http://rua.ua.es/dspace/bitstream/10045/57307/1/2016_Estarli_etal_RevEspNutrHumDiet.pdf

Ítems de referencia para publicar Protocolos de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: Declaración PRISMA-P 2015 Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Scoping reviews are a relatively new approach to evidence synthesis and currently there exists little guidance regarding the decision to choose between a systematic review or scoping review approach when synthesising evidence. The purpose of this article is to clearly describe the differences in indications between scoping reviews and systematic reviews and to provide guidance for when a scoping review is (and is not) appropriate. Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions. Scoping reviews are a useful tool in the ever increasing arsenal of evidence synthesis approaches. Although conducted for different purposes compared to systematic reviews, scoping reviews still require rigorous and transparent methods in their conduct to ensure that the results are trustworthy. Our hope is that with clear guidance available regarding whether to conduct a scoping review or a systematic review, there will be less scoping reviews being performed for inappropriate indications better served by a systematic review, and vice-versa.

/pdf/systematic-review-or-scoping-review-guidance-for-authors-21ouh48v3u.pdf

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach

High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review
 of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often
 inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an
 international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement
 (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT
 Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to
 include in a clinical trial protocol. This SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides important
 information to promote full understanding of the checklist recommendations. For
 each checklist item, we provide a rationale and detailed description; a model
 example from an actual protocol; and relevant references supporting its
 importance. We strongly recommend that this explanatory paper be used in
 conjunction with the SPIRIT Statement. A website of resources is also available
 (www.spirit-statement.org). The SPIRIT 2013 Explanation and Elaboration paper, together with the Statement,
 should help with the drafting of trial protocols. Complete documentation of key
 trial elements can facilitate transparency and protocol review for the benefit
 of all stakeholders.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/346/bmj.e7586.full.pdf

SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials

Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting

Placebo

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials

https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/90465/1/The%20art%20and%20science_TSpace.pdf

Jennifer Tetzlaff

Papers

SPIRIT 2013 statement: Defining standard protocol items for clinical trials

The art and science of knowledge synthesis

Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study

Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review.