Background Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration. Methods The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process. Results The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. Conclusions The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and therefore reproducible.

Background: Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration.Methods: The checklist was developed using a three-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process.Results: The final checklist includes sixteen reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale.Conclusions:The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and, therefore, reproducible.

SummaryInsomnia is the most common sleep disorder among the general population. Although cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I) is the psychological treatment of choice, the availability of individual therapy is often not sufficient to meet the demand for treatment. Group treatment can increase the efficiency of delivery, but its efficacy has not been well-established. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing group CBT-I to a control group in patients with insomnia were identified. A review of 670 unique citations resulted in eight studies that met criteria for analysis. Outcome variables included both qualitative (e.g., sleep quality) and quantitative (e.g., sleep diary) outcomes, as well as depression and pain severity, at both pre-to post-treatment and follow-up (3-12 months post-treatment). Overall, we found medium to large effect sizes for sleep onset latency, sleep efficiency, and wake after sleep onset and small effect sizes for pain outcomes. Effect sizes remained significant at follow-up, suggesting that treatment gains persist over time. Other variables, including total sleep time, sleep quality, and depression, showed significant improvements, but these findings were limited to the within treatment group analyses. It is clear that group CBT-I is an efficacious treatment. Implications for stepped care models for insomnia are discussed.

Background and Purpose— Carotid web (CW) is a rare form of focal fibromuscular dysplasia defined as an abnormal shelf-like projection of intimal fibrous tissue into the carotid bulb. It is theorized that CW leads to ischemic stroke secondary to blood flow stasis and subsequent embolization. The natural history and optimal management of CW are unclear. To address this knowledge gap, we performed a systematic literature review (SLR) of CW. Methods— Our librarians performed a SLR for CW and related terminology. Patient-level demographics, stroke risk factors, neuroimaging findings, stroke recurrence or stroke free-duration, and treatment modality were extracted. We used descriptive statistics to characterize our results. When specific patient-level metrics were not reported, the denominators for reporting percentage calculations were adjusted accordingly. Results— Our literature search produced 1150 articles. Thirty-seven articles including 158 patients (median age 46 years [range 16–85], 68% women, 76% symptomatic) met entry criteria and were included in our SLR. Of the symptomatic CW patients: 57% did not have stroke risk factors, 56% who received medical therapy had recurrent stroke (median 12 months, range 0–97), and 72% were ultimately treated with carotid revascularization (50% carotid stenting, 50% carotid endarterectomy). There were no periprocedural complications or recurrent strokes in carotid revascularization patients. Conclusions— CW leads to ischemic stroke in younger patients without conventional stroke risk factors. We found a high stroke recurrence rate in medically managed symptomatic CW patients, whereas carotid revascularization effectively prevented recurrent stroke. Our findings should be interpreted with caution because of risk of publication and reporting bias.

BackgroundA high-quality search strategy is considered an essential component of systematic reviews but many do not contain reproducible search strategies. It is unclear if low reproducibility spans medical disciplines, is affected by librarian/search specialist involvement or has improved with increased awareness of reporting guidelines.ObjectivesTo examine the reporting of search strategies in systematic reviews published in Pediatrics, Surgery or Cardiology journals in 2012 and determine rates and predictors of including a reproducible search strategy.MethodsWe identified all systematic reviews published in 2012 in the ten highest impact factor journals in Pediatrics, Surgery and Cardiology. Each search strategy was coded to indicate what elements were reported and whether the overall search was reproducible. Reporting and reproducibility rates were compared across disciplines and we measured the influence of librarian/search specialist involvement, discipline or endorsement of a reporting guideline on search reproducibility.Results272 articles from 25 journals were included. Reporting of search elements ranged widely from 91% of articles naming search terms to 33% providing a full search strategy and 22% indicating the date the search was executed. Only 22% of articles provided at least one reproducible search strategy and 13% provided a reproducible strategy for all databases searched in the article. Librarians or search specialists were reported as involved in 17% of articles. There were strong disciplinary differences on the reporting of search elements. In the multivariable analysis, only discipline (Pediatrics) was a significant predictor of the inclusion of a reproducible search strategy.ConclusionsDespite recommendations to report full, reproducible search strategies, many articles still do not. In addition, authors often report a single strategy as covering all databases searched, further decreasing reproducibility. Further research is needed to determine how disciplinary culture may encourage reproducibility and the role that journal editors and peer reviewers could play.