TY - JOUR
T1 - Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement
AU - Moher, David
AU - Shamseer, Larissa
AU - Clarke, Mike
AU - Ghersi, Davina
AU - Liberati, Alessandro
AU - Petticrew, Mark
AU - Shekelle, Paul
AU - Stewart, Lesley A
AU - Altman, Douglas G
AU - Booth, Alison
AU - Chan, An-Wen
AU - Chang, Stephanie
AU - Clifford, Tammy J
AU - Dickersin, Kay
AU - Egger, Matthias
AU - Gøtzsche, Peter C
AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy M
AU - Groves, Trish
AU - Helfand, Mark
AU - Lasserson, Toby
AU - Lau, Joseph
AU - Lohr, Kathleen
AU - McGowan, Jessie
AU - Mulrow, Cynthia
AU - Norton, Melissa
AU - Page, Matthew
AU - Sampson, Margaret
AU - Schünemann, Holger J
AU - Simera, Iveta
AU - Summerskill, William
AU - Tetzlaff, Jennifer
AU - Trikalinos, Thomas
AU - Tovey, David
AU - Turner, Lucy
AU - Whitlock, Evelyn
AU - PRISMA-P Group
PY - 2015/1/1
Y1 - 2015/1/1
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
U2 - 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
DO - 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
M3 - Article (Academic Journal)
C2 - 25554246
SN - 2046-4053
VL - 4
JO - Systematic Reviews
JF - Systematic Reviews
M1 - 1
ER -