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.

Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data The PRISMA-IPD Statement

IMPORTANCE Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of individual participant data (IPD) aim to collect, check, and reanalyze individual-level data from all studies addressing a particular research question and are therefore considered a gold standard approach to evidence synthesis. They are likely to be used with increasing frequency as current initiatives to share clinical trial data gain momentum and may be particularly important in reviewing controversial therapeutic areas.

OBJECTIVE To develop PRISMA-IPD as a stand-alone extension to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Statement, tailored to the specific requirements of reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD. Although developed primarily for reviews of randomized trials, many items will apply in other contexts, including reviews of diagnosis and prognosis.

DESIGN Development of PRISMA-IPD followed the EQUATOR Network framework guidance and used the existing standard PRISMA Statement as a starting point to draft additional relevant material. A web-based survey informed discussion at an international workshop that included researchers, clinicians, methodologists experienced in conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD, and journal editors. The statement was drafted and iterative refinements were made by the project, advisory, and development groups. The PRISMA-IPD Development Group reached agreement on the PRISMA-IPD checklist and flow diagram by consensus.

FINDINGS Compared with standard PRISMA, the PRISMA-IPD checklist includes 3 new items that address (1) methods of checking the integrity of the IPD (such as pattern of randomization, data consistency, baseline imbalance, and missing data), (2) reporting any important issues that emerge, and (3) exploring variation (such as whether certain types of individual benefit more from the intervention than others). A further additional item was created by reorganization of standard PRISMA items relating to interpreting results. Wording was modified in 23 items to reflect the IPD approach.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE PRISMA-IPD provides guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of IPD.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

A systematic review of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain-protocol

Background: Chronic musculoskeletal pain is highly prevalent, affecting around one in five people across Europe. Osteoarthritis, low back pain, neck pain and other musculoskeletal disorders are leading causes of disability
worldwide and the most common source of chronic pain. Exercise and/or physical activity interventions have the potential to address not only the pain and disability associated with chronic pain but also the increased risk of morbidity and mortality seen in this population. Although exercise and/or physical activity is widely recommended, there is currently a paucity of research that offers an evidence base upon which the development or optimisation of interventions can be based. This systematic review will investigate the components of interventions associated with changes in physical activity levels in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Methods/Design: This systematic review will be reported in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of interventions aimed at increasing physical activity in adults with chronic musculoskeletal pain will be included. Articles will be identified through a comprehensive search of the following databases: CENTRAL in the Cochrane Library, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED. Two review authors will independently screen articles retrieved from the search for eligibility, extract relevant data on methodological issues and code interventions according to the behaviour change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques. As complex healthcare interventions can be modified by a wide variety of factors, data will be summarised statistically when the data are available, are sufficiently similar and are of sufficient quality. A narrative synthesis will be completed if there is insufficient data to permit a formal meta-analysis.

Discussion: This review will be of value to clinicians working in chronic pain services and to researchers involved in designing and evaluating interventions.

Clinical and Cost-Effectiveness of Procalcitonin Test for Prodromal Meningococcal Disease-A Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Despite vaccines and improved medical intensive care, clinicians must continue to be vigilant of possible Meningococcal Disease in children. The objective was to establish if the procalcitonin test was a cost-effective adjunct for prodromal Meningococcal Disease in children presenting at emergency department with fever without source.

METHODS AND FINDINGS: Data to evaluate procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white cell count tests as indicators of Meningococcal Disease were collected from six independent studies identified through a systematic literature search, applying PRISMA guidelines. The data included 881 children with fever without source in developed countries.The optimal cut-off value for the procalcitonin, C-reactive protein and white cell count tests, each as an indicator of Meningococcal Disease, was determined. Summary Receiver Operator Curve analysis determined the overall diagnostic performance of each test with 95% confidence intervals. A decision analytic model was designed to reflect realistic clinical pathways for a child presenting with fever without source by comparing two diagnostic strategies: standard testing using combined C-reactive protein and white cell count tests compared to standard testing plus procalcitonin test. The costs of each of the four diagnosis groups (true positive, false negative, true negative and false positive) were assessed from a National Health Service payer perspective. The procalcitonin test was more accurate (sensitivity=0.89, 95%CI=0.76-0.96; specificity=0.74, 95%CI=0.4-0.92) for early Meningococcal Disease compared to standard testing alone (sensitivity=0.47, 95%CI=0.32-0.62; specificity=0.8, 95% CI=0.64-0.9). Decision analytic model outcomes indicated that the incremental cost effectiveness ratio for the base case was £-8,137.25 (US $ -13,371.94) per correctly treated patient.

CONCLUSIONS: Procalcitonin plus standard recommended tests, improved the discriminatory ability for fatal Meningococcal Disease and was more cost-effective; it was also a superior biomarker in infants. Further research is recommended for point-of-care procalcitonin testing and Markov modelling to incorporate cost per QALY with a life-time model.

Physical rehabilitation interventions for adult intensive care patients across the continuum of recovery (i.e. within the intensive care unit (ICU) and following ICU and hospital discharge): an overview of systematic reviews

Background
Patients admitted to the intensive care unit with critical illness often experience significant physical impairments, which typically persist for many years following resolution of the original illness. Physical rehabilitation interventions that enhance restoration of physical function have been evaluated across the continuum of recovery following critical illness including within the intensive care unit, following discharge to the ward and beyond hospital discharge. Multiple systematic reviews have been published appraising the expanding evidence investigating these physical rehabilitation interventions, although there appears to be variability in review methodology and quality. We aim to conduct an overview of existing systematic reviews of physical rehabilitation interventions for adult intensive care patients across the continuum of recovery.

Methods/design
This protocol has been developed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocol (PRISMA-P) guidelines. We will search the Cochrane Systematic Review Database, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effectiveness, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Excerpta Medica Database and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature databases. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials of adult patients, admitted to the intensive care unit and who have received physical rehabilitation interventions at any time point during their recovery. Data extraction will include systematic review aims and rationale, study types, populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes and quality appraisal method. Primary outcomes of interest will focus on findings reflecting recovery of physical function. Quality of reporting and methodological quality will be appraised using the PRISMA checklist and the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool.

Discussion
We anticipate the findings from this novel overview of systematic reviews will contribute to the synthesis and interpretation of existing evidence regarding physical rehabilitation interventions and physical recovery in post-critical illness patients across the continuum of recovery.

Systematic review of the use of behaviour change techniques (BCTs) in home-based cardiac rehabilitation programmes for patients with cardiovascular disease-protocol

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular diseases (CVDs), including myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease and strokes, are highly prevalent conditions and are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is an effective form of secondary prevention for CVD but there is a lack of information regarding which specific behaviour change techniques (BCTs) are included in programmes that are associated with improvements in cardiovascular risk factors. This systematic review will describe the BCTs which are utilised within home-based CR programmes that are effective at reducing a spectrum of CVD risk factors.

METHODS/DESIGN: The review will be reported in line with the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials of home-based CR initiated following a vascular event (myocardial infarction, heart failure, peripheral arterial disease and stroke patients) will be included. Articles will be identified through a comprehensive search of MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Science and Cochrane Database guided by a medical librarian. Two review authors will independently screen articles retrieved from the search for eligibility and extract relevant data, identifying which specific BCTs are included in programmes that are associated with improvements in particular modifiable vascular risk factors.

DISCUSSION: This review will be of value to clinicians and healthcare professionals working with cardiovascular patients by identifying specific BCTs which are used within effective home-based CR. It will also inform the future design and evaluation of complex health service interventions aimed at secondary prevention in CVD.

Interventions to increase physical activity in patients with COPD: A comprehensive review

It is unknown how interventions aimed at increasing physical activity (PA), other than traditional pulmonary rehabilitation, are structured and whether they are effective in increasing PA in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The primary aim of this review was to outline the typical components of PA interventions in patients with COPD. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines. A structured literature search of relevant electronic databases from inception to April 2014 was undertaken to outline typical components and examine outcome variables of PA interventions in patients with COPD. Over 12000 articles were screened and 20 relevant studies involving 31 PA interventions were included. Data extracted included patient demographics, components of the PA intervention, PA outcome measures and effects of the intervention. Quality was assessed using the PEDro and CASP scales. There were 13 randomised controlled trials and three randomised trials (PEDro score 5-7/10) and four cohort studies (CASP score 5/10). Interventions varied in duration, number of participant/researcher contacts and mode of delivery. The most common behaviour change techniques included information on when and where (n = 26/31) and how (n = 22/31) to perform PA behaviour and self-monitoring (n = 18/31). Significant between-group differences post-intervention in favour of the PA intervention, compared to a control group or to other PA interventions, in one or more PA assessments were found in 7/16 studies. All seven studies used walking as the main type of PA/exercise. In conclusion, although the components of PA interventions were variable, there is some evidence that PA interventions have the potential to increase PA in patients with COPD