Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35944924›Full record

GuidelineBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2022

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.

Michelle Gates, Allison Gates, Dawid Pieper, Ricardo M Fernandes, Andrea C Tricco, David Moher, Sue E Brennan, Tianjing Li, Michelle Pollock, Carole Lunny and 10 more

Abstract readGuideline
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 444 papers, 103 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
444citing papers in PubMed, 103 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

444 citing papers in PubMed, 103 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Dental caries and periodontal status in children and adolescents with type 1 diabetes mellitus: an umbrella review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Pooled it
  7. Virtual reality based-rehabilitation for chronic neck pain: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2026
    Pooled it
  8. Patient and public involvement in randomized trials of lifestyle intervention among pregnant women with obesity: An umbrella review.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

384 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

20 authors.

Michelle GatesAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Allison GatesAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Dawid PieperInstitute for Research in Operative Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Ricardo M FernandesClinical Pharmacology Unit, Faculty of Medicine and Institute of Molecular Medicine, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Andrea C TriccoLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
David MoherClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sue E BrennanSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Tianjing LiDepartment of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Denver, CO, USA.
Michelle PollockInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, AB, Canada.
Carole LunnyLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St Michael's Hospital, Toronto, ON, Canada.
Dino SepúlvedaDepartment of Health Technology Assessment and Evidence Based Healthcare, Ministry of Health, Chile.
Joanne E McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Shannon D ScottFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Karen A RobinsonJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Katja MatthiasFaculty of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, University of Applied Science Stralsund, Stralsund, Germany.
Konstantinos I BougioukasDepartment of Hygiene, Social-Preventive Medicine, and Medical Statistics, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Paolo Fusar-PoliEarly Psychosis: Interventions and Clinical-detection Laboratory, Department of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology, and Neuroscience, King's Collect London, London, UK.
Penny WhitingBristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
Stephana J MossDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada hartling@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8341-3991

Funding

Maximizing Use of High-Quality Evidence in Eye Care: Cochrane Eyes and Vision US ProjectUG1EY020522 · NEI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Tianjing Li · 2017 to 2026
$10.1M
NEI NIH HHS UG1 EY020522
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

designDevelopment of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.

participantsCore team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist.

settingInternational consensus.

interventionFour stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline.

resultsFrom the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews.

conclusionsPRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

Indexed as

ChecklistHealth FacilitiesConsensusDelivery of Health CareDelphi TechniqueHumansResearch DesignSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35944924
PMCPMC9361065

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.