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

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/343/bmj.d5928.full.pdf

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

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

https://www.bmj.com/content/bmj/372/bmj.n71.full.pdf

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

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

There is little systematic operational guidance about how best to develop complex interventions to reduce the gap between practice and evidence. This article is one in a Series of articles documenting the development and use of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) to advance the science of implementation research. The intervention was developed considering three main components: theory, evidence, and practical issues. We used a four-step approach, consisting of guiding questions, to direct the choice of the most appropriate components of an implementation intervention: Who needs to do what, differently? Using a theoretical framework, which barriers and enablers need to be addressed? Which intervention components (behaviour change techniques and mode(s) of delivery) could overcome the modifiable barriers and enhance the enablers? And how can behaviour change be measured and understood? A complex implementation intervention was designed that aimed to improve acute low back pain management in primary care. We used the TDF to identify the barriers and enablers to the uptake of evidence into practice and to guide the choice of intervention components. These components were then combined into a cohesive intervention. The intervention was delivered via two facilitated interactive small group workshops. We also produced a DVD to distribute to all participants in the intervention group. We chose outcome measures in order to assess the mediating mechanisms of behaviour change. We have illustrated a four-step systematic method for developing an intervention designed to change clinical practice based on a theoretical framework. The method of development provides a systematic framework that could be used by others developing complex implementation interventions. While this framework should be iteratively adjusted and refined to suit other contexts and settings, we believe that the four-step process should be maintained as the primary framework to guide researchers through a comprehensive intervention development process.

/pdf/developing-theory-informed-behaviour-change-interventions-to-4nc64n4i7v.pdf

Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Analysis of outcome measures for persons with patellofemoral pain: which are reliable and valid?

Background
The prevalence of shoulder disorders has been reported to range from seven to 36% of the population (Lundberg 1969) accounting for 1.2% of all General Practitioner encounters in Australia (Bridges Webb 1992). Substantial disability and significant morbidity can result from shoulder disorders. While many treatments have been employed in the treatment of shoulder disorders, few have been proven in randomised controlled trials. Physiotherapy is often the first line of management for shoulder pain and to date its efficacy has not been established. This review is one in a series of reviews of varying interventions for shoulder disorders, updated from an earlier Cochrane review of all interventions for shoulder disorder.

Objectives
To determine the efficacy of physiotherapy interventions for disorders resulting in pain, stiffness and/or disability of the shoulder.

Search methods
MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Clinical Trials Regiter and CINAHL were searched 1966 to June 2002. The Cochrane Musculoskeletal Review Group's search strategy was used and key words gained from previous reviews and all relevant articles were used as text terms in the search.

Selection criteria
Each identified study was assessed for possible inclusion by two independent reviewers. The determinants for inclusion were that the trial be of an intervention generally delivered by a physiotherapist, that treatment allocation was randomised; and that the study population be suffering from a shoulder disorder, excluding trauma and systemic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis.

Data collection and analysis
The methodological quality of the included trials was assessed by two independent reviewers according to a list of predetermined criteria, which were based on the PEDro scale specifically designed for the assessment of validity of trials of physiotherapy interventions. Outcome data was extracted and entered into Revman 4.1. Means and standard deviations for continuous outcomes and number of events for binary outcomes were extracted where available from the published reports. All standard errors of the mean were converted to standard deviation. For trials where the required data was not reported or not able to be calculated, further details were requested from first authors. If no further details were provided, the trial was included in the review and fully described, but not included in the meta-analysis. Results were presented for each diagnostic sub group (rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, anterior instability etc) and, where possible, combined in meta-analysis to give a treatment effect across all trials.

Main results
Twenty six trials met inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was variable and trial populations were generally small (median sample size = 48, range 14 to 180). Exercise was demonstrated to be effective in terms of short term recovery in rotator cuff disease (RR 7.74 (1.97, 30.32), and longer term benefit with respect to function (RR 2.45 (1.24, 4.86). Combining mobilisation with exercise resulted in additional benefit when compared to exercise alone for rotator cuff disease. Laser therapy was demonstrated to be more effective than placebo for adhesive capsulitis (RR 8, 95%CI 2.11 to 30.34) but not for supraspinatus tendinitis (RR 2, 95%CI 0.98 to 4.09). Both ultrasound and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy resulted in improvement compared to placebo in pain in calcific tendinitis (RR 1.81 (1.26, 2.60) and RR 19 (1.16, 12.43) respectively). There is no evidence of the effect of ultrasound in shoulder pain (mixed diagnosis), adhesive capsulitis or rotator cuff tendinitis. When compared to exercises, ultrasound is of no additional benefit over and above exercise alone. There is some evidence that for rotator cuff disease, corticosteroid injections are superior to physiotherapy and no evidence that physiotherapy alone is of benefit for adhesive capsulitis

Authors' conclusions
The small sample sizes, variable methodological quality and heterogeneity in terms of population studied, physiotherapy intervention employed and length of follow up of randomised controlled trials of physiotherapy interventions results in little overall evidence to guide treatment. There is evidence to support the use of some interventions in specific and circumscribed cases. There is a need for trials of physiotherapy interventions for specific clinical conditions associated with shoulder pain, for shoulder pain where combinations of physiotherapy interventions, as well as, physiotherapy interventions as an adjunct to other, non physiotherapy interventions are compared. This is more reflective of current clinical practice. Trials should be adequately powered and address key methodological criteria such as allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessor.

Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain

Background
While many treatments, including corticosteroid injections in and around the shoulder, are advocated to be of benefit for shoulder pain, few are of proven efficacy. This review of corticosteroid injections for shoulder pain is one in a series of reviews of varying interventions for shoulder disorders.

Objectives
To determine the efficacy and safety of corticosteroid injections in the treatment of adults with shoulder pain.

Search methods
MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Central and Science Citation Index were searched up to and including June 2002.

Selection criteria
Randomised and pseudo-randomised trials in all languages of corticosteroid injections compared to placebo or another intervention, or of varying types and dosages of steroid injection in adults with shoulder pain. Specific exclusions were duration of shoulder pain less than three weeks, rheumatoid arthritis, polymyalgia rheumatica and fracture.

Data collection and analysis
Trial inclusion and methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers according to predetermined criteria. Results are presented separately for rotator cuff disease, adhesive capsulitis, full thickness rotator cuff tear and mixed diagnoses, and, where possible, combined in meta-analysis.

Main results
Twenty-six trials met inclusion criteria. The number, site and dosage of injections varied widely between studies. The number of participants per trial ranged from 20 to 114 (median 52 participants). Methodological quality was variable.

For rotator cuff disease, subacromial steroid injection was demonstrated to have a small benefit over placebo in some trials however no benefit of subacromial steroid injection over NSAID was demonstrated based upon the pooled results of three trials. 

For adhesive capsulitis, two trials suggested a possible early benefit of intra-articular steroid injection over placebo but there was insufficient data for pooling of any of the trials. One trial suggested short-term benefit of intra-articular corticosteroid injection over physiotherapy in the short-term (success at seven weeks RR=1.66 (1.21, 2.28).

Authors' conclusions
Despite many RCTs of corticosteroid injections for shoulder pain, their small sample sizes, variable methodological quality and heterogeneity means that there is little overall evidence to guide treatment. Subacromial corticosteroid injection for rotator cuff disease and intra-articular injection for adhesive capsulitis may be beneficial although their effect may be small and not well-maintained.

There is a need for further trials investigating the efficacy of corticosteroid injections for shoulder pain. Other important issues that remain to be clarified include whether the accuracy of needle placement, anatomical site, frequency, dose and type of corticosteroid influences efficacy.

/pdf/corticosteroid-injections-for-shoulder-pain-3yrrozd3rj.pdf

Sally Green

Papers

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: a systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework

Analysis of outcome measures for persons with patellofemoral pain: which are reliable and valid?

Physiotherapy interventions for shoulder pain

Corticosteroid injections for shoulder pain