Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement

被引:327
作者
Gates, Michelle [1 ]
Gates, Allison [1 ]
Pieper, Dawid [2 ]
Fernandes, Ricardo M. [3 ,4 ]
Tricco, Andrea C. [5 ,6 ,7 ,8 ]
Moher, David [9 ,10 ]
Brennan, Sue E. [11 ]
Li, Tianjing [12 ]
Pollock, Michelle [13 ]
Lunny, Carole [5 ]
Sepulveda, Dino [14 ,15 ]
McKenzie, Joanne E. [11 ]
Scott, Shannon D. [16 ]
Robinson, Karen A. [17 ]
Matthias, Katja [18 ]
Bougioukas, Konstantinos, I [19 ]
Fusar-Poli, Paolo [20 ,21 ,22 ,23 ]
Whiting, Penny [24 ]
Moss, Stephana J. [25 ]
Hartling, Lisa [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Alberta, Alberta Res Ctr Hlth Evidence, Dept Pediat, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[2] Witten Herdecke Univ, Inst Res Operat Med, Witten, Germany
[3] Univ Lisbon, Fac Med, Clin Pharmacol Unit, Lisbon, Portugal
[4] Univ Lisbon, Inst Mol Med, Lisbon, Portugal
[5] St Michaels Hosp, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Inst, Toronto, ON, Canada
[6] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Epidemiol Div, Toronto, ON, Canada
[7] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, Inst Hlth Policy Management & Evaluat, Toronto, ON, Canada
[8] Queens Univ, Queens Collaborat Hlth Care Qual Joanna Briggs In, Ctr Excellence, Kingston, ON, Canada
[9] Univ Ottawa, Ottawa Hosp Res Inst, Clin Epidemiol Program, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[10] Univ Ottawa, Sch Epidemiol & Publ Hlth, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[11] Monash Univ, Sch Publ Hlth & Prevent Med, Melbourne, Vic, Australia
[12] Univ Colorado, Dept Ophthalmol, Sch Med, Anschutz Med Campus, Denver, CO USA
[13] Inst Hlth Econ, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[14] Minist Hlth Santiago, Dept Hlth Technol Assessment & Evidence Based Hea, Santiago, Chile
[15] Autonomous Univ Chile, Sch Med, Santiago, Chile
[16] Univ Alberta, Fac Nursing, Edmonton, AB, Canada
[17] Johns Hopkins Univ, Sch Med, Baltimore, MD USA
[18] Univ Appl Sci Stralsund, Fac Elect Engn & Comp Sci, Stralsund, Germany
[19] Aristotle Univ Thessaloniki, Fac Hlth Sci, Sch Med, Dept Hyg Social Prevent Med & Med Stat, Thessaloniki, Greece
[20] Kings Collect London, Dept Psychosis Studies, Early Psychosis Intervent & Clin Detect Lab, Inst Psychiat Psychol & Neurosci, London, England
[21] South London & Maudsley NHS Fdn Trust, OASIS Serv, London, England
[22] Univ Pavia, Dept Brain & Behav Sci, Pavia, Italy
[23] South London & Maudsley NHS Fdn Trust, Maudsley Biomed Res Ctr, Natl Inst Hlth Res, London, England
[24] Univ Bristol, Bristol Med Sch, Bristol, Avon, England
[25] Univ Calgary, Cumming Sch Med, Dept Crit Care Med, Calgary, AB, Canada
来源
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2022年 / 378卷
基金
加拿大健康研究院; 美国国家卫生研究院; 英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; DELPHI; TOOL;
D O I
10.1136/bmj-2022-070849
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.DEsIGN Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.PARTICIPANTs Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (a70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist.SETTING International consensus. INTERVENTION Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (a70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline.REsULTs From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews.CONCLUsIONs PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.
引用
收藏
页数:13
相关论文
共 51 条
  • [11] A review of recent publication trends from top publishing countries
    Fontelo, Paul
    Liu, Fang
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2018, 7
  • [12] Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews
    Fusar-Poli, Paolo
    Radua, Joaquim
    [J]. EVIDENCE-BASED MENTAL HEALTH, 2018, 21 (03) : 95 - 100
  • [13] Gates M, METAARXIV, V2022, DOI [10.31222/osf.io/23b6j, DOI 10.31222/OSF.IO/23B6J]
  • [14] Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review
    Gates, Michelle
    Gates, Allison
    Guitard, Samantha
    Pollock, Michelle
    Hartling, Lisa
    [J]. SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2020, 9 (01)
  • [15] A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
    Grant, Maria J.
    Booth, Andrew
    [J]. HEALTH INFORMATION AND LIBRARIES JOURNAL, 2009, 26 (02) : 91 - 108
  • [16] A Descriptive Analysis of Overviews of Reviews Published between 2000 and 2011
    Hartling, Lisa
    Chisholm, Annabritt
    Thomson, Denise
    Dryden, Donna M.
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (11):
  • [17] Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique
    Hasson, F
    Keeney, S
    McKenna, H
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ADVANCED NURSING, 2000, 32 (04) : 1008 - 1015
  • [18] HIGGINS JPT, 2011, COCHRANE HDB SYSTEMA, V0001
  • [19] Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: Observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019
    Hoffmann, Falk
    Allers, Katharina
    Rombey, Tanja
    Helbach, Jasmin
    Hoffmann, Amrei
    Mathes, Tim
    Pieper, Dawid
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2021, 138 : 1 - 11
  • [20] Hsu C.-C., 2007, PRACT ASSESSMENT RES, V12, P1, DOI DOI 10.7275/PDZ9-TH90