REGISTERING AND REPORTING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS
Abstract
Systematic reviews are considered as the highest rung in the ladder of evidence-based medicine. They are bound by a pre-defined structure and requirement for extensive literature searches, when compared with the more liberal format of narrative reviews. Systematic review protocols should ideally be pre-registered to avoid duplication or redundancy. After defining clear review question(s), thorough literature searches form the basis of systematic reviews. Presentation of results should be qualitative or quantitative (meta-analysis) if the data is homogenous enough to permit pooling across multiple studies. Quality of individual studies by Cochrane risk of bias 2 tool for interventional studies and other suitable scales for observational studies, as well as appropriate assessment of publication bias are recommended. Certainty of outcomes should be assessed by the GRADE profiler. Finally, systematic reviews should conclude with recommendations for future research, based on their findings.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Levels of evidence - Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine [Internet] http://www.cebm.net/oxford-centre-evidence-based-medicine-levels-evidence-march-2009/ [accessed on 21 November 2017].
Misra DP, Agarwal V. Systematic Reviews: challenges for their justification, related comprehensive searches, and implications. J Korean Med Sci. 2018;33(12):9.
Gasparyan AY, Ayvazyan L, Blackmore H, Kitas GD. Writing a narrative biomedical review: considerations for authors, peer reviewers, and editors. Rheumatol Int 2011;31(11):1409–1417.
Front Matter. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2019. p. i-xxviii.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7):e1000097-e.
Searching for and selecting studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2019. p. 67–107.
Collecting data. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2019. p. 109–141.
Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2019. p. 205–228.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366:l4898.
Newcastle-Ottawa scale. http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp [Accessed on Dec 10, 2020].
Misra DP, Zimba O, Gasparyan AY. Statistical data presentation: a primer for rheumatology researchers. Rheumatol Int 2020 doi: 10.1007/s00296-020-04740-z. Online ahead of print.
Lin L, Chu H. Quantifying publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics 2018;74(3):785–794.
Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2019. p. 375–402.
GRADEpro GDT: GRADEpro Guideline Development Tool [Software]. McMaster University, 2020 (developed by Evidence Prime, Inc.). Available from gradepro.org.
Summarizing study characteristics and preparing for synthesis. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2019. p. 229–240.
Analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 2019. p. 241–284.
Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 2020;368:l6890.
Misra DP, Ravindran V, Agarwal V. Integrity of authorship and peer review practices: challenges and opportunities for improvement. J Korean Med Sci 2018;33(46):14.
Misra DP, Agarwal V. Integrity of clinical research conduct, reporting, publishing, and post-publication promotion in rheumatology. Clin Rheumatol 2020;39:1049–1060.
ISSN 
