Common challenges and suggestions for risk of bias tool development: a systematic review of methodological studies

OBJECTIVE

To review the findings of studies that have evaluated the design and/or usability of key risk of bias (RoB) tools for the assessment of RoB in primary studies, as categorised by the LATITUDES Network (a searchable library of RoB tools for evidence synthesis): PROBAST, RoB2, ROBINS-I, QUADAS-2, QUADAS-C, QUAPAS, ROBINS-E, and the COSMIN RoB checklist.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Systematic review of methodological studies. We conducted a forward citation search from the primary report of each tool, to identify primary studies aiming to evaluate the design and/or usability of the tool. Two reviewers assessed studies for inclusion. We extracted tool features into Microsoft Word and used NVivo for document analysis, comprising a mix of deductive and inductive approaches. We summarised findings within each tool and explored common findings across tools.

RESULTS

We identified 13 tool evaluations meeting our inclusion criteria: PROBAST (3); RoB2 (3); ROBINS-I (4); QUADAS-2 (3). We identified no evaluations for the other tools. Evaluations varied in clinical topic area, methodology, approach to bias assessment and tool user background. Some had limitations affecting generalisability. We identified common findings across tools for 6/14 themes: 1) challenging items (e.g. RoB2/ROBINS-I "deviations from intended interventions" domain), 2) overall RoB judgement (concerns with overall risk calculation in PROBAST/ROBINS-I), 3) tool usability (concerns about complexity), 4) time to complete tool (varying demands on time e.g. depending on number of outcomes assessed), 5) user agreement (varied across tools), and 6) recommendations for future use (e.g. piloting) and development (add intermediate domain answer to QUADAS-2/PROBAST; provide clearer guidance for all tools). Of the other eight themes, seven only had findings for the QUADAS-2 tool, limiting comparison across tools, and one ("re-organisation of questions") had no findings.

CONCLUSION

Evaluations of key RoB tools have posited common challenges and recommendations for tool use and development. These findings may be helpful to people using or developing RoB tools. Guidance is necessary to support the design and implementation of future RoB tool evaluations.

Liver function tests in patients with hypertension in primary care: a prospective cohort study

BACKGROUND

Liver function tests (LFTs) are frequently used to monitor patients with hypertension in UK primary care. Evidence is lacking on whether testing improves outcomes.

AIM

To estimate the diagnostic accuracy of LFTs in patients with hypertension and determine downstream consequences of testing.

DESIGN & SETTING

Prospective study using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD).

METHOD

In total, 30 000 patients with hypertension who had LFTs in 2015 were randomly selected from CPRD. The diagnostic accuracy measures for eight LFT analytes and an overall LFT panel were calculated against the reference standard of liver disease. Rates of consultations, blood tests, and referrals within 6 months following testing were measured.

RESULTS

The 1-year incidence of liver disease in patients with hypertension was 0.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.4% to 0.6%). Sensitivity and specificity of an LFT panel were modest: 61.3% (95% CI = 53.1% to 69.0%) and 73.8% (95% CI = 73.1% to 74.3%), respectively. The positive predictive value (PPV) of the eight individual LFT analytes were low ranging from 0.2% to 8.9%. Among patients who did not develop liver disease, mean number of consultations, referrals, and tests were higher in the 6 months following false-positives at 10.5, 0.7 and 29.8, respectively, compared with true-negatives: 8.6, 0.6, and 19.8.

CONCLUSION

PPVs of LFTs in primary care were low, with high rates of false-positive results and increased rates of subsequent consultations, referrals, and blood testing. Avoiding LFTs for routine monitoring could potentially reduce patients' anxiety, GP workload, and healthcare costs.

Clinical effectiveness of point of care tests for diagnosing urinary tract infection: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Point of care tests (POCTs) have the potential to improve the urinary tract infection (UTI) diagnostic pathway, as they can provide a diagnosis quickly in near-patient settings, and some also identify causative pathogens/antimicrobial sensitivity.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the clinical impact, accuracy, and technical characteristics of POCT for diagnosing UTI.

METHODS OF DATA SYNTHESIS

Narrative summary and bivariate random effects meta-analyses to estimate summary sensitivity and specificity.

DATA SOURCES

Five electronic databases, two clinical trial registries, study reports and review reference lists, and websites.

STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials/non-randomized studies and diagnostic test accuracy studies published since 2000.

PARTICIPANTS

People with suspected UTI.

TESTS

Rapid tests (results <40 minutes): Astrego PA-100 system, Lodestar DX, Uriscreen, UTRiPLEX. Culture tests (results <24 hours): Flexicult Human, ID Flexicult, Diaslide, Dipstreak, Chromostreak, Uricult, Uricult Trio, Uricult Plus.

REFERENCE STANDARD

Any.

ASSESSMENT OF RISK OF BIAS

Risk of Bias-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-C.

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials evaluated Flexicult Human (one against standard care; one against ID Flexicult). No difference was reported in antibiotic use concordant with culture results (OR 0.84 95% CI 0.58-1.20) or appropriate antibiotic prescribing (OR 1.44 95% CI 1.03-1.99). Initial antibiotic prescribing was lower with Flexicult than standard care (OR 0.56 95% CI 0.35-0.88). No difference for other measures of antibiotic use, symptom duration, patient enablement, or resource use. Fifteen studies reported accuracy data. Limited data were available, with most POCT evaluated in single studies or not evaluated at all. Uriscreen (four studies), Uricult Trio (three studies), Flexicult Human (four studies), and ID Flexicult (two studies) had modest sensitivity and specificity. POCTs were easier to use and interpret than standard culture.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently insufficient evidence to support the use of POCTs in UTI diagnosis. Due to the rapid development of POCT, this review should be updated regularly.

Methodological review of NMA bias concepts provides groundwork for the development of a list of concepts for potential inclusion in a new risk of bias tool for network meta-analysis (RoB NMA Tool)

INTRODUCTION

Network meta-analyses (NMAs) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide estimates of the comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The aim of this study is to conduct a methodological review to compile a preliminary list of concepts related to bias in NMAs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We included papers that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, papers assessing the quality of NMAs, or method papers. We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library and unpublished literature (up to July 2020). We extracted items related to bias in NMAs. An item was excluded if it related to general systematic review quality or bias and was included in currently available tools such as ROBIS or AMSTAR 2. We reworded items, typically structured as questions, into concepts (i.e. general notions).

RESULTS

One hundred eighty-one articles were assessed in full text and 58 were included. Of these articles, 12 were tools, checklists or journal standards; 13 were guidance documents for NMAs; 27 were studies related to bias or NMA methods; and 6 were papers assessing the quality of NMAs. These studies yielded 99 items of which the majority related to general systematic review quality and biases and were therefore excluded. The 22 items we included were reworded into concepts specific to bias in NMAs.

CONCLUSIONS

A list of 22 concepts was included. This list is not intended to be used to assess biases in NMAs, but to inform the development of items to be included in our tool.

Blood test result communication in primary care: mixed-methods systematic review protocol

BACKGROUND

After testing, ensuring test results are communicated and actioned is important for patient safety, with failure or delay in diagnosis the most common cause of malpractice claims in primary care worldwide. Identifying interventions to improve test communication from the decision to test through to sharing of results has important implications for patient safety, GP workload, and patient engagement.

AIM

To assess the factors around communication of blood test results between primary care providers (for example GPs, nurses, reception staff) and their patients and carers.

DESIGN & SETTING

A mixed methods systematic review including primary studies involving communication of blood test results in primary care.

METHOD

The review will use a segregated convergent synthesis method. Qualitative information will be synthesised using a meta-aggregative approach, and quantitative data will be meta-analysed or synthesised if pooling of studies is appropriate and data are available. If not, data will be presented in tabular and descriptive summary form.

CONCLUSION

This review has the potential to provide conclusions about blood test result communication interventions and factors important to stakeholders, including barriers and facilitators to improved communication.

Barriers and facilitators for surgical site infection surveillance for adult cardiac surgery in a high-income setting: an in-depth exploration

BACKGROUND

Surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance aims to facilitate a reduction in SSIs through identifying infection rates, benchmarking, triggering clinical review and instituting infection control measures. Participation in surveillance is, however, variable suggesting opportunities to improve wider adoption.

AIM

To gain an in-depth understanding of the barriers and facilitators for SSI surveillance in a high-income European setting.

METHODS

Key informant interviews with 16 surveillance staff, infection prevention staff, nurses and surgeons from nine cardiac hospitals in England. Data were analysed thematically.

FINDINGS

SSI surveillance was reported to be resource intensive. Barriers to surveillance included challenges associated with data collection: data being located in numerous places, multiple SSI data reporting schemes, difficulty in finding denominator data, lack of interface between computerized systems, 'labour intensive' or 'antiquated' methods to collect data (e.g., using postal systems for patient questionnaires). Additional reported concerns included: relevance of definitions, perceived variability in data reporting, lack of surgeon engagement, unsupportive managers, low priority of SSIs among staff, and a 'blame culture' around high SSI rates. Facilitators were increased resources, better use of digital technologies (e.g., remote digital wound monitoring), integrating surveillance within routine clinical work, having champions, mandating surveillance, ensuring a closer relationship between surveillance and improved patient outcomes, increasing the focus on post-discharge surveillance, and integration with primary care data.

CONCLUSION

Using novel interviews with 'front-line' staff, identified opportunities for improving participation in SSI surveillance. Translating these findings into action will increase surveillance activity and bring patient safety benefits to a larger pool of surgical patients.

How to Critically Appraise and Interpret Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Diagnostic Accuracy: A User Guide

Systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy studies can provide the best available evidence to inform decisions regarding the use of a diagnostic test. In this guide, the authors provide a practical approach for clinicians to appraise diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews and apply their results to patient care. The first step is to identify an appropriate systematic review with a research question matching the clinical scenario. The user should evaluate the rigor of the review methods to evaluate its credibility (Did the review use clearly defined eligibility criteria, a comprehensive search strategy, structured data collection, risk of bias and applicability appraisal, and appropriate meta-analysis methods?). If the review is credible, the next step is to decide whether the diagnostic performance is adequate for clinical use (Do sensitivity and specificity estimates exceed the threshold that makes them useful in clinical practice? Are these estimates sufficiently precise? Is variability in the estimates of diagnostic accuracy across studies explained?). Diagnostic accuracy systematic reviews that are judged to be credible and provide diagnostic accuracy estimates with sufficient certainty and relevance are the most useful to inform patient care. This review discusses comparative, noncomparative, and emerging approaches to systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy using a clinical scenario and examples based on recent publications.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas]

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.

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

OBJECTIVE

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

DESIGN

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

PARTICIPANTS

Core 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.

SETTING

International consensus.

INTERVENTION

Four 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.

RESULTS

From 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.

CONCLUSIONS

PRIOR 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.

QUAPAS: An Adaptation of the QUADAS-2 Tool to Assess Prognostic Accuracy Studies

Whereas diagnostic tests help detect the cause of signs and symptoms, prognostic tests assist in evaluating the probable course of the disease and future outcome. Studies to evaluate prognostic tests are longitudinal, which introduces sources of bias different from those for diagnostic accuracy studies. At present, systematic reviews of prognostic tests often use the QUADAS-2 (Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2) tool to assess risk of bias and applicability of included studies because no equivalent instrument exists for prognostic accuracy studies. QUAPAS (Quality Assessment of Prognostic Accuracy Studies) is an adaptation of QUADAS-2 for prognostic accuracy studies. Questions likely to identify bias were evaluated in parallel and collated from QUIPS (Quality in Prognosis Studies) and PROBAST (Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool) and paired to the corresponding question (or domain) in QUADAS-2. A steering group conducted and reviewed 3 rounds of modifications before arriving at the final set of domains and signaling questions. QUAPAS follows the same steps as QUADAS-2: Specify the review question, tailor the tool, draw a flow diagram, judge risk of bias, and identify applicability concerns. Risk of bias is judged across the following 5 domains: participants, index test, outcome, flow and timing, and analysis. Signaling questions assist the final judgment for each domain. Applicability concerns are assessed for the first 4 domains. The authors used QUAPAS in parallel with QUADAS-2 and QUIPS in a systematic review of prognostic accuracy studies. QUAPAS improved the assessment of the flow and timing domain and flagged a study at risk of bias in the new analysis domain. Judgment of risk of bias in the analysis domain was challenging because of sparse reporting of statistical methods.

Development and external validation of a clinical prediction model to aid coeliac disease diagnosis in primary care: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Coeliac disease (CD) affects approximately 1% of the population, although only a fraction of patients are diagnosed. Our objective was to develop diagnostic prediction models to help decide who should be offered testing for CD in primary care.

METHODS

Logistic regression models were developed in Clinical Practice Research Datalink (CPRD) GOLD (between Sep 9, 1987 and Apr 4, 2021, n=107,075) and externally validated in CPRD Aurum (between Jan 1, 1995 and Jan 15, 2021, n=227,915), two UK primary care databases, using (and controlling for) 1:4 nested case-control designs. Candidate predictors included symptoms and chronic conditions identified in current guidelines and using a systematic review of the literature. We used elastic-net regression to further refine the models.

FINDINGS

The prediction model included 24, 24, and 21 predictors for children, women, and men, respectively. For children, the strongest predictors were type 1 diabetes, Turner syndrome, IgA deficiency, or first-degree relatives with CD. For women and men, these were anaemia and first-degree relatives. In the development dataset, the models showed good discrimination with a c-statistic of 0·84 (95% CI 0·83-0·84) in children, 0·77 (0·77-0·78) in women, and 0·81 (0·81-0·82) in men. External validation discrimination was lower, potentially because 'first-degree relative' was not recorded in the dataset used for validation. Model calibration was poor, tending to overestimate CD risk in all three groups in both datasets.

INTERPRETATION

These prediction models could help identify individuals with an increased risk of CD in relatively low prevalence populations such as primary care. Offering a serological test to these patients could increase case finding for CD. However, this involves offering tests to more people than is currently done. Further work is needed in prospective cohorts to refine and confirm the models and assess clinical and cost effectiveness.

FUNDING

National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme (grant number NIHR129020).

The accuracy of diagnostic indicators for coeliac disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of coeliac disease (CD) is around 1%, but diagnosis is challenged by varied presentation and non-specific symptoms and signs. This study aimed to identify diagnostic indicators that may help identify patients at a higher risk of CD in whom further testing is warranted.

METHODS

International guidance for systematic review methods were followed and the review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42020170766). Six databases were searched until April 2021. Studies investigating diagnostic indicators, such as symptoms or risk conditions, in people with and without CD were eligible for inclusion. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Summary sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were estimated for each diagnostic indicator by fitting bivariate random effects meta-analyses.

FINDINGS

191 studies reporting on 26 diagnostic indicators were included in the meta-analyses. We found large variation in diagnostic accuracy estimates between studies and most studies were at high risk of bias. We found strong evidence that people with dermatitis herpetiformis, migraine, family history of CD, HLA DQ2/8 risk genotype, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, or chronic liver disease are more likely than the general population to have CD. Symptoms, psoriasis, epilepsy, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, fractures, type 2 diabetes, and multiple sclerosis showed poor diagnostic ability. A sensitivity analysis revealed a 3-fold higher risk of CD in first-degree relatives of CD patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeted testing of individuals with dermatitis herpetiformis, migraine, family history of CD, HLA DQ2/8 risk genotype, anaemia, type 1 diabetes, osteoporosis, or chronic liver disease could improve case-finding for CD, therefore expediting appropriate treatment and reducing adverse consequences. Migraine and chronic liver disease are not yet included as a risk factor in all CD guidelines, but it may be appropriate for these to be added. Future research should establish the diagnostic value of combining indicators.

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. Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en.

Developing a reporting guideline for artificial intelligence-centred diagnostic test accuracy studies: the STARD-AI protocol

INTRODUCTION

Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Study (STARD) was developed to improve the completeness and transparency of reporting in studies investigating diagnostic test accuracy. However, its current form, STARD 2015 does not address the issues and challenges raised by artificial intelligence (AI)-centred interventions. As such, we propose an AI-specific version of the STARD checklist (STARD-AI), which focuses on the reporting of AI diagnostic test accuracy studies. This paper describes the methods that will be used to develop STARD-AI.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The development of the STARD-AI checklist can be distilled into six stages. (1) A project organisation phase has been undertaken, during which a Project Team and a Steering Committee were established; (2) An item generation process has been completed following a literature review, a patient and public involvement and engagement exercise and an online scoping survey of international experts; (3) A three-round modified Delphi consensus methodology is underway, which will culminate in a teleconference consensus meeting of experts; (4) Thereafter, the Project Team will draft the initial STARD-AI checklist and the accompanying documents; (5) A piloting phase among expert users will be undertaken to identify items which are either unclear or missing. This process, consisting of surveys and semistructured interviews, will contribute towards the explanation and elaboration document and (6) On finalisation of the manuscripts, the group's efforts turn towards an organised dissemination and implementation strategy to maximise end-user adoption.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the Joint Research Compliance Office at Imperial College London (reference number: 19IC5679). A dissemination strategy will be aimed towards five groups of stakeholders: (1) academia, (2) policy, (3) guidelines and regulation, (4) industry and (5) public and non-specific stakeholders. We anticipate that dissemination will take place in Q3 of 2021.

Methodological review to develop a list of bias items used to assess reviews incorporating network meta-analysis: protocol and rationale

INTRODUCTION

Systematic reviews with network meta-analysis (NMA; ie, multiple treatment comparisons, indirect comparisons) have gained popularity and grown in number due to their ability to provide comparative effectiveness of multiple treatments for the same condition. The methodological review aims to develop a list of items relating to biases in reviews with NMA. Such a list will inform a new tool to assess the risk of bias in NMAs, and potentially other reporting or quality checklists for NMAs which are being updated.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include articles that present items related to bias, reporting or methodological quality, articles assessing the methodological quality of reviews with NMA, or papers presenting methods for NMAs. We will search Ovid MEDLINE, the Cochrane library and difficult to locate/unpublished literature. Once all items have been extracted, we will combine conceptually similar items, classifying them as referring to bias or to other aspects of quality (eg, reporting). When relevant, reporting items will be reworded into items related to bias in NMA review conclusions, and then reworded as signalling questions.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval was required. We plan to publish the full study open access in a peer-reviewed journal, and disseminate the findings via social media (Twitter, Facebook and author affiliated websites). Patients, healthcare providers and policy-makers need the highest quality evidence to make decisions about which treatments should be used in healthcare practice. Being able to critically appraise the findings of systematic reviews that include NMA is central to informed decision-making in patient care.

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.

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of 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.