Print

Print
An important point to raise.

At the EQUATOR Network (http://www.equator-network.org/) we often discuss the continuum from study design to conduct to reporting. Reporting guidelines for completed studies are incredibly important, but they can't fix poor studies nor, in themselves, reduce waste in research (for more on research waste, see the REWARD Alliance website http://researchwaste.net/)

It would be good to see more guidelines that focus on the earlier stages of the research process. We already have two: the SPIRIT Statement for clinical trial protocols and the PRISMA-P Statement for systematic review protocols (http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/Protocols.aspx).

If authors of systematic reviews wrote in their papers "we developed the protocol for  - and conducted - this systematic review in line with the PRISMA-P Statement" that would be fine. But it's going beyond the scope of the original PRISMA Statement to say "“We undertook a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines".

Hope this helps.

[I should declare my relevant COIs: I'm a member of the groups that helped to develop the PRISMA-P, SPIRIT, and CONSORT 2010 statements, and I'm on the steering group of the EQUATOR Network]

Best wishes
Trish


Dr Trish Groves
Director of academic outreach, BMJ
Editor-in-chief, BMJ Open and Honorary deputy editor, The BMJ


BMJ, BMA House, Tavistock Square, London, WC1H 9JR
T: 020 7383 6018
E: [log in to unmask]
W: bmj.com/company
twitter@trished


BMJ Research to Publication eLearning Programme
twitter@BMJRtoP



On 7 June 2016 at 14:53, Ivan Sola Arnau <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Dear Judy,

In their recent cross-sectional study (PLoS Med 13(5): e1002028; PMID 27218655), Page and cols. highlighted that, from a random sample of 300 systematic reviews indexed in MEDLINE during Feb 2014, up to 52% of researchers misinterpreted the purpose of those reporting guidelines (PRISMA and MOOSE), as they declare in their reports that the reporting guideline was used as methodological guidance to conduct the review.

The issue that you comment seems to be a generalised misuse of the PRISMA statement.

Hope it is helpful.

Ivan Solà | Administrator - Researcher | Iberoamerican Cochrane Centre
Biomedical Research Institute Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau)
CIBER Epidemiología y Salud Pública (CIBERESP)
C. Sant Antoni Maria Claret 167
Pavelló 18 | Planta 0
08025 Barcelona | Catalunya | España
[log in to unmask] | Skype: ivan.sola
ORCID ID: orcid.org/0000-0003-0078-3706
Scopus ID: 8908893700
T: (+34) 935537814 | F: (+34) 935537809
De: Evidence based health (EBH) [[log in to unmask]] en nom de Judy Wright [[log in to unmask]]
Enviat el: dimarts, 7 / juny / 2016 15:19
Per a: [log in to unmask]
Tema: Referring to PRISMA as a methods guide or a reporting guide?

Dear all,

 

Can PRISMA guidelines be quoted as a tool to guide the methods of a systematic review? I’m increasingly seeing research proposals, protocols and systematic review manuscripts that claim to use PRISMA for their systematic review methods.

 

e.g. “The systematic review will be carried out in accordance with PRISMA guidelines”  or.. “We undertook a systematic review in accordance with the PRISMA guidelines”

 

Is this OK and are others seeing these statements? I personally feel it would be better to refer to whatever methods guidance was used for undertaking the review e.g. CRDs Handbook, Cochrane Handbook…. I would only mention PRISMA in a protocol or proposal to show how we plan to report the review.  Is anyone else seeing similar references to PRISMA being used for the SR methods and if so do you think it’s fine as a guide to methods, are you concerned that the use of PRISMA isn’t being reported correctly? Would it worry you if the methods used in a systematic review were based on the PRISMA checklist & statement?

 

Quick reminder on what PRISMA is from its website:

PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. http://www.prisma-statement.org

 

Thanks for your help,

 

Judy

Judy Wright
Senior Information Specialist to LIHS and the NIHR Research Design Service Yorkshire & the Humber
Leeds Institute of Health Sciences
University of Leeds
Charles Thackrah Building
Leeds LS2 9LJ

+44 (0) 113 3430876

Twitter: @jmwleeds  @AUHE_Leeds   ResearchGate 

https://www.facebook.com/HealthEconomicsLeeds



BMJ advances healthcare worldwide by sharing knowledge and expertise to improve experiences, outcomes and value. This email and any attachments are confidential. If you have received this email in error, please delete it and kindly notify us. If the email contains personal views then BMJ accepts no responsibility for these statements. The recipient should check this email and attachments for viruses because the BMJ accepts no liability for any damage caused by viruses. Emails sent or received by BMJ may be monitored for size, traffic, distribution and content. BMJ Publishing Group Limited trading as BMJ. A private limited company, registered in England and Wales under registration number 03102371. Registered office: BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR, UK.