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

Page, Matthew J.; McKenzie, Joanne E.; Bossuyt, Patrick M.; Boutron, Isabelle; Hoffmann, Tammy; Mulrow, Cynthia D.; Shamseer, Larissa; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Akl, Elie A.; Brennan, Sue; Chou, Roger; Glanville, Julie; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn; Lalu, Manoj M.; Li, Tianjing; Loder, Elizabeth; Mayo‐Wilson, Evan; McDonald, Steve; McGuinness, Luke A; Stewart, Lesley; Thomas, James; Tricco, Andrea C.; Welch, Vivian; Whiting, Penny; Moher, David

doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Cited by 6,318 publications

(4,053 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

3,911

Contrasting

Unclassified

136

Order By: Relevance

“…Our protocol has a number of strengths. The predefined methodology is based on Cochrane methodology [36], PRISMA [76,77], Keus et al [61], our eight-step assessment suggested by Jakobsen et al [62], Trial Sequential Analysis [52], and GRADE assessment [73][74][75]. Hence, this protocol considers both risks of random errors and risks of systematic errors [62].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide. Antidepressants are frequently used to treat major depressive disorder. It has been shown repeatedly that antidepressants seem to reduce depressive symptoms with a statistically significant effect, but the clinical importance of the effect sizes seems questionable. Both beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants have not previously been sufficiently assessed. The main objective of this review will be to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. Methods/design A systematic review with meta-analysis will be reported as recommended by Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA), bias will be assessed with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2 (ROB2), our eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for clinical significance are crossed, Trial Sequential Analysis will be conducted to control for random errors, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. To identify relevant trials, we will search both for published and unpublished trials in major medical databases from their inception to the present. Clinical study reports will be obtained from regulatory authorities and pharmaceutical companies. Two review authors will independently screen the results of the literature searches, extract data, and perform risk of bias assessment. We will include any published or unpublished randomised clinical trial comparing one or more antidepressants with placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder. The following active agents will be included: agomelatine, amineptine, amitriptyline, bupropion, butriptyline, cianopramine, citalopram, clomipramine, dapoxetine, demexiptiline, desipramine, desvenlafaxine, dibenzepin, dosulepin, dothiepin, doxepin, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, imipramine, iprindole, levomilnacipran, lofepramine, maprotiline, melitracen, metapramine, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, nortriptyline, noxiptiline, opipramol, paroxetine, protriptyline, quinupramine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, tianeptine, trimipramine, venlafaxine, vilazodone, and vortioxetine. Primary outcomes will be depressive symptoms, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes will be suicide or suicide attempt, suicidal ideation, and non-serious adverse events. Discussion As antidepressants are commonly used to treat major depressive disorder in adults, a systematic review evaluating their beneficial and harmful effects is urgently needed. This review will inform best practice in treatment and clinical research of this highly prevalent and burdensome disorder. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42020220279

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the newest PRISMA recommendation [ 16 ] and was registered on Prospero (number: CRD420210135). Two researchers (YTR and HXM) searched PubMed, Cochrane Library and EMBASE from inception to 9 October, 2020 without restriction on language and region of publication.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intrathecal morphine versus transversus abdominis plane block for caesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Yang

et al. 2021

BMC Anesthesiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The number of caesarean deliveries has been increasing. Although intrathecal morphine (ITM) can relieve pain and is widely applied in caesarean deliveries, it is associated with many side effects. Transversus abdominis plane block (TAPB), a new analgesic technology, has also began playing a certain role after caesarean delivery, with fewer adverse effects. This study mainly compares the analgesic and adverse effects of ITM and TAPB in caesarean delivery. Methods We systematically searched PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science, for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published before 9 October, 2020 to compare the effects of ITM and TAPB. Primary outcome of the study was the pain score at rest 24 h after caesarean delivery, whereas the secondary outcomes were the pain score at movement 24 h after operation, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), itching, and morphine consumption. For the outcome assessment, we conducted a sensitivity analysis. Result Six RCTs involving 563 patients and meeting the study inclusion criteria were included in this study. Results indicated no significant difference in the pain score between ITM and TAPB at 24 h of rest or movement. The sensitivity analysis results indicated that the resting pain score (95% CI = − 1.27 to − 0.28; P = 0.002) and 24-h moving pain score (95% CI = − 1.8 to − 0.07; P = 0.03) of the ITM group were lower than those of the TAPB group. The consumption of morphine in the ITM group was lower than in the TAPB group (95% CI = 1.92 to 4.87; P < 0.00001); however, in terms of adverse reactions, the incidence of pruritus (95% CI = 1.17 to 8.26; P = 0.02) and PONV (95% CI = 1.92 to 4.87, P < 0.00001) in the ITM group was higher than in the TAPB group. Conclusion Parturients in the ITM and TAPB groups exhibited similar analgesic effects. However, in the sensitivity analysis performed by eliminating the studies causing heterogeneity, the ITM group was found to have superior analgesic effects compared with the TAPB group, with less morphine consumption. Differently, the TAPB group displayed less side effects such as PONV. Therefore, TAPB is still a valuable analgesia option for patients who cannot use ITM for analgesia after caesarean delivery or those having a high risk of PONV. Trial registration Registration number: Registered on Prospero with the registration number of CRD42020210135.

show abstract

“…We will send email invitations to our existing networks of systematic reviewer and methodologist collaborators (internal and external to the institutions we are affiliated with). These include investigators who contributed to the 2020 update of the PRIS MA reporting guideline for systematic reviews [62]; members of the Society for Research Synthesis Methodology; and co-convenors of Cochrane Methods Groups, Campbell Methods Coordinating Group, and Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Methodology Groups, all of whom have extensive experience conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses or developing methodology for evidence synthesis. Finally, we will advertise the project via our own social media channels and invite evidence synthesis organisations (e.g.…”

Section: Crowdsourcing Of Reviewersmentioning

confidence: 99%

The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Investigations of transparency, reproducibility and replicability in science have been directed largely at individual studies. It is just as critical to explore these issues in syntheses of studies, such as systematic reviews, given their influence on decision-making and future research. We aim to explore various aspects relating to the transparency, reproducibility and replicability of several components of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of health, social, behavioural and educational interventions. Methods The REPRISE (REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence) project consists of four studies. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting and sharing of review data, analytic code and other materials in a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020 (Study 1). We will survey authors of systematic reviews to explore their views on sharing review data, analytic code and other materials and their understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews (Study 2). We will then evaluate the extent of variation in results when we (a) independently reproduce meta-analyses using the same computational steps and analytic code (if available) as used in the original review (Study 3), and (b) crowdsource teams of systematic reviewers to independently replicate a subset of methods (searches for studies, selection of studies for inclusion, collection of outcome data, and synthesis of results) in a sample of the original reviews; 30 reviews will be replicated by 1 team each and 2 reviews will be replicated by 15 teams (Study 4). Discussion The REPRISE project takes a systematic approach to determine how reliable systematic reviews of interventions are. We anticipate that results of the REPRISE project will inform strategies to improve the conduct and reporting of future systematic reviews.

show abstract

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

Cited by 6,318 publications

References 71 publications

Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

Beneficial and harmful effects of antidepressants versus placebo, ‘active placebo’, or no intervention for adults with major depressive disorder: a protocol for a systematic review of published and unpublished data with meta-analyses and trial sequential analyses

Intrathecal morphine versus transversus abdominis plane block for caesarean delivery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The REPRISE project: protocol for an evaluation of REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About