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.

http://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA-P%20Statement%20-%20Moher%20Sys%20Rev%20Jan%202015.pdf

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

Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques

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

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

/pdf/preferred-reporting-items-for-systematic-review-and-meta-mgb1uy0yle.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

Background and Objectives: There is a substantial body of evidence assessing the effects of equine-assisted therapy on physiological and psychological aspects of individuals with disabilities. This study aimed to evaluate the physiological benefits of this alternative therapy for children with cerebral palsy (CP) by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: This systematic review included all randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of hippotherapy (HT), therapeutic horse riding (THR), and artificial saddle (AS) for the treatment of children with CP by a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other databases up to November 2012. Articles were assessed for inclusion eligibility and quality by two independent reviewers. Any discordant case was re-reviewed and consensus was obtained after sufficient discussion. A random effects model of meta-analysis was applied to provide summary statistics for each outcome. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 non-RCTs, and 7 self-controlled studies were included for quality assessment. Ten studies assessed the effect of HT, 5 evaluated THR, and 3 evaluated AS. The sample size differed from 3 to 72, and the quality ranged from low to moderate. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, and there was a significant improvement in the 66-item Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66), the GMFM-66/88 total score, and the dimension E of the GMFM. Although the asymmetry score tended to be reduced, it failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions: HT, THR, and AS seem to improve the total score of the gross motor function via improvement of the walking, running, and jumping dimension. However, they are not likely to be of benefit to the symmetry of postural muscle activity. Studies included in this review lack high-quality RCTs with a sufficient number of subjects, which thus warrants further evaluations of these modalities using large-scale well-designed RCTs.

/pdf/the-effect-of-riding-as-an-alternative-treatment-for-5amnj0qp1l.pdf

The Effect of Riding as an Alternative Treatment for Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

The PLOS Medicine Editors announce the launch of a Reporting Guidelines Collection to coincide with the Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, to be held September 8–10, 2013, in Chicago. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

/pdf/better-reporting-of-scientific-studies-why-it-matters-4g2hyliyut.pdf

Better Reporting of Scientific Studies: Why It Matters

The reaction to the campaign launched by the BMJ and its partners several months ago1,2 suggests that academic medicine needs resuscitation.3,4 But is it worth saving?

The academic medicine campaign aims to develop a vision and set of recommendations for reforming academic medicine in the 21st century. Driven by an international working party, it gives high priority to incorporating the perspectives of the chief customers of academic medicine—patients, policy makers, and practitioners—through a series of stakeholder and regional consultations. The campaign also supplies an opportunity to question the global relevance, responsibilities, and scope of academic medicine: Who is it for? Why does it matter? How best to invest in its future? Articles in this theme issue (including two from the working party (pp 787, 789)) discuss these questions and identify the challenges facing the campaign.5,6

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/329/7469/751.full.pdf

Who cares about academic medicine

The Lancet Commission on Gender and Global Health.

What attracts high-achieving, socioeconomically disadvantaged students to the physical sciences and engineering?AL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING?

This is the fourth in a series of four papers critically examining the medicalization of global health.  Please find the other papers  here . Universal health coverage (UHC) has emerged as the leading and recommended overarching health goal on the post-2015 development agenda, and is promoted with fervour. UHC has the backing of major medical and health institutions, and is designed to provide patients with universal access to needed health services without financial hardship, but is also projected to have ‘a transformative effect on poverty, hunger, and disease’. Multiple reports and resolutions support UHC and few offer critical analyses; but among these are concerns with imprecise definitions and the ability to implement UHC at the country level. A medicalization lens enriches these early critiques and identifies concerns that the UHC campaign contributes to the medicalization of global health. UHC conflates health with health care, thus assigning undue importance to (biomedical) health services and downgrading the social and structural determinants of health. There is poor evidence that UHC or health care alone improves population health outcomes, and in fact health care may worsen inequities. UHC is reductionistic because it focuses on preventative and curative actions delivered at the individual level, and ignores the social and political determinants of health and right to health that have been supported by decades of international work and commitments. UHC risks commodifying health care, which threatens the underlying principles of UHC of equity in access and of health care as a collective good. Keywords : global health; universal health coverage; health care; medicalization; sociology (Published: 16 May 2014) Citation : Glob Health Action 2014,  7 : 24004 -  http://dx.doi.org/10.3402/gha.v7.24004 To access the supplementary material for this article, please see  Supplementary files  under Article Tools.

Jocalyn Clark

Papers

Better Reporting of Scientific Studies: Why It Matters

Who cares about academic medicine

The Lancet Commission on Gender and Global Health.

What attracts high-achieving, socioeconomically disadvantaged students to the physical sciences and engineering?AL SCIENCES AND ENGINEERING?

Medicalization of global health 4: the universal health coverage campaign and the medicalization of global health