PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Experiences and Perceptions of Trans and Gender Non-Binary People Regarding Their Psychosocial Support Needs: A Systematic Review of the Qualitative Research Evidence

People who identify as trans and gender non-binary experience many challenges in their lives and more interest is being paid to their overall health and wellbeing. However, little is known about their experiences and perceptions regarding their distinct psychosocial needs. The aim of this systematic review is to critically evaluate and synthesize the existing research evidence relating to the unique psychological and social experiences of trans people and identify aspects that may help or hinder access to appropriate psychosocial interventions and supports. The PRISMA procedure was utilized. A search of relevant databases from January 2010 to January 2021 was undertaken. Studies were identified that involved trans people, and addressed issues related to their psychosocial needs. The search yielded 954 papers in total. Following the application of rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria a total of 18 papers were considered suitable for the systematic review. Quality was assessed using the MMAT instrument. Following analysis, four themes were identified: (i) stigma, discrimination and marginalization (ii) trans affirmative experiences (iii) formal and informal supports, and (iv) healthcare access. The policy, education and practice development implications are highlighted and discussed. Future research opportunities have been identified that will add significantly to the body of evidence that may further the development of appropriate health interventions and supports to this population.

What you see depends on where you sit: The effect of geographical location on web-searching for systematic reviews: A case study

There is limited guidance on how to web-search in systematic reviews and concern relates to the reproducibility of searches using search engines such as Google. The aim of this paper is to address one potential source of variation in Google searches: does the geographical location of a researcher affect Google search returns? Using a virtual private network, we ran the same web-search for the medical technology Dasatinib in 12 different countries. Two researchers independently extracted the search returns by country organised by page rank. We compared: C1. any difference in the items returned by Google searches between countries and C2. any difference in the page rank of items returned between countries. Searches were undertaken on Monday September 28th 2020. From 12 countries, 43 items were identified. For C1: 19 items were common to all 12 countries. Twenty-four items were missed by searches in some countries. This means that there were differences in search returns between countries. For C2: a randomised trial reported by Raddich et al was the first search return for all countries. All other items, common to all countries, varied in their page-rank. We find that geographic location would appear to influence Google search returns based on the findings of this case study. The findings suggest that recording the location of the researcher undertaking web-searching may now be an important factor to report alongside detail on steps taken to minimise personalisation of web-searches covered by recent guidance. This finding also has implications for stopping-rules.

Adoption of peer review of literature search strategies in knowledge synthesis from 2009 to 2018: An overview

BACKGROUND

Knowledge synthesis (KS) reviews rely on good quality literature searches to capture a complete set of relevant studies, and peer review of the search strategy is one quality control mechanism that contributes to better quality reviews. Guidelines for peer review of electronic search strategies (PRESS) have been available since 2008.

OBJECTIVES

This overview provides a snapshot of KS indexed in Scopus, published between 2009 and 2018, that reported peer review of the literature search strategy.

METHODS

Articles were identified through citation chasing for PRESS guidance documents and supplementary keyword searches. The characteristics of individual articles and the journals that published them were documented, and descriptive statistics were compiled.

RESULTS

415 articles from 169 journals met inclusion criteria. Approximately half were published in 14 journal titles. Most reviews reported the involvement of an information professional, but PRESS reviewers were rarely acknowledged. An overwhelming majority of review teams were based in Canada.

DISCUSSION

Reported use of PRESS was low during the period examined, but under-reporting may be a factor. Investigation of the barriers and facilitators of PRESS adoption is needed.

CONCLUSION

Despite its value, adoption of PRESS appears low. Advocacy for, and education about, PRESS may be required.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Using citation tracking for systematic literature searching - study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and an expert survey

Background: Up-to-date guidance on comprehensive study identification for systematic reviews is crucial. According to current recommendations, systematic searching should combine electronic database searching with supplementary search methods. One such supplementary search method is citation tracking. It aims at collecting directly and/or indirectly cited and citing references from "seed references". Tailored and evidence-guided recommendations concerning the use of citation tracking are strongly needed. Objective: We intend to develop recommendations for the use of citation tracking in health-related systematic literature searching. Our study will be guided by the following research questions: What are the benefits of citation tracking for health-related systematic literature searching? Which perspectives and experiences do experts in the field of literature retrieval methods have with regard to citation tracking in health-related systematic literature searching? Methods: Our study will have two parts: a scoping review and an expert survey. The scoping review aims at identifying methodological studies on benefits or problems of citation tracking in health-related systematic literature searching with no restrictions on study design, language, and publication date. We will perform database searching in MEDLINE, The Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Web of Science Core Collection, two information science databases, and free web searching. Two reviewers will independently assess full texts of selected abstracts. We will conduct direct backward and forward citation tracking on included articles. The results of the scoping review will inform our expert survey through which we aim to learn about experts΄ perspectives and experiences. We will narratively synthesize the results and derive recommendations for performing health-related systematic reviews.

Using citation tracking for systematic literature searching - study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and a Delphi study

Background: Up-to-date guidance on comprehensive study identification for systematic reviews is crucial. According to current recommendations, systematic searching should combine electronic database searching with supplementary search methods. One such supplementary search method is citation tracking. It aims at collecting directly and/or indirectly cited and citing references from "seed references". Tailored and evidence-guided recommendations concerning the use of citation tracking are strongly needed. Objective: We intend to develop recommendations for the use of citation tracking in systematic literature searching for health-related topics. Our study will be guided by the following research questions: What is the benefit of citation tracking for systematic literature searching for health-related topics? Which methods, citation indexes, and other tools are used for citation tracking? What terminology is used for citation tracking methods? Methods: Our study will have two parts: a scoping review and a Delphi study. The scoping review aims at identifying methodological studies on the benefit and use of citation tracking in systematic literature searching for health-related topics with no restrictions on study design, language, and publication date. We will perform database searching in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, two information science databases, web searching, and contact experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection. We will conduct direct backward and forward citation tracking on included articles. Data from included studies will be extracted using a prespecified extraction sheet and presented in both tabular and narrative form. The results of the scoping review will inform the subsequent Delphi study through which we aim to derive consensus recommendations for the future practice and research of citation tracking.

Using citation tracking for systematic literature searching - study protocol for a scoping review of methodological studies and a Delphi study

Background: Up-to-date guidance on comprehensive study identification for systematic reviews is crucial. According to current recommendations, systematic searching should combine electronic database searching with supplementary search methods. One such supplementary search method is citation tracking. It aims at collecting directly and/or indirectly cited and citing references from "seed references". Tailored and evidence-guided recommendations concerning the use of citation tracking are strongly needed. Objective: We intend to develop recommendations for the use of citation tracking in systematic literature searching for health-related topics. Our study will be guided by the following research questions: What is the benefit of citation tracking for systematic literature searching for health-related topics? Which methods, citation indexes, and other tools are used for citation tracking? What terminology is used for citation tracking methods? Methods: Our study will have two parts: a scoping review and a Delphi study. The scoping review aims at identifying methodological studies on the benefit and use of citation tracking in systematic literature searching for health-related topics with no restrictions on study design, language, and publication date. We will perform database searching in MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL (EBSCOhost), Web of Science Core Collection, two information science databases, web searching, and contact experts in the field. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection. We will conduct direct backward and forward citation tracking on included articles. Data from included studies will be extracted using a prespecified extraction sheet and presented in both tabular and narrative form. The results of the scoping review will inform the subsequent Delphi study through which we aim to derive consensus recommendations for the future practice and research of citation tracking.

[Creatine kinase and isoenzymes in full-term newborn and premature infants]

Serum creatine kinase activity was measured during the first post-natal days in healthy full-term and premature infants. The CK isoenzymes (CK-MM, MB and BB) were separated using ion-exchange column chromatography. Total CK activity is lower for premature infants than for full-term infants at the same time-periods. However the separation of the CK isoenzymes shows that the same normal values for the CK-BB (expressed as U/l) may be used for the two groups of infants.