ORCID Profile
0000-0001-8730-9761
Current Organisation
University of Bristol Medical School
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Date: 04-2021
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 14-09-2020
Abstract: The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present exemplars from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 14-09-2020
Abstract: Background: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did and what they found. Over the last decade, there have been many advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, which have necessitated an update to the guideline.Objectives: To develop the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting systematic reviews.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We sought feedback on the suggested modifications through an online survey of 110 systematic review methodologists and journal editors. The results of the review and survey were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, drafts of the PRISMA 2020 checklist, abstract checklist, explanation and elaboration and flow diagram were generated and refined iteratively based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience s le of 15 systematic reviewers.Results: In this statement paper, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. The checklist includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement.Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to facilitate transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews. Improved reporting should benefit users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, health care providers, patients and other stakeholders. In order to achieve this, we encourage authors, editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the guideline.
Publisher: Center for Open Science
Date: 23-09-2020
Abstract: Synthesis of evidence from the totality of relevant research is essential to inform and improve prevention efforts and policy. Given the large and usually heterogeneous evidence available,reaching a thorough understanding of what works, for whom, and in what contexts, can only be achieved through a systematic and comprehensive synthesis of evidence. Many barriers impede comprehensive evidence synthesis, which leads to uncertainty about the generalizability of intervention effectiveness, including: inaccurate terminology titles/abstracts/keywords (h ering literature search efforts) ambiguous reporting of study methods (resulting ininaccurate assessments of study rigor) and poorly reported participant characteristics, outcomes, and key variables (obstructing the calculation of an overall effect or the examination of effect modifiers). To address these issues and improve the reach of primary studies through theirinclusion in evidence syntheses, we provide a set of practical guidelines to help prevention scientists prepare synthesis-ready research. We use a recent mindfulness trial as an empirical ex le to ground the discussion and demonstrate ways to ensure: (1) primary studies are discoverable (2) the types of data needed for synthesis are present and (3) these data are readily synthesizable. We highlight several tools and practices that can aid authors in these efforts, such as creating a repository for each project to host all study-related data files. We also provide step-by-step guidance and software suggestions for standardizing data design and public archiving to facilitate synthesis-ready research.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 21-07-2021
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 23-03-2020
Publisher: Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Date: 29-03-2021
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Luke A McGuinness.