Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

/pdf/prisma-extension-for-scoping-reviews-prisma-scr-checklist-53qupltibg.pdf

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

http://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA-P%20Statement%20-%20Moher%20Sys%20Rev%20Jan%202015.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Background and Objectives: There is a substantial body of evidence assessing the effects of equine-assisted therapy on physiological and psychological aspects of individuals with disabilities. This study aimed to evaluate the physiological benefits of this alternative therapy for children with cerebral palsy (CP) by means of a systematic review and meta-analysis. Methods: This systematic review included all randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials of hippotherapy (HT), therapeutic horse riding (THR), and artificial saddle (AS) for the treatment of children with CP by a systematic search in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and other databases up to November 2012. Articles were assessed for inclusion eligibility and quality by two independent reviewers. Any discordant case was re-reviewed and consensus was obtained after sufficient discussion. A random effects model of meta-analysis was applied to provide summary statistics for each outcome. Results: Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 4 non-RCTs, and 7 self-controlled studies were included for quality assessment. Ten studies assessed the effect of HT, 5 evaluated THR, and 3 evaluated AS. The sample size differed from 3 to 72, and the quality ranged from low to moderate. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, and there was a significant improvement in the 66-item Gross Motor Function Measure (GMFM-66), the GMFM-66/88 total score, and the dimension E of the GMFM. Although the asymmetry score tended to be reduced, it failed to reach statistical significance. Conclusions: HT, THR, and AS seem to improve the total score of the gross motor function via improvement of the walking, running, and jumping dimension. However, they are not likely to be of benefit to the symmetry of postural muscle activity. Studies included in this review lack high-quality RCTs with a sufficient number of subjects, which thus warrants further evaluations of these modalities using large-scale well-designed RCTs.

/pdf/the-effect-of-riding-as-an-alternative-treatment-for-5amnj0qp1l.pdf

The Effect of Riding as an Alternative Treatment for Children with Cerebral Palsy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-48ibbzju0k.pdf

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

The metafor package provides functions for conducting meta-analyses in R. The package includes functions for fitting the meta-analytic fixed- and random-effects models and allows for the inclusion of moderators variables (study-level covariates) in these models. Meta-regression analyses with continuous and categorical moderators can be conducted in this way. Functions for the Mantel-Haenszel and Peto's one-step method for meta-analyses of 2 x 2 table data are also available. Finally, the package provides various plot functions (for example, for forest, funnel, and radial plots) and functions for assessing the model fit, for obtaining case diagnostics, and for tests of publication bias.

Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package

All information relevant to the care and safety of those who use marketed products should be published, and this is the responsibility of the organisations that carry out clinical research, and pharmaceutical companies in particular. Publication bias, or the selective reporting of results, threatens the validity of any evaluation of the medical literature, especially when findings are summarised quantitatively across multiple studies in a formal meta-analysis. Empirical studies have demonstrated that publication bias exists and can have a substantive effect on the conclusions drawn from published literature alone. Numerous statistical approaches to detecting and correcting for publication bias have been proposed, but all are based on unverifiable assumptions about the mechanism leading to selective publication. A preferred solution to the problem of publication bias is a preventive strategy, based on a central, publicly accessible registration of clinical trials at their inception, followed by full disclosure of their results. Progress toward that end has been made through guidance provided by medical journal editors, independent groups of researchers, and industry, but more work is needed before a consensus is reached on the scope and practical implementation of clinical trial registries.

Selective Reporting, Publication Bias and Clinical Trial Registry

Although it's not typical, in a scholarly publication such as the BMJ , to add a personal perspective to a commentary, I believe that in this situation my background is relevant to the discussion. My doctoral dissertation, written in 1988, dealt with the topic of publication bias, which was well described in the Ottawa statement appearing in this issue.1 Since then, I've contributed to several studies of factors affecting publication, including an early empirical demonstration of publication bias.2

About six months ago, I moved from a university, where I had spent 15 years, to a position in a large pharmaceutical research and development group. Registration and disclosure of the results of clinical studies have, not surprisingly, been topics of numerous conversations where I work.

At …

/pdf/why-industry-should-register-and-disclose-results-of-3n0to1td04.pdf

Why industry should register and disclose results of clinical studies--perspective of a recovering academic.

Pasquali et al1 have provided important data regarding pediatric studies conducted under pediatric exclusivity provisions of US laws that have been highly successful in incentivizing the generation of much needed information regarding pediatric usage of drugs.2 However, the authors raised many theoretical concerns about global pediatric trials while providing few data to support such concerns. Our own experience questions whether an examination of all of the data should be undertaken before reaching the broad conclusions presented in the article. Only 11% of the trials reviewed by Pasquali et al were conducted solely outside the United States, a far smaller proportion than the “approximately one-third” in the study of adult trials by large US pharmaceutical firms reported by Glickman et al,3 notwithstanding the assertion by Pasquali et al that their findings were similar to those of Glickman et al. Although data regarding indication were not presented for this 11%, Pasquali et al noted that several overseas trials in their study were performed …

Globalized pediatric research.

Objective. To compare placebo responses in neuropathic pain syndromes. Design. Systematic literature review and meta- analysis. Setting and Patients. Randomized placebo- controlled trials assessing pain intensity or pain relief in any neuropathic pain syndrome published since 1995 with 5 days follow-up. Interventions. Placebo response. Outcome Measures. Pain intensity and responder rates (proportion reporting 50% pain relief). Meta- regression models were built. Results. Ninety-four studies (N = 5,317) were included in the pain intensity analysis; 47 studies (N = 3,087) were included in the responder analysis. After controlling for potential confounders (e.g., subject characteristics, study design characteris- tics), the placebo response was found to be large and varied with the pain syndrome. Compared with diabetic neuropathic/polyneuropathic pain (DPN), the placebo response for a decline in pain intensity and responder rate was smaller in trials that assessed central pain and postherpetic neuralgia (PHN) and larger in trials that assessed HIV pain. The model-predicted mean decrease (95% confi- dence interval (CI)) from baseline in pain intensity (0-10 scale) was as follows: DPN, 1.45 (1.35 to 1.55); PHN, 1.16 (1.03 to 1.29); central pain, 0.44 (-0.41 to 1.30); HIV pain, 1.82 (1.51 to 2.12). The predicted responder rates (95% CI) were as follows: DPN, 20% (14.6 to 25.8); PHN, 11.5% (8.4 to 14.5); central pain, 7.2% (2.1 to 12.3); HIV pain, 42.8% (34.9 to 50.7). The type of treatment in the active arm also influenced the placebo response. Conclusions. Placebo response is influenced by the pain syndrome evaluated. These differences should be considered when evaluating novel compounds for the treatment of neuropathic pain conditions.

NEUROPATHIC PAIN SECTION Original Research Article Placebo Response Changes Depending on the Neuropathic Pain Syndrome: Results of a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Registration of refugee and asylum-seeking doctors

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Jesse A. Berlin

Author Tools

Chat about Author