The effects of the PRISMA statement to improve the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses of nursing interventions for patients with heart failure

Abstract

Aims The study aims to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta‐analyses on nursing interventions in the field of heart failure and investigate whether reporting and methodological quality has been improved after PRISMA statement was published. Methods Pubmed, Cochrane Database of Systematic Review, and Embase databases were searched from inception of databases to July 31, 2018. Two authors independently extracted data from October 1, 2018, to October 31, 2018. AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists were used to assessed methodological and reporting quality. Results The 50 English articles satisfied inclusion criteria and were published from 2001 to 2017. After introduction of PRISMA statement, significant improvement in reporting of the following items was found: title, search, risk of bias in individual studies, summary measures, study selection, synthesis of results, summary of evidence for PRISMA checklists, and scientific quality of included studies provided (item 7) for AMSTAR checklists. Conclusion There were higher methodological and reporting quality after publication of PRISMA. We recommend authors, readers, reviewers, and editors to become more acquainted with and to more strictly adhere to the PRISMA and AMSTAR.

COVID-19 Surface Persistence: A Recent Data Summary and Its Importance for Medical and Dental Settings

“…The use of checklists like PRISMA is likely to improve the reporting quality of a systematic review and provides substantial transparency in the selection process of papers in a systematic review. Furthermore, PICO guidelines have been used to prepare summary questions [20][21][22].…”

3D Digital Impression Systems Compared with Traditional Techniques in Dentistry: A Recent Data Systematic Review

“…The following systematic review of the literature was registered with PROSPERO (Prospectively Registered Systematic Reviews), with protocol number 150499, dated 11/09/2019. This systematic review and meta-analysis have been conducted according to PRISMA (Transparent Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses) protocol [9][10][11] and PICO (Population Intervention Comparison Outcome) study design [12][13][14][15][16]. Conducting a systematic review largely depends on the objective and quality of the included studies.…”

Porphyromonas gingivalis, Periodontal and Systemic Implications: A Systematic Review

“…This revision paper followed a protocol according to PROSPERO and according to PRISMA (Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) [15][16][17].…”

“…The grade of bias risk was independently considered, and in duplicate by the two independent reviewers at the moment of data extraction process. This revision followed the Cochrane Collaboration's two-part tool for assessing risk of bias and PRISMA statement [15,16].…”