Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37833767›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2023

The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence.

Matthew J Page, David Moher, Sue Brennan, Joanne E McKenzie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matthew J PageMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. matthew.page@monash.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-4242-7526
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sue BrennanSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Joanne E McKenzieMethods in Evidence Synthesis Unit, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia.

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council GNT2019670
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIncomplete reporting about what systematic reviewers did and what they found prevents users of the report from being able to fully interpret the findings and understand the limitations of the underlying evidence. Reporting guidelines such as the PRISMA statement and its extensions are designed to improve reporting. However, there are important inconsistencies across the various PRISMA reporting guidelines, which causes confusion and misinterpretation. Coupled with this, users might need to consult multiple guidelines to gain a full understanding of the guidance. Furthermore, the current passive strategy of implementing PRISMA has not fully brought about needed improvements in the completeness of systematic review reporting.

methodsThe PRISMATIC ('PRISMA, Technology, and Implementation to enhance reporting Completeness') project aims to use novel methods to enable more efficient and effective translation of PRISMA reporting guidelines into practice. We will establish a working group who will develop a unified PRISMA statement that harmonises content across the main PRISMA guideline and several of its extensions. We will then develop a web application that generates a reporting template and checklist customised to the characteristics and methods of a systematic review ('PRISMA-Web app') and conduct a randomised trial to evaluate its impact on authors' reporting. We will also develop a web application that helps peer reviewers appraise systematic review manuscripts ('PRISMA-Peer app') and conduct a diagnostic accuracy study to evaluate its impact on peer reviewers' detection of incomplete reporting. DISCUSSION: We anticipate the novel guidance and web-based apps developed throughout the project will substantively enhance the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of health evidence, ultimately benefiting users who rely on systematic reviews to inform health care decision-making.

Indexed as

ChecklistResearch DesignHumansPeer ReviewQuality ControlSystematic Reviews as TopicMeta-analysisMethodologyReportingSystematic reviewsTransparency

Identifiers

PMID37833767
PMCPMC10571343

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.