduct of an SR instead of single steps of it. We replicated the literature searches and drew a 25% random sample followed by study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias (ROB) assessments performed by two reviewers independently. These results were compared narratively with the original review. Results We were not able to fully reproduce the original search resulting in minor differences in the number of citations retrieved. The biggest disagreements were found in study selection. The most difficult section to be reproduced was the RoB assessment due to the lack of reporting clear criteria to support the judgement of RoB ratings, although agreement was still found to be satisfactory. Conclusion Our approach as well as other approaches needs to undergo testing and comparison in the future as the area of testing for reproducibility of SRs is still in its infancy.

/pdf/a-new-method-for-testing-reproducibility-in-systematic-2kb8dv8xnn.pdf

Clovis Mariano Faggion

Papers

Informing the patient: the "forgotten" link.

Are highly ranked dental journals at risk of editorial bias? An examination of information on the reporting of peer-review practices

Evaluating benefits and harm of therapies

A new method for testing reproducibility in systematic reviews was developed, but needs more testing.

Testing for reproducibility: a missing point in reporting.