Adherence to PRISMA 2020 statement in non-Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions. A meta-epidemiological study
Camila Micaela Escobar Liquitay, Research Department. Instituto Universitario Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires, Argentina.
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is defined as the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of patients, by integrating individual clinical expertise, the best available clinical evidence, and the individual patient’s preferences. Systematic Reviews (SRs) synthesise all available evidence on a specific topic. However, the quality of SRs reporting varies. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement is a guideline to ensure that SRs meet specific criteria for correct reporting. First published in 2009, PRISMA statement has been updated in 2020 and comprises seven sections with 27 items, some of which include sub-items. The adherence to the PRISMA 2020 statement in non-Cochrane reviews of interventions is unknown.
Objectives: To assess the adherence to the PRISMA 2020 statement in non-Cochrane SR of interventions.
Methods: We conducted a Cross-sectional study. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE and included completed non-Cochrane SRs of any interventions published during 2022. We did not apply restrictions based on language or topic. For included reviews, we extracted information about the date of the protocol publication or register in any protocol repository (PROSPERO or similar), the date, country, and topic of the published SRs, as well as the citation of the PRISMA statement in the method section. Then, for each SRs we assessed the compliance of the 27 items of the PRISMA statement. Data were extracted by one reviewer and validated by the lead author.
Results: We will show the complete results at the London Colloquium.
Conclusions: We will show the conclusions at the London Colloquium.
Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: None