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.

Health literacy has been associated with health-related knowledge and patient comprehension. This systematic review updates a 2004 review and found 96 eligible studies that suggest that low health ...

Low Health Literacy and Health Outcomes: An Updated Systematic Review

Binge eating disorder (BED) is characterized by recurrent episodes of binge eating and, subsequently, significant psychological distress (e.g., shame, guilt). Recently recognized by the American Psychiatric Association (APA) as a distinct eating disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), BED is considered a significant public health problem independently and for its impact on obesity and diabetes. The related problem, loss-of-control (LOC) eating, describes recurrent binge-like eating behavior in individuals who cannot meet full criteria for BED such as post-bariatric surgery patients and children. LOC eating has detrimental psychological and physical health effects, including significant distress and symptoms of depression, as well as excess weight gain in children and suboptimal weight loss and weight regain in post-bariatric patients. Table 1 lists the diagnostic criteria for BED (as defined in the current DSM-5 and earlier, in the DSM, Fourth Edition [DSM-IV]) and frequently-used definitions of LOC eating.

Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, fifth edition

https://www.bumc.bu.edu/healthliteracyconference/files/2010/04/Don-Nutbeam.pdf

The evolving concept of health literacy.

PURPOSE Current health literacy screening instruments for health care settings are either too long for routine use or available only in English. Our objective was to develop a quick and accurate screening test for limited literacy available in Eng- lish and Spanish. METHODS We administered candidate items for the new instrument and also the Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (TOFHLA) to English-speaking and Spanish-speaking primary care patients. We measured internal consistency with Cronbach's and assessed criterion validity by measuring correlations with TOFHLA scores. Using TOFLHA scores 0.76 in English and 0.69 in Spanish) and correlates with the TOFHLA. Area under the ROC curve is 0.88 for English and 0.72 for Spanish ver- sions. Patients with more than 4 correct responses are unlikely to have low literacy, whereas fewer than 4 correct answers indicate the possibility of limited literacy. CONCLUSION NVS is suitable for use as a quick screening test for limited literacy in primary health care settings.

https://www.annfammed.org/content/annalsfm/3/6/514.full.pdf

Quick assessment of literacy in primary care: the newest vital sign.

An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development. We searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions. There was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews. There remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.

/pdf/integration-of-existing-systematic-reviews-into-new-reviews-46vd80lyik.pdf

Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs

The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information (i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients). This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied. This document is in the public domain and may be used and reprinted without special permission. Citation of the source is appreciated. Persons using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in this report. For assistance contact EffectiveHealthCare@ahrq.hhs.gov. None of the investigators have any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report. ii Preface The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), through its Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs), sponsors the development of evidence reports and technology assessments to assist public-and private-sector organizations in their efforts to improve the quality of health care in the United States. The reports and assessments provide organizations with comprehensive, science-based information on common, costly medical conditions and new health care technologies and strategies. The EPCs systematically review the relevant scientific literature on topics assigned to them by AHRQ and conduct additional analyses when appropriate prior to developing their reports and assessments. To improve the scientific rigor of these evidence reports, AHRQ supports empiric research by the EPCs to help understand or improve complex methodologic issues in systematic reviews. These methods research projects are intended to contribute to the research base in and be used to improve the science of systematic reviews. They are not intended …

The empirical evidence of bias in trials measuring treatment differences: Methods research report

in English is also discussed. The populations of interest are (1) individuals meeting DSM-IV or DSM-5 criteria for BED, (2) postbariatric surgery patients with LOC eating, and (3) children with LOC eating. We excluded studies of individuals with co-occurring anorexia nervosa or bulimia nervosa and studies of children younger than 6 years of age. We excluded trials with fewer than 10 participants and nonrandomized studies with fewer than 50 participants.

Management and Outcomes of Binge-Eating Disorder

The best treatment options for binge-eating disorder are unclear. This systematic review summarizes trial evidence on the benefits and harms of various treatments for this disorder, including cogni...

Nancy D Berkman

Papers

Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs

The empirical evidence of bias in trials measuring treatment differences: Methods research report

Management and Outcomes of Binge-Eating Disorder

Binge-Eating Disorder in Adults

Study Quality Assessment