To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did, and what they found The PRISMA 2020 statement provides updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studiesThe PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders on 15 April 2021 by guest. Protected by copyright.

To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did, and what they found The PRISMA 2020 statement provides updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studiesThe PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders

The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions. It is important that users can distinguish high quality reviews. Many instruments have been designed to evaluate different aspects of reviews, but there are few comprehensive critical appraisal instruments. AMSTAR was developed to evaluate systematic reviews of randomised trials. In this paper, we report on the updating of AMSTAR and its adaptation to enable more detailed assessment of systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. With moves to base more decisions on real world observational evidence we believe that AMSTAR 2 will assist decision makers in the identification of high quality systematic reviews, including those based on non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions.

No abstract

The PRISMA 2020 statement includes a checklist of 27 items to guide reporting of systematic reviews In this article we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews We hope that uptake of the PRISMA 2020 statement will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making on 15 April 2021 by guest. Protected by copyright.

On a shelf in the sunny, open-plan o ice of Cochrane Australia in Melbourne, there's a large, white ring-binder that, it's fair to say, hasn't been opened in a while. It's a printed copy of the original, 1994 edition of the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook, edited by Dave Sackett,[1] and within it the original guidance on the methods to be used. The section on preparing and maintaining systematic reviews, edited by Andy Oxman, weighs in at a total of 76 pages.[2] Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (Editorial) 1

Systematic reviews of health related interventions often use alternative methods of synthesis to meta-analysis of effect estimates, methods often described as "narrative synthesis" Serious shortcomings in reviews that use "narrative synthesis" have been identified, including a lack of description of the methods used; unclear links between the included data, the synthesis, and the conclusions; and inadequate reporting of the limitations of the synthesis The Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline is a nine item checklist to promote transparent reporting for reviews of interventions that use alternative synthesis methods The SWiM items prompt users to report how studies are grouped, the standardised metric used for the synthesis, the synthesis method, how data are presented, a summary of the synthesis findings, and limitations of the synthesis The SWiM guideline has been developed using a best practice approach, involving extensive consultation and formal consensus on 11 September 2020 by guest. Protected by copyright.

To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did, and what they found The PRISMA 2020 statement provides updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studiesThe PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders