The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

Adequacy of reporting monitoring regimens of risk factors for cardiovascular disease in clinical guidelines: systematic review

Objective To assess the reporting of monitoring recommendations in guidelines on the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular disease.

A systematic review of quantitative studies reporting selected patient experienced outcomes, with a specific focus on gender differences in people with colorectal cancer

Men with colorectal cancer have a higher mortality rate than their female counterparts. Despite this, there is a limited understanding of the impact gender has on the experience of colorectal cancer.

The UK Renal Registry Advanced CKD Study: frequency of incorrect reporting of date of start of RRT

Background: A preliminary review of the UK Renal Registry (UKRR) pre-RRT study data revealed results suggesting that, for some patients, the date of start of renal replacement therapy (RRT), as reported to the UKRR, was incorrect and often significantly later than the true date of start. A more detailed study then aimed to validate a set of criteria to identify patients with an incorrect start date. Methods: Pre-RRT laboratory data were electronically extracted from 8,810 incident RRT patients from 9 UK renal centres. Any patient with a low urea (<15 mmol/L) at the start of RRT or with a substantial improvement in kidney function (either a fall in urea >10 mmol/L or rise in eGFR >2 ml/min/1.73 m) within the two months prior to RRT were considered to potentially have an incorrect date of start. In 4
selected centres, the electronic patient records of all patients flagged were reviewed to validate these criteria.
Results: Of 8,810 patients, 1,616 (18.3%) were flagged by the identification criteria as having a potentially incorrect date of start of RRT, although a single centre accounted for 41% of the total flagged cohort. Of these flagged patients, 61.7% had been assigned an incorrect date of start of haemodialysis (HD), 5.7% had evidence of acute RRT being given before the reported date of start of HD
and 9.2% had evidence of starting peritoneal dialysis exchanges prior to the reported date of start. Of
those flagged, 10.7% had a correct date of start of RRT.
Conclusions: Accurate reporting of RRT episodes is vital for the analysis of time dependent studies such as survival or time to transplantation. A proportion of patients starting RRT were assigned an incorrect start date. In order to improve the accuracy of this reporting the UK Renal Registry
must work with renal centres and clinical staff on improving data input for the start of RRT.