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.

To provide an update to the “Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock,” last published in 2008. A consensus committee of 68 international experts representing 30 international organizations was convened. Nominal groups were assembled at key international meetings (for those committee members attending the conference). A formal conflict of interest policy was developed at the onset of the process and enforced throughout. The entire guidelines process was conducted independent of any industry funding. A stand-alone meeting was held for all subgroup heads, co- and vice-chairs, and selected individuals. Teleconferences and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee served as an integral part of the development. The authors were advised to follow the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations as strong (1) or weak (2). The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasized. Recommendations were classified into three groups: (1) those directly targeting severe sepsis; (2) those targeting general care of the critically ill patient and considered high priority in severe sepsis; and (3) pediatric considerations. Key recommendations and suggestions, listed by category, include: early quantitative resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 h after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm a potential source of infection (UG); administration of broad-spectrum antimicrobials therapy within 1 h of the recognition of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1C) as the goal of therapy; reassessment of antimicrobial therapy daily for de-escalation, when appropriate (1B); infection source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method within 12 h of diagnosis (1C); initial fluid resuscitation with crystalloid (1B) and consideration of the addition of albumin in patients who continue to require substantial amounts of crystalloid to maintain adequate mean arterial pressure (2C) and the avoidance of hetastarch formulations (1B); initial fluid challenge in patients with sepsis-induced tissue hypoperfusion and suspicion of hypovolemia to achieve a minimum of 30 mL/kg of crystalloids (more rapid administration and greater amounts of fluid may be needed in some patients (1C); fluid challenge technique continued as long as hemodynamic improvement is based on either dynamic or static variables (UG); norepinephrine as the first-choice vasopressor to maintain mean arterial pressure ≥65 mmHg (1B); epinephrine when an additional agent is needed to maintain adequate blood pressure (2B); vasopressin (0.03 U/min) can be added to norepinephrine to either raise mean arterial pressure to target or to decrease norepinephrine dose but should not be used as the initial vasopressor (UG); dopamine is not recommended except in highly selected circumstances (2C); dobutamine infusion administered or added to vasopressor in the presence of (a) myocardial dysfunction as suggested by elevated cardiac filling pressures and low cardiac output, or (b) ongoing signs of hypoperfusion despite achieving adequate intravascular volume and adequate mean arterial pressure (1C); avoiding use of intravenous hydrocortisone in adult septic shock patients if adequate fluid resuscitation and vasopressor therapy are able to restore hemodynamic stability (2C); hemoglobin target of 7–9 g/dL in the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, ischemic coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage (1B); low tidal volume (1A) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure (1B) for acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in ARDS (1B); higher rather than lower level of PEEP for patients with sepsis-induced moderate or severe ARDS (2C); recruitment maneuvers in sepsis patients with severe refractory hypoxemia due to ARDS (2C); prone positioning in sepsis-induced ARDS patients with a Pao
 2/Fio
 2 ratio of ≤100 mm Hg in facilities that have experience with such practices (2C); head-of-bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ARDS who do not have evidence of tissue hypoperfusion (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation (1A); minimizing use of either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation targeting specific titration endpoints (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers if possible in the septic patient without ARDS (1C); a short course of neuromuscular blocker (no longer than 48 h) for patients with early ARDS and a Pao
 2/Fi
 o
 2 180 mg/dL, targeting an upper blood glucose ≤180 mg/dL (1A); equivalency of continuous veno-venous hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1B); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding in patients with bleeding risk factors (1B); oral or enteral (if necessary) feedings, as tolerated, rather than either complete fasting or provision of only intravenous glucose within the first 48 h after a diagnosis of severe sepsis/septic shock (2C); and addressing goals of care, including treatment plans and end-of-life planning (as appropriate) (1B), as early as feasible, but within 72 h of intensive care unit admission (2C). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include: therapy with face mask oxygen, high flow nasal cannula oxygen, or nasopharyngeal continuous PEEP in the presence of respiratory distress and hypoxemia (2C), use of physical examination therapeutic endpoints such as capillary refill (2C); for septic shock associated with hypovolemia, the use of crystalloids or albumin to deliver a bolus of 20 mL/kg of crystalloids (or albumin equivalent) over 5–10 min (2C); more common use of inotropes and vasodilators for low cardiac output septic shock associated with elevated systemic vascular resistance (2C); and use of hydrocortisone only in children with suspected or proven “absolute”’ adrenal insufficiency (2C). Strong agreement existed among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best care of patients with severe sepsis. Although a significant number of aspects of care have relatively weak support, evidence-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the foundation of improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

/pdf/surviving-sepsis-campaign-international-guidelines-for-229kg8suph.pdf

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: International Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, 2012

animals used (i.e., species/strain, sex, and age/weight). Most of the papers surveyed did not report using randomisation (87%) or blinding (86%) to reduce bias in animal selection and outcome assessment. Only 70% of the publications that used statistical methods fully described them and presented the results with a measure of precision or variability [5]. These findings are a cause for concern and are consistent with reviews of many research areas, including clinical studies, published in recent years [2–22].

https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1000412&type=printable

Improving Bioscience Research Reporting: The ARRIVE Guidelines for Reporting Animal Research

Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the 2010 version of the CONSORT Statement, which updates the previous reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulated experience.

/pdf/consort-2010-statement-updated-guidelines-for-reporting-1np1a0n4dn.pdf

CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials

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

美国变态反应、哮喘与免疫学会（AAAAI）是变态反应科医师、临床免疫学者、健康护理专业人员、对变态反应学有特殊兴趣的临床医师的专业组织，成立于1943年，有近6500名成员，遍布美国、加拿大以及其他60个国家。AAAAI网站栏目有新闻、专业会议、会员与医学专业人员信息、患者／公共资源中心、某些城市的花粉和霉菌孢子计数、变态反应性疾病和免疫疾病的站点链接。

American Academy of Allergy，Asthma and Immunology

1993年，30位医学期刊编辑和临床试验专家在加拿大开会制定了一套建议——CONSORT声明。CONSORT即Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials（临床试验报告统一标准），是CONSORT小组拟定的一系列建议标准，用以改善RCT报告款项参差不齐产生的问题，指导作者提高其临床试验报告质量，读者、审稿人和编辑可以利用CONSORT声明来帮助评估和解释RCT报告。

Consort

Orphanet

MedlinePlus是链接美国国立卫生研究所（NIH）院内各机构和美国国家生物技术信息中心的重要渠道之一。NIH涵盖的生物医学信息资源既广且深，又相互交叉，从各主要栏目页面很难全面获得所需信息。MedlinePlus汇集了美国国家医学图书馆（NLM）、NIH和其他政府机构以及医疗组织的权威信息，并为解答健康问题提供引导信息。MedlinePlus还包括Medline检索，提供医学期刊论文的快速入口，处方和非处方药物的详细信息，附有插图的医学百科全书、互动性强的指南、多媒体卫生信息、数千种临床试验的链接、以及每日更新的卫生信息。

MedlinePlus

急性呼吸窘迫综合征网络（ARDS Net）成立于1994年，是NHLBI的分支机构，主要承担有关急性呼吸窘迫综合征（ARDS）的临床试验，同时也承担相关基础研究。该网站现有12个临床中心（由46家医院组成）和1个数据中心，这些中心的网站可以通过主页上的Network Sites链接进入。

王林

Papers

American Academy of Allergy，Asthma and Immunology

Consort

Orphanet

MedlinePlus

Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome Network