PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts

Abstract

Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.

Authors seldom report the most patient-important outcomes and absolute effect measures in systematic review abstracts

“…In its elaboration document, PRISMA encourages authors to report main results in the data synthesis section of their abstract, using numerical results with confidence intervals for the SRs' most important outcomes, and ideally, with specifications of the number of studies and participants included in the analyses [22]. This is reaffirmed in the PRISMA for abstracts checklist published in 2013 [2], which suggests that in addition to presenting the baseline risk, the presentation of results for the main outcomes of benefit and harm should include the number of studies and participants, summary measures, confidence intervals, direction of effect and size of effect (e.g., lower, fewer, reduced; and greater, more, increased). With respect to absolute measures of effect, the PRISMA statement provides guidance (although somewhat limited): when a percentage is used, the baseline risk should also be shown, which allows the reader to see what the absolute benefit or harm is, and calculate whichever measures they choose.…”

“…With respect to absolute measures of effect, the PRISMA statement provides guidance (although somewhat limited): when a percentage is used, the baseline risk should also be shown, which allows the reader to see what the absolute benefit or harm is, and calculate whichever measures they choose. The guideline also suggests that results be presented in terms meaningful to clinicians and patients, including kilograms, days, and percentages [2].…”

“…The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRIS-MA) reporting guidelines for abstracts recommend that results for the main outcomes of both benefits and harms should be reported as part of the synthesis of the results, preferably providing the number of studies and participants for each included outcome, summary measures (estimates), and corresponding measure of precision [2]. The guidelines encourage the inclusion of information on the direction and size of effect in both absolute and relative measures [2].…”

Writing for Publication 101: Why the Abstract Is So Important

“…In order for readers to judge the validity and objectivity of reviews, it is helpful if authors describe how and where they selected articles, the quality of those reports, and the implications of their findings. Abstracts for review papers may be modified from the sections suggested for the considerably more rigorous systematic review 12 to include the following aspects: • Introduction: relevance of topic, review objective • Methods: article selection criteria, databases searched, key terms, dates searched • Results: number and type of articles located (flowchart to illustrate total vs final article count, reasons for not selecting), notable features of studies, patient demographics, main outcomes • Synthesis, analysis, discussion: summary of relative differences in effectiveness of outcomes, quality of studies, gaps in literature • Implications: summary conclusion with implications for practice Other sources suggest slightly different inclusions for narrative report abstracts; for example, IMRAD 13 (Introduction, Methods, Results and Discussion) and Background, Aims, Sources (databases, keywords, timeframe), Content, Implications. 14 Case Reports.…”

Reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: where are we now?

“…A quick look at the EQUATOR website -the website for research reporting guidelines -revealed over 250 different guidelines, varying from the well-known CONSORT statement for reporting of randomized controlled trials and PRISMA for reporting of systematic reviews to the lesser known ones like TRI-POD for prediction models and CARE for case reports [1]. And after the development of reporting guidelines for full text articles, reporting guidelines for abstracts are now emerging [2,3].…”