Reporting guidelines on how to write a complete and transparent abstract for overviews of systematic reviews of health care interventions

被引:44
作者
Bougioukas, Konstantinos I. [1 ]
Bouras, Emmanouil [1 ]
Apostolidou-Kiouti, Fani [1 ]
Kokkali, Stamatia [1 ]
Arvanitidou, Malamatenia [1 ]
Haidich, Anna-Bettina [1 ]
机构
[1] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Sch Med, Fac Hlth Sci, Dept Hyg Social Prevent Med & Med Stat, Univ Campus, Thessaloniki 54124, Greece
关键词
Abstract; Checklist; Overview of systematic reviews; PRIO for abstracts; PRIO-Harms; Reporting guidelines; HARMS; RISK; BIAS;
D O I
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.10.005
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objective: An overview of systematic reviews (OoSRs) is a study designed to offer a broad view of evidence from existing systematic reviews (SRs). The abstract is an important part of an OoSRs as it can determine whether reading the full text is of interest. The aim of this article is to offer guidelines to promote transparent and sufficient reporting in abstracts of OoSRs of health care interventions. Study Design and Setting: The items were developed by combining key features from abstracts of OoSRs, PRISMA for abstracts, and our published reporting guidelines for OoSRs. The initial version was distributed to experts to give feedback; pilot testing by a group of researchers followed. The refined checklist was applied by two reviewers independently in a sample of 40 abstracts. Results: The developed instrument "Preferred Reporting Items for OoSRs abstracts" (PRIO for abstracts) consists of six sections with 15 topics including 20 items in total. The mean inter-rater reliability was 0.87 (95% confidence interval: 0.82, 0.92). An explanation and at least one published example of good reporting per item are provided. Conclusion: This instrument will assist authors in writing transparent and informative abstracts for OoSRs and can be adopted by journals that publish OoSRs. (C) 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:70 / 79
页数:10
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] Altman DG, 1991, PRACTICAL STAT MED R, V1, P396, DOI DOI 10.1002/SIM.4780101015
  • [2] Andrade Chittaranjan, 2011, Indian J Psychiatry, V53, P172, DOI 10.4103/0019-5545.82558
  • [3] Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist
    Ballard, Madeleine
    Montgomery, Paul
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2017, 8 (01) : 92 - 108
  • [4] Becker AL, 2011, NON TRADITIONAL REF
  • [5] PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts
    Beller, Elaine M.
    Glasziou, Paul P.
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Hopewell, Sally
    Bastian, Hilda
    Chalmers, Iain
    Gotzsche, Peter C.
    Lasserson, Toby
    Tovey, David
    [J]. PLOS MEDICINE, 2013, 10 (04)
  • [6] Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm
    Bernal-Delgado, Enrique
    Fisher, Elliot S.
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2008, 8 (1)
  • [7] Preferred reporting items for overviews of systematic reviews including harms checklist: a pilot tool to be used for balanced reporting of benefits and harms
    Bougioukas, Konstantinos I.
    Liakos, Aris
    Tsapas, Apostolos
    Ntzani, Evangelia
    Haidich, Anna-Bettina
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2018, 93 : 9 - 24
  • [8] Chou R., 2008, Assessing Harms When Comparing Medical Interventions: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews
  • [9] Unique Challenges and Opportunities When Research Syntheses Are the Principal Elements of New Integrative Scholarship
    Cooper, Harris
    Koenka, Alison C.
    [J]. AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST, 2012, 67 (06) : 446 - 462
  • [10] Elliott Jesse, 2017, CMAJ Open, V5, pE373, DOI 10.9778/cmajo.20160066