Search

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Metaanalyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses.

Data abstraction is a key step in conducting systematic reviews because data collected from study reports form the basis of appropriate conclusions. Recent methodological standards and expectations highlight several principles for data collection. To support implementation of these standards, this article provides a step-by-step tutorial for selecting data collection tools; constructing data collection forms; and abstracting, managing, and archiving data for systematic reviews. Examples are drawn from recent experience using the Systematic Review Data Repository for data collection and management. If it is done well, data collection for systematic reviews only needs to be done by 1 team and placed into a publicly accessible database for future use. Technological innovations, such as the Systematic Review Data Repository, will contribute to finding trustworthy answers for many health and health care questions.

Background:Network meta-analysis compares multiple treatment options for the same condition and may be useful for developing clinical practice guidelines. Purpose: To compare treatment recommendations for first‐line medical therapy for primary open angle-glaucoma (POAG) from major updates of American Academy of Ophthalmology’s (AAO) guidelines with the evidence available at the time, using network meta‐analysis. Data Sources: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library on March 11, 2014 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of glaucoma monotherapies compared with placebo/vehicle/no treatment or other monotherapies. We searched the AAO website in August 2014 to identify AAO POAG guidelines. Study Selection: Eligible RCTs were selected by two independent reviewers and guidelines were selected by one person. Data Extraction: One person abstracted recommendations from guidelines and a second person verified. Two people independently abstracted data from included RCTs. Data Synthesis: We grouped guidelines together based on literature search dates, and analyzed RCTs that existed at 1991, 1995, 1999, 2004, and 2009. The outcome of interest is intraocular pressure (IOP) at 3 months. Only the latest guideline made a specific recommendation‐‐prostaglandins. Network meta‐analyses showed that all treatments were superior to placebo in lowering IOP at 3 months. The mean reduction (95% credible interval) for the highest ranking class compared with placebo were as follows: 1991: beta blockers, 4.01 (0.48‐7.43); 1995: alpha‐2 adrenergic agonists, 5.64 (1.739.50); 1999: prostaglandins, 5.43 (3.387.38); 2004: prostaglandins, 4.75 (3.11‐6.44); 2009: prostaglandins, 4.58 (2.94‐6.24). Limitations: When comparisons are informed by a small number of studies, the treatment effects and rankings may not be stable. Conclusions: For timely recommendations when multiple treatment options are available, guidelines developers should consider network meta‐analysis.

Dechartres and colleagues' examination of the association between publication characteristics and treatment effect estimates suggests that reporting biases are threatening our understanding of the ...

The authors developed and tested a framework for identifying evidence gaps and prioritizing comparative effectiveness research by using a combination of clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews. In phase 1 of the project, reported elsewhere, 45 clinical questions on the management of primary open-angle glaucoma were derived from practice guidelines and prioritized by using a 2-round Delphi survey of clinicians. On the basis of the clinicians' responses, 9 questions were classified as high-priority. In phase 2, reported here, systematic reviews that addressed the 45 clinical questions were identified. The reviews were classified as at low, high, or unclear risk of bias, and evidence gaps (in which no systematic review was at low risk of bias) were identified. The following comparative effectiveness research agenda is proposed: Two of the 9 high-priority questions require new primary research (such as a randomized, controlled trial) and 4 require a new systematic review. The utility and limitations of the framework and future adaptations are discussed.

Metabias poses unique challenges for comparative effectiveness research and evidence-based healthcare. Dechartres and colleagues' study in this issue raises the specter of a new metabias that is pa...

Continuing controversy surrounds screening mammography, particularly for women 40 to 49 years of age. Newspapers are potentially important sources of information on this topic, but it is not known whether they provide well-founded and objective information and recommendations.To examine how screening mammography is reported in newspapers.Cross-sectional descriptive study.6 top-circulation U.S. newspapers, 1990 to 1997.Number of articles about screening mammography, issues covered by the articles, information sources, content and sources of quotes, recommendations cited in articles, and presentation of risks and benefits.The most common theme of newspaper articles about mammography was screening for women 40 to 49 years of age. Thirty-one percent of the articles presented information without citing a source or justification. Quotes and recommendations in the articles were approximately twice as likely to support as to express reservations about mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years. Recommendations changed little over time and rarely reflected changes in recommendations of national organizations. Of the 102 articles describing the benefits of mammography, 95% expressed them in relative terms and 11% expressed them in absolute terms.Newspapers tended to overrepresent support for screening mammography for women aged 40 to 49 years. Reports would have been improved by identification of all sources for information cited, less reliance on relatively few sources, and discussion of benefits in absolute as well as relative terms. Medical journalism may benefit from identification of standards similar to those used for reporting medical research.