David Tovey

PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts

Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.

How to write a Cochrane systematic review.

The Cochrane Collaboration is a global network whose aim is to improve health‐care decision making through systematic reviews of the effects of health‐care interventions. Cochrane systematic reviews are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews within The Cochrane Library ( http://www.thecochranelibrary.com), and regularly updated as new evidence arises. Cochrane Reviews are undertaken by teams of volunteer authors, who have access to free training resources, reference texts and software for preparing and maintaining their review. Here we aim to describe the steps involved to undertake a new or update an existing Cochrane Review.

Open letter: European Medicines Agency should remove barriers to access clinical trial data

In an open letter to Guido Rasi, director of the European Medicines Agency, the AllTrials campaign urges the EMA to revise its trial data policy or risk losing the trust of patients and healthcare professionals

Enhancing the usability of systematic reviews by improving the consideration and description of interventions

The importance of adequate intervention descriptions in minimising research waste and improving research usability and reproducibility has gained attention in the past few years. Nearly all focus to date has been on intervention reporting in randomised trials. Yet clinicians are encouraged to use systematic reviews, whenever available, rather than single trials to inform their practice. This article explores the problem and implications of incomplete intervention details during the planning, conduct, and reporting of systematic reviews and makes recommendations for review authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors

A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews

There is no formal consensus on when to update a systematic review, and updating too frequently can be an inefficient use of resources and introduce bias. A multicomponent tool could help researchers decide when is best to update such reviews

Advancing the field of health systems research synthesis

Those planning, managing and working in health systems worldwide routinely need to make decisions regarding strategies to improve health care and promote equity. Systematic reviews of different kinds can be of great help to these decision-makers, providing actionable evidence at every step in the decision-making process. Although there is growing recognition of the importance of systematic reviews to inform both policy decisions and produce guidance for health systems, a number of important methodological and evidence uptake challenges remain and better coordination of existing initiatives is needed. The Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, housed within the World Health Organization, convened an Advisory Group on Health Systems Research (HSR) Synthesis to bring together different stakeholders interested in HSR synthesis and its use in decision-making processes. We describe the rationale of the Advisory Group and the six areas of its work and reflects on its role in advancing the field of HSR synthesis. We argue in favour of greater cross-institutional collaborations, as well as capacity strengthening in low- and middle-income countries, to advance the science and practice of health systems research synthesis. We advocate for the integration of quasi-experimental study designs in reviews of effectiveness of health systems intervention and reforms. The Advisory Group also recommends adopting priority-setting approaches for HSR synthesis and increasing the use of findings from systematic reviews in health policy and decision-making.

The Tamiflu trials.

Progress towards data sharing but many battles still to fight

Informatics: Make sense of health data

Develop the science of data synthesis to join up the myriad varieties of health information, insist Julian H. Elliott, Jeremy Grimshaw and colleagues.

Addressing resistance to antibiotics in systematic reviews of antibiotic interventions

Antibiotics are among the most important interventions in healthcare. Resistance of bacteria to antibiotics threatens the effectiveness of treatment. Systematic reviews of antibiotic treatments often do not address resistance to antibiotics even when data are available in the original studies. This omission creates a skewed view, which emphasizes short-term efficacy and ignores the long-term consequences to the patient and other people. We offer a framework for addressing antibiotic resistance in systematic reviews. We suggest that the data on background resistance in the original trials should be reported and taken into account when interpreting results. Data on emergence of resistance (whether in the body reservoirs or in the bacteria causing infection) are important outcomes. Emergence of resistance should be taken into account when interpreting the evidence on antibiotic treatment in randomized controlled trials or systematic reviews.

Improving GRADE evidence tables part 3: detailed guidance for explanatory footnotes supports creating and understanding GRADE certainty in the evidence judgments

BACKGROUND The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) is widely used and reliable and accurate for assessing the certainty in the body of health evidence. The GRADE working group has provided detailed guidance for assessing the certainty in the body of evidence in systematic reviews and health technology assessments (HTAs) and how to grade the strength of health recommendations. However, there is limited advice regarding how to maximize transparency of these judgments, in particular through explanatory footnotes or explanations in Summary of Findings tables and Evidence Profiles (GRADE evidence tables). METHODS We conducted this study to define the essential attributes of useful explanations and to develop specific guidance for explanations associated with GRADE evidence tables. We used a sample of explanations according to their complexity, type of judgment involved, and appropriateness from a database of published GRADE evidence tables in Cochrane reviews and World Health Organization guidelines. We used an iterative process and group consensus to determine the attributes and develop guidance. RESULTS Explanations in GRADE evidence tables should be concise, informative, relevant, easy to understand, and accurate. We provide general and domain-specific guidance to assist authors with achieving these desirable attributes in their explanations associated with GRADE evidence tables. CONCLUSIONS Adhering to the general and GRADE domain-specific guidance should improve the quality of explanations associated with GRADE evidence tables, assist authors of systematic reviews, HTA reports, or guidelines with information that they can use in other parts of their evidence synthesis. This guidance will also support editorial evaluation of evidence syntheses using GRADE and provide a minimum quality standard of judgments across tables.