If you are a clinician who needs to put evidence into practice or are a researcher this is important read.
Systematic reviews play a number of crucial roles in understanding the state of knowledge on a topic and in identifying future research priorities. Often the only way to answer questions that could not be answered by individual studies alone, they are an important resource for clinicians, researchers, patients and policymakers alike. However, they only achieve this role if they are transparent, accurate, and complete, including the why and what of the review itself.
To ensure that a systematic review is of value to users, authors should produce a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was conducted, what they did, and what they found …
The P referred to R Eporting I Tems for S ystematic review and M eta- ] A Analysis Statement (PRIMSA) is a guideline designed to ensure that systematic reviews are correct, complete and transparent. The aim is to combat poor reporting on systematic reviews. It includes a checklist of 27 items recommended for reporting in systematic reviews. Since its inception in 2009, it has been endorsed and cited more than 60,000 times. To say it is essential is a statement that the statement is practically equivalent to a systematic review.
Improve Your Confidence Interpretation Research
Numerous research and technology innovations have been carried out since 2009, including new research methods to assess bias potential and machine learning to identify patterns that make areas of PRISMA less useful and relevant. The language used in systematic review research has also changed, from assessing quality to assessing safety. To ensure that this and numerous other advances were made, the PRISMA 2009 statement had to be updated.
Development of PRISMA 2020
There is a full description of the evolution of the updated statement published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology in early February 2021. The journey began in 2017 when a group of international systematic review method experts was set up to guide the update
A 4-step process was used to update the manual. Initially, over 60 documents were reviewed to generate changes to the 2009 statement. 110 systematic review methodologists and editors then conducted a three-part survey of the proposed changes. The results of steps 1 and 2 were discussed at a 21-person face-to-face meeting in Edinburgh, Scotland, in 2018. After the meeting, the fourth and final step took place where the explanation, checklist and iterative changes were made. Flowchart and additional information up to the completion of the final document in spring 2020.
Use of PRISMA 2020 and understanding of the scope
PRISMA 2020 does not tell researchers how to conduct a systematic review, but rather helps plan the research to ensure that all recommended information is captured. Likewise, PRISMA does not assess the methodological quality of a review, but rather the appropriateness of the methods used and the trustworthiness of the results. It is a hallmark of a robust and transparent review process that facilitates the replication of results and ultimately improves the security of research results.
PRISMA 2020 flowchart template for systematic reviews
The checklists, explanations and flowcharts have all been updated and should no longer be used for the 2009 versions. This includes all PRISMA extensions, including abstracts and minutes, which are now consistent with the statement as previously updated in 2015.
Brief summary of the updated PRISMA 2020 guidelines
Lately it has been criticized that not enough research methods are available in basic training. The inclusion of the new PRISMA 2020 statement in the physiotherapy curriculum for students would be an important addition to understanding the importance of transparent and reproducible research methods. The concept is straightforward and the supplementary checklists are user-friendly, making it suitable for anyone with research experience.
Physiospot offers easily digestible summaries of many systematic overviews. This is because of their transferability and robust methodology so that lessons can be transferred to clinical practice with confidence. Without PRISMA this would not be such an easy process and the updated statement only makes the role of systematic reviews more important.
