Systematic Reviews encompasses all aspects of the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. The journal aims to publish high quality systematic review products including systematic review protocols, systematic reviews related to a very broad definition of health, rapid reviews, updates of already completed systematic reviews, and methods research related to the science of systematic reviews, such as decision modeling. The journal also aims to ensure that the results of all well-conducted systematic reviews are published, regardless of their outcome.
- David Moher, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
- Paul G Shekelle, RAND Corporation
- Lesley A Stewart, CRD, University of York
Automating stages of the systematic review process can facilitate their timely production. To date, there is no unified information extraction framework and most of the data elements have not been sufficiently investigated.
Towards core outcome set development: a follow-up descriptive survey of outcomes in Cochrane reviews
Core outcome sets can help reduce research waste by addressing outcome reporting bias and heterogeneity. Between 2007 and 2013, Cochrane reviews have increased the proportion of reported outcomes and explanations behind non-reported outcomes.
Small study and lag time effects can have implications on the validity of systematic review results; an evaluation of small study and lag time effects on diagnostic test accuracy meta-analyses revealed that they are less evident than in meta-analyses of randomized trials.
User involvement in a Cochrane systematic review relating to physiotherapy after stroke highlights how a structured approach can impact the review and enhance clinical relevance, which included broadening inclusion criteria and changes to classifications of treatments.
The AHRQ and EPC Program evaluated the literature on rapid reviews; results indicate that definition, methods and applications vary considerably. Those producing rapid reviews need to consider the transparency of their methods and development of reporting guidelines.
Latest from PROSPERO
- A systematic review and meta-analysis assessing the relationship between habit and healthcare professional behaviour in clinical practice
- A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effectiveness of internet-based cognitive behavior therapy for obsessive compulsive disorder
- A systematic review of domains relating to the everyday impact of hearing loss, as reported by patients or their communication partner(s)
- A systematic review of factors linked to poor academic performance of disadvantaged students in science and maths in schools. What recommendations are available for improvement?
Systematic reviews reporting
Systematic Reviews advocates the complete and transparent reporting of research. Authors are required to adhere to the PRISMA Statement for any submitted systematic reviews, and required to follow the PRISMA-P Statement for protocol articles. The Editors also encourage authors to follow any relevant extensions to the PRISMA Statement, available from the EQUATOR Network.
Dr. David Moher is a senior scientist at the Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and Associate Professor, Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa. Dr. Moher has been involved in systematic reviews for more than 20 years and has made contributions to the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Dr. Moher is associated with many journals, is a member of the advisory board for the International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication, and a member of the EQUATOR Network's steering group.
In addition to currently serving as a Staff Physician at the West Los Angeles Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dr. Shekelle has served as the Director of the Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center for the RAND Corporation since 1997. He is also a Professor of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) School of Medicine. He is widely recognized in the field of guidelines, quality measurement, and evidence-based medicine. Dr. Shekelle has extensive experience in the health care arena and was previously the methodologist for the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (now the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [AHRQ]) Low-Back Guidelines Panel, and he has participated in a number of other guideline development activities. He is currently the chair of the Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.
Professor Lesley Stewart is Director of the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) at the University of York and is a National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Senior Investigator. Lesley has been involved in evidence synthesis in healthcare since the late 1980's, previously running the Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Unit meta-analysis research programme. Together with colleagues in Cambridge and Oxford, she helped establish the methodology and framework for individual patient data (IPD) reviews and was a founding member of the Cochrane Collaboration. Her research interests include the avoidance of bias and development of IPD methods and approaches to systematic review. Recently, she has instigated the development of PROSPERO an international register for the prospective registration of systematic reviews.