Extending the PRISMA statement to equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-E 2012): explanation and elaboration

Abstract

This explanation and elaboration document is intended to accompany the PRISMA-E 2012 statement and the PRISMA statement to improve understanding of the reporting guideline for users. The PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guideline is intended to improve transparency and completeness of reporting of equity-focused systematic reviews. Improved reporting can lead to better judgment of applicability by policy makers which may result in more appropriate policies and programs and may contribute to reductions in health inequities.

Consideration of health inequalities in systematic reviews: a mapping review of guidance

“…Doull et al [22] report on three guidance documents within the same study [23–25]. Tugwell et al [29] and Ueffing et al [30] both discuss the Cochrane Equity Checklist, whilst Welch et al [32, 33] and Burford et al [34] report on the PRISMA-Equity 2012 Extension. The majority of the guidance has been produced with the involvement of members of the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group.

Fig.

…”

“…[30]To provide guidance on assessing equity for users and authors of systematic reviews of interventions.Aimed at reviewers, users and journal editors.Development process:• 4 working sessions• Built on previous work by the members of the Measurement and Evidence Knowledge Network• Panel members reviewed the evidence and drafted guidance• Feedback and revision soughtWho was involved:International leaders in systematic reviews and health equity, mixed methods experts, social scientists, economists, experts in systematic reviews, experts in public health and health equity, experts from low and middle income countries and policy advisers who use systematic reviews. Members of the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group and the Measurement and Evidence Knowledge Network7 recommendations underpinned by 16 checklist items.Examples providedStrengths:• Wide range of expertise involved in development• Consensus-based•Descriptive examples provided•Addition of resources to signpost reviewers to sources of help when attempting to answer the questions.Limitations:• Terminology used may not be widely accepted or understood• Greater detail required on how reviewers can operationalise the itemsTugwell et al [31]“Propose an evidence based framework – or “cascade” – for equity-orientated knowledge translation.”Aimed at reviewers, researchers and usersDevelopment process:Not reportedWho was involved:Not reported5 stepsExamples demonstrate how the steps are applied to 2 systematic reviewsStrengths:• Descriptive examples provided to operationalise items• Open accessLimitations:• No information available on how the guidance was developed or tested.• Does not define equityWelch et al [32]Welch et al [33]Burford et al [34]“To provide structured guidance on transparently reporting methods and results for equity focused reviews. To legitimise and emphasize the importance of reporting health equity results.”Aimed at reviewersDevelopment process:• Consensus-based - Followed guidance for developing reporting guidelines • Identifying need• Reviewing the literature (systematic review and methodological study)• Gathering expert opinion (online survey)• Exploring consensus• PilotingWho was involved:• Equity researchers, decision-makers, clinical epidemiologists, systematic review methodologists, journal editors, funders, practitioners, review authors with LMIC focus, methodologists/statisticians, novice systematic reviewers and established systematic reviewers involved with equity and/or complex population intervention systematic reviews14-item equity extension of existing guidance for the reporting of systematic reviews.Provides detailed rationale, evidence, whenever available, an exemplar for recommending each item and examples of good practice.Strengths:• Wide range of expertise involved in development• Involved non-expert reviewers in development• Consensus-based• Followed guidance on developing reporting guidelines• Provides rationale, evidence, exemplars and examples to operationalise items• Evaluated• Open accessLimitations:• Terminology used may not be widely accepted or understood• Greater detail required on how reviewers can operationalise some items, e.g.…”

“…Burford et al [34] and Doull et al [22] specifically report involving novice reviewers in the development of their guidance. The PRISMA-E 2012 reporting guidelines [32, 33] were also informed by consensus methods. Whilst all of the guidance documents were produced from an HI perspective, only five had theoretical underpinnings or followed established methods in developing their guidance [22, 27, 32, 33, 35].…”

Interactive Visual Displays for Interpreting the Results of Clinical Trials: Formative Evaluation With Case Vignettes (Preprint)

“…Our study findings add to the growing evidence supporting alternative information display formats to convey the gist of clinical studies [11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22], suggesting that the standard format of scientific reporting, especially for article abstracts, is worth reconsidering. The ideal abstract display format should match clinicians' mental model to reduce cognitive workload in interpreting clinical study results.…”

“…Prior work regarding the primary literature has focused on displaying systematic reviews, investigating different methods of displaying results across studies, such as short summaries [11][12][13], tables [14][15][16][17][18][19] and harvest plots [20]. One recent study examined a novel presentation of clinical trial reports that restructured the visualization into several panels (i.e., study purpose, process model and data grid for viewing results, statistical methods and result interpretations).…”