Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) provide the highest possible level of evidence. However, poor conduct or reporting of SRs and MAs may reduce their utility. The PRISMA Statement (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was developed to help authors report their SRs and MAs adequately.

Objectives

Our objectives were to (1) evaluate the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs and their abstracts in otorhinolaryngologic literature using the PRISMA and PRISMA for Abstracts checklists, respectively, (2) compare the quality of reporting of SRs and MAs published in Ear Nose Throat (ENT) journals to the quality of SRs and MAs published in the ‘gold standard’ Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and (3) formulate recommendations to improve reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals.

Methods

On September 3, 2014, we searched the Pubmed database using a combination of filters to retrieve SRs and MAs on otorhinolaryngologic topics published in 2012 and 2013 in the top 5 ENT journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2013) or CDSR and relevant articles were selected. We assessed how many, and which, PRISMA (for Abstracts) items were reported adequately per journal type.

Results

We identified large differences in the reporting of individual items between the two journal types with room for improvement. In general, SRs and MAs published in ENT journals (n = 31) reported a median of 54.4% of the PRISMA items adequately, whereas the 49 articles published in the CDSR reported a median of 100.0 adequately (difference statistically significant, p < 0.001). For abstracts, medians of 41.7% for ENT journals and 75.0% for the CDSR were found (p < 0.001).

Conclusion

The reporting of SRs and MAs in ENT journals leaves room for improvement and would benefit if the PRISMA Statement were endorsed by these journals.     

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers).[1,2]To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this.[3]The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009)[4–10] is a reporting guideline designed to address poor reporting of systematic reviews.[11] The PRISMA 2009 statement comprised a checklist of 27 items recommended for reporting in systematic reviews and an “explanation and elaboration” paper[12–16] providing additional reporting guidance for each item, along with exemplars of reporting. The recommendations have been widely endorsed and adopted, as evidenced by its co-publication in multiple journals, citation in over 60 000 reports (Scopus, August 2020), endorsement from almost 200 journals and systematic review organisations, and adoption in various disciplines. Evidence from observational studies suggests that use of the PRISMA 2009 statement is associated with more complete reporting of systematic reviews,[17–20] although more could be done to improve adherence to the guideline.[21]Many innovations in the conduct of systematic reviews have occurred since publication of the PRISMA 2009 statement. For example, technological advances have enabled the use of natural language processing and machine learning to identify relevant evidence,[22–24] methods have been proposed to synthesise and present findings when meta-analysis is not possible or appropriate,[25–27] and new methods have been developed to assess the risk of bias in results of included studies.[28,29] Evidence on sources of bias in systematic reviews has accrued, culminating in the development of new tools to appraise the conduct of systematic reviews.[30, 31] Terminology used to describe particular review processes has also evolved, as in the shift from assessing “quality” to assessing “certainty” in the body of evidence.[32] In addition, the publishing landscape has transformed, with multiple avenues now available for registering and disseminating systematic review protocols,[33, 34] disseminating reports of systematic reviews, and sharing data and materials, such as preprint servers and publicly accessible repositories. To capture these advances in the reporting of systematic reviews necessitated an update to the PRISMA 2009 statement.Summary points

• To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did, and what they found
• The PRISMA 2020 statement provides updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies
• The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews
• We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders

     

Is Quality and Completeness of Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Published in High Impact Radiology Journals Associated with Citation Rates?

Purpose

The purpose of this study is to determine whether study quality and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) published in high impact factor (IF) radiology journals is associated with citation rates.

Methods

All SR and MA published in English between Jan 2007–Dec 2011, in radiology journals with an IF >2.75, were identified on Ovid MEDLINE. The Assessing the Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) checklist for study quality, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist for study completeness, was applied to each SR & MA. Each SR & MA was then searched in Google Scholar to yield a citation rate. Spearman correlation coefficients were used to assess the relationship between AMSTAR and PRISMA results with citation rate. Multivariate analyses were performed to account for the effect of journal IF and journal 5-year IF on correlation with citation rate. Values were reported as medians with interquartile range (IQR) provided.

Results

129 studies from 11 journals were included (50 SR and 79 MA). Median AMSTAR result was 8.0/11 (IQR: 5–9) and median PRISMA result was 23.0/27 (IQR: 21–25). The median citation rate for SR & MA was 0.73 citations/month post-publication (IQR: 0.40–1.17). There was a positive correlation between both AMSTAR and PRISMA results and SR & MA citation rate; ρ=0.323 (P=0.0002) and ρ=0.327 (P=0.0002) respectively. Positive correlation persisted for AMSTAR and PRISMA results after journal IF was partialed out; ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) and ρ=0.256 (P=0.004), and after journal 5-year IF was partialed out; ρ=0.235 (P=0.008) and ρ=0.243 (P=0.006) respectively.

Conclusion

There is a positive correlation between the quality and the completeness of a reported SR or MA with citation rate which persists when adjusted for journal IF and journal 5-year IF.     

Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture

Background

The QUOROM and PRISMA statements were published in 1999 and 2009, respectively, to improve the consistency of reporting systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of clinical trials. However, not all SRs/MAs adhere completely to these important standards. In particular, it is not clear how well SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies adhere to reporting standards and which reporting criteria are generally ignored in these analyses.

Objectives

To evaluate reporting quality in SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies.

Methods

We performed a literature search for studies published prior to 2014 using the following public archives: PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) database, the Chinese Journal Full-text Database (CJFD), the Chinese Scientific Journal Full-text Database (CSJD), and the Wanfang database. Data were extracted into pre-prepared Excel data-extraction forms. Reporting quality was assessed based on the PRISMA checklist (27 items).

Results

Of 476 appropriate SRs/MAs identified in our search, 203, 227, and 46 were published in Chinese journals, international journals, and the Cochrane Database, respectively. In 476 SRs/MAs, only 3 reported the information completely. By contrast, approximately 4.93% (1/203), 8.81% (2/227) and 0.00% (0/46) SRs/Mas reported less than 10 items in Chinese journals, international journals and CDSR, respectively. In general, the least frequently reported items (reported≤50%) in SRs/MAs were “protocol and registration”, “risk of bias across studies”, and “additional analyses” in both methods and results sections.

Conclusions

SRs/MAs of acupuncture studies have not comprehensively reported information recommended in the PRISMA statement. Our study underscores that, in addition to focusing on careful study design and performance, attention should be paid to comprehensive reporting standards in SRs/MAs on acupuncture studies.     

Quality Assessment and Factor Analysis of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Endoscopic Ultrasound Diagnosis

Background

Comprehensive monitoring of the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) of endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) requires complete and accurate reporting and methodology.

Objective

To assess the reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis and to explore the potential factors influencing articles’ quality.

Methods

The quality of the reporting and methodology was evaluated in relation to the adherence of papers to the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR quality scale. The total scores for every criterion and for every article on the two standards were calculated. Data were evaluated and analyzed using SPSS17.0 and RevMan 5.1 in terms of publication time, category of reviews, category of journals, and funding resource.

Results

A total of 72 SRs/MAs was included, but no Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) were obtained. The number of SRs/MAs ranged from 1 in 1998 to 15 in 2013; 88.1% used the QUADAS tool; the average overall scores by PRISMA statement and AMSTAR tool were 19.9 and 5.4, respectively. Scores on some items showed substantial improvement after publication of PRISMA and AMSTAR. However, no reviews followed the criterion of protocol and registration, and only 11.1% of articles fulfilled the criterion of literature search. SRs/MAs from the Science Citation Index (SCI) were of better quality than non-SCI studies. Funding resource made no difference to quality. Regression analysis showed that time of publication and inclusion in the SCI were significantly correlated with total scores on the two standards.

Conclusion

The reporting and methodological quality of SRs/MAs on EUS diagnosis has improved measurably since PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists released. It is hoped that CSR in this field will be produced. Literature searching and protocol criteria, as well as QUADAS-2 tool need to be addressed more in the future. Time of publication and SCI relate more to the overall quality of SRs/MAs than does funding resource.     

Saffron (Crocus sativus L.) and health outcomes: a meta-research review of meta-analyses and an evidence mapping study

BackgroundAlthough a number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of saffron (Crocus sativus L.) have been published, no study has comprehensively summarized the clinical evidence from meta-analyses, or assessed the reporting or methodological quality of these reviews.PurposeThe present meta-research study was designed to fill the gaps in knowledge to inform future studies and allow enhanced clinical decision-making on saffron.MethodsThe PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CNKI databases were systematically searched from inception to April 3 rd, 2021, for meta-analyses of clinical trials that assessed the efficacy and safety of saffron. PRISMA 2009 and AMSTAR-2 were employed to assess the reporting and methodological quality of meta-analyses identified in the search, respectively. The present study was registered on PROSPERO with registration number CRD42020220274.ResultsNineteen eligible systematic reviews with meta-analyses published in English were identified from 235 records. These meta-analyses were published in 12 peer-reviewed journals from 2013 to 2021. The heterogeneous results indicated that saffron significantly reduced fasting blood glucose, waist circumference, diastolic blood pressure, concentrations of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and improved symptoms of depression, cognitive function and sexual dysfunction compared with controls (mainly placebos). Common side effects of saffron consumption included nausea, dry mouth, poor appetite, and headache, but no serious adverse reactions were reported. Primary analysis and sensitivity analysis confirmed that the reporting and methodological quality of reviews included in the study were highly correlated (p < 0.001). The quality of meta-analyses of saffron requires improvement by including a structured abstract, a prospective protocol and registration, explanation of the study designs within each study that is reviewed, the searches, risk of bias assessment, literature selection, and reporting of funding sources.ConclusionThe available evidence indicates that saffron is a safe plant for administration as a medicine and can improve diverse clinical outcomes, but the scientific quality of the published systematic reviews needs to be improved. Moreover, the clinical effects of saffron need to be confirmed through high-quality randomized trials in multiple countries with large sample sizes.     

The Assessment of the Quality of Reporting of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses in Diagnostic Tests Published by Authors in China

Background

The quality of reporting in systematic reviews (SRs)/meta-analyses (MAs) of diagnostic tests published by authors in China has not been evaluated. The aims of present study are to evaluate the quality of reporting in diagnostic SRs/MAs using the PRISMA statement and determine the changes in the quality of reporting over time.

Methods

According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we searched five databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of knowledge, to identify SRs/MAs on diagnostic tests. The searches were conducted on July 14, 2012 and the cut off for inclusion of the SRs/MAs was December 31^st 2011. The PRISMA statement was used to assess the quality of reporting. Analysis was performed using Excel 2003, RevMan 5.

Results

A total of 312 studies were included. Fifteen diseases systems were covered. According to the PRISMA checklist, there had been serious reporting flaws in following items: structured summary (item 2, 22.4%), objectives (item 4, 18.9%), protocol and registration (item 5, 2.6%), risk of bias across studies (item 15, 26.3%), funding (item 27, 28.8%). The subgroup analysis showed that there had been some statistically significant improvement in total compliance for 9 PRISMA items after the PRISMA was released, 6 items were statistically improved regarding funded articles, 3 items were statistically improved for CSCD articles, and there was a statistically significant increase in the proportion of reviews reporting on 22 items for SCI articles (P<0.050).

Conclusion

The numbers of diagnostic SRs/MAs is increasing annually. The quality of reporting has measurably been improved over the previous years. Unfortunately, there are still many deficiencies in the reporting including protocol and registration, search, risk of bias across studies, and funding. Future Chinese reviewers should address issues on these aspects.     

Blinded by PRISMA: Are Systematic Reviewers Focusing on PRISMA and Ignoring Other Guidelines?

Background

PRISMA guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs). Other reporting guidelines and techniques to assess methodological quality of SRs have been developed. We aimed to assess the frequency of the use of reporting and other guidelines in SRs to assess whether PRISMA is being used inappropriately as a substitute for other relevant guidelines.

Methods

Web of Knowledge was searched to identify articles citing the PRISMA guidelines over a 12-month period. The use of reporting guidelines (including PRISMA and MOOSE) and tools for assessing methodological quality (including QUADAS) was assessed. Factors associated with appropriate use of guidelines including review type, field of publication and involvement of a methodologist were investigated.

Results

Over the 12-month period, 701 SRs were identified. MOOSE guidelines were cited in just 17% of epidemiologic reviews; QUADAS or QUADAS-2 was referred to in just 40% of diagnostic SRs. In the multivariable analysis, medical field of publication and methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.83) were significant predictors of appropriate use of guidelines. Inclusion of a meta-analysis resulted in 73% higher odds of appropriate usage of systematic review guidelines (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.35).

Conclusions

Usage of SR reporting guidelines and tools for assessment of methodological quality other than PRISMA may be under-utilized with negative implications both for the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews.     

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews

In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common—along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE’s] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015–2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.

A cross sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews reveals deficiencies in reporting and provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of specific guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.     

Recommended reporting items for epidemic forecasting and prediction research: The EPIFORGE 2020 guidelines

BackgroundThe importance of infectious disease epidemic forecasting and prediction research is underscored by decades of communicable disease outbreaks, including COVID-19. Unlike other fields of medical research, such as clinical trials and systematic reviews, no reporting guidelines exist for reporting epidemic forecasting and prediction research despite their utility. We therefore developed the EPIFORGE checklist, a guideline for standardized reporting of epidemic forecasting research.Methods and findingsWe developed this checklist using a best-practice process for development of reporting guidelines, involving a Delphi process and broad consultation with an international panel of infectious disease modelers and model end users. The objectives of these guidelines are to improve the consistency, reproducibility, comparability, and quality of epidemic forecasting reporting. The guidelines are not designed to advise scientists on how to perform epidemic forecasting and prediction research, but rather to serve as a standard for reporting critical methodological details of such studies.ConclusionsThese guidelines have been submitted to the EQUATOR network, in addition to hosting by other dedicated webpages to facilitate feedback and journal endorsement.

Simon Pollett and co-workers describe EPIFORGE, a guideline for reporting research on epidemic forecasting.     

Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: A Mixed-Method Study

Background

Best formats for summarising and presenting evidence for use in clinical guideline development remain less well defined. We aimed to assess the effectiveness of different evidence summary formats to address this gap.

Methods

Healthcare professionals attending a one-week Kenyan, national guideline development workshop were randomly allocated to receive evidence packaged in three different formats: systematic reviews (SRs) alone, systematic reviews with summary-of-findings tables, and ‘graded-entry’ formats (a ‘front-end’ summary and a contextually framed narrative report plus the SR). The influence of format on the proportion of correct responses to key clinical questions, the primary outcome, was assessed using a written test. The secondary outcome was a composite endpoint, measured on a 5-point scale, of the clarity of presentation and ease of locating the quality of evidence for critical neonatal outcomes. Interviews conducted within two months following completion of trial data collection explored panel members’ views on the evidence summary formats and experiences with appraisal and use of research information.

Results

65 (93%) of 70 participants completed questions on the prespecified outcome measures. There were no differences between groups in the odds of correct responses to key clinical questions. ‘Graded-entry’ formats were associated with a higher mean composite score for clarity and accessibility of information about the quality of evidence for critical neonatal outcomes compared to systematic reviews alone (adjusted mean difference 0.52, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.99). There was no difference in the mean composite score between SR with SoF tables and SR alone. Findings from interviews with 16 panelists indicated that short narrative evidence reports were preferred for the improved clarity of information presentation and ease of use.

Conclusions

Our findings suggest that ‘graded-entry’ evidence summary formats may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence in clinical guideline development.

Trial Registration

Controlled-Trials.com ISRCTN05154264     

Mapping Systematic Reviews on Atopic Eczema—An Essential Resource for Dermatology Professionals and Researchers

Background

Many research studies have been published on atopic eczema and these are often summarised in systematic reviews (SRs). Identifying SRs can be time-consuming for health professionals, and researchers. In order to facilitate the identification of important research, we have compiled an on-line resource that includes all relevant eczema reviews published since 2000.

Methods

SRs were searched for in MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), PubMed, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, DARE and NHS Evidence. Selected SRs were assessed against the pre-defined eligibility criteria and relevant articles were grouped by treatment category for the included interventions. All identified systematic reviews are included in the Global Resource of EczemA Trials (GREAT) database (www.greatdatabase.org.uk) and key clinical messages are summarised here.

Results

A total of 128 SRs reviews were identified, including three clinical guidelines. Of these, 46 (36%) were found in the Cochrane Library. No single database contained all of the SRs found. The number of SRs published per year has increased substantially over the last thirteen years, and reviews were published in a variety of clinical journals. Of the 128 SRs, 1 (1%) was on mechanism, 37 (29%) were on epidemiology, 40 (31%) were on eczema prevention, 29 (23%) were on topical treatments, 31 (24%) were on systemic treatments, and 24 (19%) were on other treatments. All SRs included searches of MEDLINE in their search methods. One hundred six SRs (83%) searched more than one electronic database. There were no language restrictions reported in the search methods of 52 of the SRs (41%).

Conclusions

This mapping of atopic eczema reviews is a valuable resource. It will help healthcare practitioners, guideline writers, information specialists, and researchers to quickly identify relevant up-to-date evidence in the field for improving patient care.     

Dynamics of sputum conversion during effective tuberculosis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundTwo weeks’ isolation is widely recommended for people commencing treatment for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB). The evidence that this corresponds to clearance of potentially infectious tuberculous mycobacteria in sputum is not well established. This World Health Organization–commissioned review investigated sputum sterilisation dynamics during TB treatment.Methods and findingsFor the main analysis, 2 systematic literature searches of OvidSP MEDLINE, Embase, and Global Health, and EBSCO CINAHL Plus were conducted to identify studies with data on TB infectiousness (all studies to search date, 1 December 2017) and all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for drug-susceptible TB (from 1 January 1990 to search date, 20 February 2018). Included articles reported on patients receiving effective treatment for culture-confirmed drug-susceptible pulmonary TB. The outcome of interest was sputum bacteriological conversion: the proportion of patients having converted by a defined time point or a summary measure of time to conversion, assessed by smear or culture. Any study design with 10 or more particpants was considered. Record sifting and data extraction were performed in duplicate. Random effects meta-analyses were performed. A narrative summary additionally describes the results of a systematic search for data evaluating infectiousness from humans to experimental animals (PubMed, all studies to 27 March 2018). Other evidence on duration of infectiousness—including studies reporting on cough dynamics, human tuberculin skin test conversion, or early bactericidal activity of TB treatments—was outside the scope of this review. The literature search was repeated on 22 November 2020, at the request of the editors, to identify studies published after the previous censor date. Four small studies reporting 3 different outcome measures were identified, which included no data that would alter the findings of the review; they are not included in the meta-analyses. Of 5,290 identified records, 44 were included. Twenty-seven (61%) were RCTs and 17 (39%) were cohort studies. Thirteen studies (30%) reported data from Africa, 12 (27%) from Asia, 6 (14%) from South America, 5 (11%) from North America, and 4 (9%) from Europe. Four studies reported data from multiple continents. Summary estimates suggested smear conversion in 9% of patients at 2 weeks (95% CI 3%–24%, 1 single study [N = 1]), and 82% of patients at 2 months of treatment (95% CI 78%–86%, N = 10). Among baseline smear-positive patients, solid culture conversion occurred by 2 weeks in 5% (95% CI 0%–14%, N = 2), increasing to 88% at 2 months (95% CI 84%–92%, N = 20). At equivalent time points, liquid culture conversion was achieved in 3% (95% CI 1%–16%, N = 1) and 59% (95% CI 47%–70%, N = 8). Significant heterogeneity was observed. Further interrogation of the data to explain this heterogeneity was limited by the lack of disaggregation of results, including by factors such as HIV status, baseline smear status, and the presence or absence of lung cavitation.ConclusionsThis systematic review found that most patients remained culture positive at 2 weeks of TB treatment, challenging the view that individuals are not infectious after this interval. Culture positivity is, however, only 1 component of infectiousness, with reduced cough frequency and aerosol generation after TB treatment initiation likely to also be important. Studies that integrate our findings with data on cough dynamics could provide a more complete perspective on potential transmission of Mycobacterium tuberculosis by individuals on treatment.Trial registrationSystematic review registration: PROSPERO 85226.     

The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected health Data (RECORD) Statement

Routinely collected health data, obtained for administrative and clinical purposes without specific a priori research goals, are increasingly used for research. The rapid evolution and availability of these data have revealed issues not addressed by existing reporting guidelines, such as Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE). The REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely collected health Data (RECORD) statement was created to fill these gaps. RECORD was created as an extension to the STROBE statement to address reporting items specific to observational studies using routinely collected health data. RECORD consists of a checklist of 13 items related to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion section of articles, and other information required for inclusion in such research reports. This document contains the checklist and explanatory and elaboration information to enhance the use of the checklist. Examples of good reporting for each RECORD checklist item are also included herein. This document, as well as the accompanying website and message board (http://www.record-statement.org), will enhance the implementation and understanding of RECORD. Through implementation of RECORD, authors, journals editors, and peer reviewers can encourage transparency of research reporting.     

Evaluation of evidence-based literature and formulation of recommendations for the clinical preventive guidelines for immigrants and refugees in Canada

Background:

This article describes the evidence review and guideline development method developed for the Clinical Preventive Guidelines for Immigrants and Refugees in Canada by the Canadian Collaboration for Immigrant and Refugee Health Guideline Committee.

Methods:

The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) best-practice framework was combined with the recently developed Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to produce evidence-based clinical guidelines for immigrants and refugees in Canada.

Results:

A systematic approach was designed to produce the evidence reviews and apply the GRADE approach, including building on evidence from previous systematic reviews, searching for and comparing evidence between general and specific immigrant populations, and applying the GRADE criteria for making recommendations. This method was used for priority health conditions that had been selected by practitioners caring for immigrants and refugees in Canada.

Interpretation:

This article outlines the 14-step method that was defined to standardize the guideline development process for each priority health condition.Primary care practitioners who care for recently arrived immigrants and refugees have raised concerns over the lack of evidence-based guidelines for clinical prevention, noting that it is not always clear whether current recommendations made for the general population in Canada can be generalized to this population. In 2006, the Canadian Collaboration for Immigrant and Refugee Health (CCIRH) Guideline Committee was formed to address this issue by first identifying the top-priority health conditions for this population. The group of 20 health conditions identified was very diverse ranging from infectious disease to chronic conditions including depression. The challenge was creating a rigorous interdisciplinary process and then to generate pragmatic recommendations. This document outlines the systematic approach designed to produce the evidence reviews.A variety of methods is used for developing clinical guidelines and practice recommendations.¹ We used the recently developed approach of moving away from recommendations classified by letters and numbers to the simplified classification system recommended by the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group² and applied this to clinical preventive actions. Our guideline development process followed the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation (AGREE) instrument (www.agreetrust.org), which is recognized internationally as providing best-practice criteria for evidence-based guideline development.We developed the recommendations on the basis of a pre-specified process overseen by the CCIRH Guideline Committee. Defining a methods process ensured that each guideline was developed in a systematic, reproducible manner and was based on the best evidence available. This process was based on existing guidelines including the Canadian Medical Association Journal handbook on developing clinical practice guidelines¹ and the ADAPTE framework for adapting existing guidelines.³ Our process emphasized identifying immigrant- and refugee-specific evidence on efficacy and population characteristics from guidelines, systematic reviews and primary studies. When immigrant- and refugee-specific evidence was unavailable, we used specific criteria, adapted from the Cochrane Handbook,⁴ to judge how this evidence applied to our intended target population.Conditions considered most important by practitioners caring for immigrants and refugees in Canada were assigned to groups of content experts to develop evidence reviews with clinical conclusions for recent immigrants and refugees to Canada using a logic model and following a structured 14-step process. The guidelines focus on clinical care gaps¹ during the “health settlement period,” which we define as the first five years of residence in a new country for an immigrant or refugee. This is the time in which health practitioners are likely to have initial contact with this population and the time during which stressors from one’s country of origin and country of settlement are most likely to manifest. Immigrants and refugees are thus grouped together by this organizing period of resettlement; however, the heterogeneity, complexities, and differences between and within these groups were recognized throughout the process.In our process, we emphasized making clinically relevant recommendations and establishing an extension to existing guidelines rather than a replacement or revision.