Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38889936›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Protocol for the development of a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations using cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies: the Preferred Reporting Items for Umbrella Reviews of Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC).

Marco Solmi, Kelly Cobey, David Moher, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh, Elena Dragioti, Jae Il Shin, Joaquim Radua, Samuele Cortese, Beverley Shea, Nicola Veronese and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. 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

16 authors.

Marco Solmi *Psychiatry, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada marco.solmi83@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0003-4877-7233
Kelly Cobey *Open Science and Meta-Research Program, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
David MoherOttawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
Sanam EbrahimzadehOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-3890-1683
Elena DragiotiPain and Rehabilitation Centre, and Department of Medical and Health Sciences, Linkopings universitet, Linkoping, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0001-9019-4125
Jae Il ShinYonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, The Republic of Korea.
Joaquim RaduaInstitut d'Investigacions Biomediques August Pi i Sunyer, Barcelona, Spain.
Samuele CorteseCentre for Innovation in Mental Health, School of Psychology, Faculty of Environmental and Life Sciences, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5877-8075
Beverley SheaOttawa Health Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Nicola VeroneseUniversity of Palermo, Palermo, Italy.
Lisa HartlingPediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8341-3991
Michelle PollockInstitute of Health Economics, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.
Matthias EggerInstitute of Social & Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0001-7462-5132
Stefania PapatheodorouDepartment of Epidemiology, Rutgers School of Public Health, Piscataway, NJ, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9451-9094
John P IoannidisStanford University, Stanford, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3118-6859
Andre F CarvalhoIMPACT (Innovation in Mental and Physical Health and Clinical Treatment) Strategic Research Centre, School of Medicine, Barwon Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionObservational studies are fraught with several biases including reverse causation and residual confounding. Overview of reviews of observational studies (ie, umbrella reviews) synthesise systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses of cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies, and may also aid in the grading of the credibility of reported associations. The number of published umbrella reviews has been increasing. Recently, a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR)) was published, but the field lacks reporting guidelines for umbrella reviews of observational studies. Our aim is to develop a reporting guideline for umbrella reviews on cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies assessing epidemiological associations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will adhere to established guidance and prepare a PRIOR extension for systematic reviews of cross-sectional, case-control and cohort studies testing epidemiological associations between an exposure and an outcome, namely Preferred Reporting Items for Umbrella Reviews of Cross-sectional, Case-control and Cohort studies (PRIUR-CCC). Step 1 will be the project launch to identify stakeholders. Step 2 will be a literature review of available guidance to conduct umbrella reviews. Step 3 will be an online Delphi study sampling 100 participants among authors and editors of umbrella reviews. Step 4 will encompass the finalisation of PRIUR-CCC statement, including a checklist, a flow diagram, explanation and elaboration document. Deliverables will be (i) identifying stakeholders to involve according to relevant expertise and end-user groups, with an equity, diversity and inclusion lens; (ii) completing a narrative review of methodological guidance on how to conduct umbrella reviews, a narrative review of methodology and reporting in published umbrella reviews and preparing an initial PRIUR-CCC checklist for Delphi study round 1; (iii) preparing a PRIUR-CCC checklist with guidance after Delphi study; (iv) publishing and disseminating PRIUR-CCC statement. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: PRIUR-CCC has been approved by The Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board and has obtained consent (20220639-01H). Participants to step 3 will give informed consent. PRIUR-CCC steps will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and will guide reporting of umbrella reviews on epidemiological associations.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicCase-Control StudiesChecklistCohort StudiesCross-Sectional StudiesHumansObservational Studies as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as Topicepidemiologic studiesprotocols & guidelinesstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID38889936
PMCPMC11191798

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.