The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration

Liberati, Alessandro; Altman, Douglas G.; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Mulrow, Cynthia D.; Gøtzsche, Peter C; Ioannidis, John P. A.; Clarke, Mike; Devereaux, P. J.; Kleijnen, Jos; Moher, David

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006

Cited by 13,691 publications

(11,692 citation statements)

References 199 publications

(143 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

10,948

Contrasting

Unclassified

338

Order By: Relevance

“…This systematic review was undertaken in accordance with the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses) statement 13. The review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42014015018).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal Effect of Stroke on Cognition: A Systematic Review

Tang

Amiesimaka

Harrison

et al. 2018

JAHA

143

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundStroke is associated with an increased risk of dementia; however, the impact of stroke on cognition has been found to be variable, such that stroke survivors can show decline, remain stable, or revert to baseline cognitive functioning. Knowing the natural history of cognitive impairment after stroke is important for intervention. The aim of this systematic review is to investigate the longitudinal course of cognitive function in stroke survivors.Methods and ResultsThree electronic databases (Medline, Embase, PsycINFO) were searched using OvidSP from inception to July 15, 2016. Longitudinal studies with ≥2 time points of cognitive assessment after stroke were included. In total, 5952 articles were retrieved and 14 were included. There was a trend toward significant deterioration in cognitive test scores in stroke survivors (8 studies). Cognitive stability (3 studies) and improvement (3 studies) were also demonstrated, although follow‐up time tended to be shorter in these studies. Variables associated with impairment included age, ethnicity, premorbid cognitive performance, depression, stroke location, and history of previous stroke. Associations with APOE*E4 (apolipoprotein E with the E4 allele) allele status and sex were mixed.ConclusionsStroke is associated with an increased risk of cognitive decline, but cognitive decline is not a consequence. Factors associated with decline, such as sociodemographic status, health‐related comorbidity, stroke history, and clinical features could be used in models to predict future risk of dementia after stroke. A risk model approach could identify patients at greatest risk for timely intervention to reduce the frequency or delay the onset of poststroke cognitive impairment and dementia.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Longitudinal Effect of Stroke on Cognition: A Systematic Review

Tang

Amiesimaka

Harrison

et al. 2018

JAHA

143

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This systematic review and meta‐analysis was performed using a prespecified protocol, and the results are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines 8. A detailed description of the search strategy can be found in Tables S1 through S3.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Varenicline and Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Sterling

Windle

Filion

et al. 2016

JAHA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundVarenicline is an efficacious smoking‐cessation drug. However, previous meta‐analyses provide conflicting results regarding its cardiovascular safety. The publication of several new randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provides an opportunity to reassess this potential adverse drug reaction.Methods and ResultsWe searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for RCTs that compare varenicline with placebo for smoking cessation. RCTs reporting cardiovascular serious adverse events and/or all‐cause mortality during the treatment period or within 30 days of treatment discontinuation were eligible for inclusion. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% CIs were generated by using DerSimonian–Laird random‐effects models. Thirty‐eight RCTs met our inclusion criteria (N=12 706). Events were rare in both varenicline (57/7213) and placebo (43/5493) arms. No difference was observed for cardiovascular serious adverse events when comparing varenicline with placebo (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.72–1.49). Similar findings were obtained when examining cardiovascular (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.57–1.89) and noncardiovascular patients (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.64–1.64). Deaths were rare in both varenicline (11/7213) and placebo (9/5493) arms. Although 95% CIs were wide, pooling of all‐cause mortality found no difference between groups (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.50–1.52), including when stratified by participants with (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.40–3.83) and without (RR 0.77, 95% CI 0.40–1.48) cardiovascular disease.ConclusionsWe found no evidence that varenicline increases the rate of cardiovascular serious adverse events. Results were similar among those with and without cardiovascular disease. Given varenicline's efficacy as a smoking cessation drug and the long‐term cardiovascular benefits of cessation, it should continue to be prescribed for smoking cessation.

show abstract

“…The development of the MAPS reporting statement was informed by recently published guidance for health research reporting guidelines [5] and broadly modelled other recent reporting guideline developments [9][10][11][12][13][14]. A working group comprising six health economists (SP, ORA, HD, LL, MO, AG) and one Delphi methodologist (RF) was formed following a request from an academic journal to develop a reporting statement for mapping studies.…”

Section: The Development Of the Maps Statementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The remainder of this explanation and elaboration paper is modelled on such papers developed for other reporting guidelines [9][10][11][12][13][14]. Each of the 23 reporting items is illustrated with an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature.…”

Section: How To Use This Papermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Similarly, authors should report any in-kind support or other sources of support for the study, for example, statistical or broader research assistance and writing assistance by individuals or groups not included in the authorship. The transparency surrounding source(s) of funding and nonmonetary support required by other recent health-related reporting guidelines [12,14] should also be followed for mapping studies. The role of the funder(s) in the design, conduct and reporting of the mapping study should be outlined.…”

Section: Item 23: Additional Informationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The process of ''mapping'' is increasingly being used to predict health utilities, for application within health economic evaluations, using data on other indicators or measures of health. Guidance for the reporting of mapping studies is currently lacking. Objective The overall objective of this research was to develop a checklist of essential items, which authors should consider when reporting mapping studies. The MAPS (MApping onto Preference-based measures reporting Standards) statement is a checklist, which aims to promote complete and transparent reporting by researchers. This paper provides a detailed explanation and elaboration of the items contained within the MAPS statement. Methods In the absence of previously published reporting checklists or reporting guidance documents, a de novo list of reporting items and accompanying explanations was created. A two-round, modified Delphi survey, with representatives from academia, consultancy, health technology assessment agencies and the biomedical journal editorial community, was used to identify a list of essential reporting items from this larger list. Results From the initial de novo list of 29 candidate items, a set of 23 essential reporting items was developed. The items are presented numerically and categorised within six sections, namely, (i) title and abstract, (ii) introduction, (iii) methods, (iv) results, (v) discussion and (vi) other. For each item, we summarise the recommendation, illustrate it using an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature, and provide a detailed explanation to accompany the recommendation. Conclusions It is anticipated that the MAPS statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies. It is targeted at researchers developing mapping algorithms, peer reviewers and editors involved in the manuscript review process for mapping studies, and the funders of the research. The MAPS working group plans to assess the need for an update of the reporting checklist in 5 years' time. Each of the 23 items contained within the MAPS reporting statement is illustrated with an exemplar of good reporting practice identified from the published literature. In addition, a detailed explanation and elaboration is provided for each of the 23 reporting items.It is anticipated that the MAPS reporting statement will promote clarity, transparency and completeness of reporting of mapping studies.

show abstract

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration

Cited by 13,691 publications

References 199 publications

Longitudinal Effect of Stroke on Cognition: A Systematic Review

Longitudinal Effect of Stroke on Cognition: A Systematic Review

Varenicline and Adverse Cardiovascular Events: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

The MAPS Reporting Statement for Studies Mapping onto Generic Preference-Based Outcome Measures: Explanation and Elaboration

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About