Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: Elaboration and explanation

the PRISMA-P Group

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

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, 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article numberg7647
JournalBMJ (Online)
Volume349
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2 2015

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Documentation
Guidelines
Checklist
Publications
Decision Making

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015 : Elaboration and explanation. / the PRISMA-P Group.

In: BMJ (Online), Vol. 349, g7647, 02.01.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

@article{ba82fe5436de428d9888f522971f76f5,
title = "Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: Elaboration and explanation",
abstract = "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, 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.",
author = "{the PRISMA-P Group} and Larissa Shamseer and David Moher and Mike Clarke and Davina Ghersi and Alessandro Liberati and Mark Petticrew and Paul Shekelle and Stewart, {Lesley A.} and Altman, {Douglas G.} and Alison Booth and Chan, {An Wen} and Stephanie Chang and Tammy Clifford and Kay Dickersin and Kay Dickersin and G{\o}tzsche, {Peter C.} and Grimshaw, {Jeremy M.} and Trish Groves and Mark Helfand and Julian Higgins and Toby Lasserson and Joseph Lau and Kathleen Lohr and Jessie McGowan and Cynthia Mulrow and Melissa Norton and Matthew Page and Margaret Sampson and Holger Sch{\"u}nemann and Iveta Simera and William Summerskill and Jennifer Tetzlaff and Trikalinos, {Thomas A.} and David Tovey and Lucy Turner and Evelyn Whitlock",
year = "2015",
month = "1",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1136/bmj.g7647",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "349",
journal = "British Medical Journal",
issn = "0959-8146",
publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015

T2 - Elaboration and explanation

AU - the PRISMA-P Group

AU - Shamseer, Larissa

AU - Moher, David

AU - Clarke, Mike

AU - Ghersi, Davina

AU - Liberati, Alessandro

AU - Petticrew, Mark

AU - Shekelle, Paul

AU - Stewart, Lesley A.

AU - Altman, Douglas G.

AU - Booth, Alison

AU - Chan, An Wen

AU - Chang, Stephanie

AU - Clifford, Tammy

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Gøtzsche, Peter C.

AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy M.

AU - Groves, Trish

AU - Helfand, Mark

AU - Higgins, Julian

AU - Lasserson, Toby

AU - Lau, Joseph

AU - Lohr, Kathleen

AU - McGowan, Jessie

AU - Mulrow, Cynthia

AU - Norton, Melissa

AU - Page, Matthew

AU - Sampson, Margaret

AU - Schünemann, Holger

AU - Simera, Iveta

AU - Summerskill, William

AU - Tetzlaff, Jennifer

AU - Trikalinos, Thomas A.

AU - Tovey, David

AU - Turner, Lucy

AU - Whitlock, Evelyn

PY - 2015/1/2

Y1 - 2015/1/2

N2 - 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, 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.

AB - 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, 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84920843179&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84920843179&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.g7647

DO - 10.1136/bmj.g7647

M3 - Review article

C2 - 25555855

AN - SCOPUS:84920843179

VL - 349

JO - British Medical Journal

JF - British Medical Journal

SN - 0959-8146

M1 - g7647

ER -