Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement

Page, Matthew J.; McKenzie, Joanne E.; Bossuyt, Patrick M.; Boutron, Isabelle; Hoffmann, Tammy; mulrow, cindy d; Shamseer, Larissa; Tetzlaff, Jennifer; Moher, David

doi:10.31222/osf.io/jb4dx

Cited by 1,003 publications

(852 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

798

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The methodology for conducting SRs has advanced enormously in the recent 30 years, authors should strengthen the study, and journals should refuse to publish SR not meeting rigorous standards [42][43][44] . It is recommended to use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool for the design, reporting and evaluation of SRs [45][46][47] . More importantly, previous studies have shown All rights reserved.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Shi

Wang

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Many previous studies have analyzed the status of retracted publications from different perspectives, but so far no study has focused on systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the retraction status and reasons of non-Cochrane SRs in the field of medicine. Methods: We searched MEDLINE and Embase from their inception to April 18, 2020, as well as Retraction Watch Database and Google Scholar with no language restriction to find non-Cochrane SRs that were retracted for any reason. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We describe the characteristic and reasons of retraction and the duration from publication to retraction. Results: We identified 150 non-Cochrane SRs in medicine retracted between 2004 and 2020. The majority of retracted SRs were led by authors from China and affiliated with hospitals. Most SRs were published in journals with an impact factor ≤3, and in journal ranked in the third quarter. The largest proportion of retraction notices were issued by the publisher and editor(s) jointly; seven did not report this information. Fraudulent peer-review was the most common reason for retraction, followed by unreliable data meaning errors in study selection or data analysis. The median time between publication and retraction was 14.0 months. SRs retracted due to research misconduct took longer to retract than SRs retracted because of honest error. Conclusions: The situation with retracted SRs is critical globally, and in particular in China. The most common reasons for retraction are fraudulent peer-review and unreliable data, and in most cases the study is retracted more than a year after publication. Efforts should be made to improve the process of peer review and adherence to the COPE retraction guidance, while at the same time authors should strengthen their skills in SR methodology. Keywords: Retraction; Systematic review; non-Cochrane; Research ethics.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…reporting and evaluation of SRs [45][46][47] . More importantly, previous studies have shown that retracted literature continues to be cited as valid and legitimate work in many scientific disciplines, even after flagged as retracted [48] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Shi

Wang

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The methodology for conducting SRs has advanced enormously in the recent 30 years, so authors should use the latest methods to strengthen the study, and journals should refuse to publish SR not meeting rigorous standards [43][44][45] . It is recommended to use the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool in the design, reporting and evaluation of SRs [46][47][48] . More importantly, previous studies have shown that retracted literature continues to be cited as valid and legitimate work in many scienti c disciplines, even after retracted [49] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Shi

Wang

Zhou

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMany previous studies have analyzed the status of retracted publications from different perspectives, but so far no study has focused on systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of this study is to analyze the retraction status and reasons of non-Cochrane SRs in medicine. MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and Embase from their inception until April 18, 2020, as well as Retraction Watch Database and Google Scholar with no language restriction to find non-Cochrane SRs that were retracted for any reason. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We described the characteristic and reasons of retraction and the duration from publication to retraction.ResultsWe identified 150 non-Cochrane SRs in medicine retracted between 2004 and 2020. The majority of retracted SRs were led by authors from China (n=113, 75.3%) and affiliated with hospitals (n=106, 70.7%). Most SRs were published in journals with an impact factor ≤3 (n=85, 56.7%). The largest proportion of retraction notices were issued by the publisher and editor(s) jointly (n=60, 40.0%); seven did not report this information. Fraudulent peer-review (n=61, 37.9%) was the most common reason for retraction, followed by unreliable data (n=41, 25.5%) meaning errors in study selection or data analysis. The median time between publication and retraction was 14.0 months. SRs retracted due to research misconduct took longer to retract than SRs retracted because of honest error. ConclusionsThe situation with retracted SRs is critical worldwide, and in particular in China. The most common reasons for retraction are fraudulent peer-review and unreliable data, and in most cases the study is retracted more than a year after publication. Efforts should be made to improve the process of peer review and adherence to the COPE retraction guidance, and authors should strengthen their skills in SR methodology.

show abstract

“…This systematic review was prepared and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [ 31 ] (Supplementary 1 ). The review was registered with PROSPERO (No.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Outcomes of cancer survivorship education and training for primary care providers: a systematic review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To identify published literature regarding cancer survivorship education programs for primary care providers (PCPs) and assess their outcomes. Methods PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched between January 2005 and September 2020. The Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework and Kirkpatrick’s 4-level evaluation model were used to summarize program content and outcomes, respectively. Data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted by two authors. Results Twenty-one studies were included, describing self-directed online courses ( n =4), presentations ( n =2), workshops and training sessions ( n =6), placement programs ( n =3), a live webinar, a fellowship program, a referral program, a survivorship conference, a dual in-person workshop and webinar, and an in-person seminar and online webinar series. Eight studies described the use of a learner framework or theory to guide program development. All 21 programs were generally beneficial to PCP learners (e.g., increased confidence, knowledge, behavior change); however, methodological bias suggests caution in accepting claims. Three studies reported positive outcomes at the patient level (i.e., satisfaction with care) and organizational level (i.e., increased screening referrals, changes to institution practice standards). Conclusions A range of cancer survivorship PCP education programs exist. Evidence for clinical effectiveness was rarely reported. Future educational programs should be tailored to PCPs, utilize an evidence-based survivorship framework, and evaluate patient- and system-level outcomes. Implications for Cancer Survivors PCPs have an important role in addressing the diverse health care needs of cancer survivors. Improving the content, approach, and evaluation of PCP-focused cancer survivorship education programs could have a positive impact on health outcomes among cancer survivors. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11764-021-01018-6.

show abstract

Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement

Cited by 1,003 publications

References 31 publications

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

An Overview of Retraction Status and Reasons of Non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews in Medicine

Outcomes of cancer survivorship education and training for primary care providers: a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About