Ítems de referencia para publicar Protocolos de Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: Declaración PRISMA-P 2015 Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

TL;DR: The PRISMA-P checklist as mentioned in this paper provides 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol, as well as a model example from an existing published protocol.

TL;DR: This work argues for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducible and efficiency of scientific research.

TL;DR: The case burden of TBI across World Health Organization regions and World Bank income groups was sought to promote advocacy, understanding, and targeted intervention, and study quality was higher in the high-income countries (HICs) than in the low- and middle- Income countries (LMICs).

TL;DR: SGLT2i have moderate benefits on atherosclerotic major adverse cardiovascular events that seem confined to patients with established atheroscerotic cardiovascular disease, however, they have robust benefits on reducing hospitalisation for heart failure and progression of renal disease regardless of existing atherosclerosis or a history of heart failure.

TL;DR: El objetivo ofrece enfatizar the importancia oficial de the practica clinica, en esta epoca of “posmodernidad” that ha hecho tan dificil the relacion medico-paciente.

TL;DR: To systematically review studies of cohorts of RCTs to compare the content of trial reports with the information contained in their protocols, or entries in a trial registry, the quality and extent of information included in trial registries is improved and trialists explain substantial changes in their reports.

TL;DR: It was found that making changes after seeing the results for included studies can lead to biased and misleading interpretation if the importance of the outcome (primary or secondary) is changed on the basis of those results.

TL;DR: It is suggested that the purpose of the guideline, whether its aims are prescriptive or proscriptive, may influence if and how guidelines are received and implemented.