Search

Abstract Background Incomplete reporting about what systematic reviewers did and what they found prevents users of the report from being able to fully interpret the findings and understand the limitations of the underlying evidence. Reporting guidelines such as the PRISMA statement and its extensions are designed to improve reporting. However, there are important inconsistencies across the various PRISMA reporting guidelines, which causes confusion and misinterpretation. Coupled with this, users might need to consult multiple guidelines to gain a full understanding of the guidance. Furthermore, the current passive strategy of implementing PRISMA has not fully brought about needed improvements in the completeness of systematic review reporting. Methods The PRISMATIC (‘PRISMA, Technology, and Implementation to enhance reporting Completeness’) project aims to use novel methods to enable more efficient and effective translation of PRISMA reporting guidelines into practice. We will establish a working group who will develop a unified PRISMA statement that harmonises content across the main PRISMA guideline and several of its extensions. We will then develop a web application that generates a reporting template and checklist customised to the characteristics and methods of a systematic review (‘PRISMA-Web app’) and conduct a randomised trial to evaluate its impact on authors’ reporting. We will also develop a web application that helps peer reviewers appraise systematic review manuscripts (‘PRISMA-Peer app’) and conduct a diagnostic accuracy study to evaluate its impact on peer reviewers’ detection of incomplete reporting. Discussion We anticipate the novel guidance and web-based apps developed throughout the project will substantively enhance the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of health evidence, ultimately benefiting users who rely on systematic reviews to inform health care decision-making.

Abstract Background COVID-19 led to a rapid acceleration in the number of systematic reviews. Readers need to know how up to date evidence is when selecting reviews to inform decisions. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate how easily the currency of COVID-19 systematic reviews published early in the pandemic could be determined and how up to date these reviews were at the time of publication. Methods We searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses relevant to COVID-19 added to PubMed in July 2020 and January 2021, including any that were first published as preprints. We extracted data on the date of search, number of included studies, and date first published online. For the search date, we noted the format of the date and where in the review this was reported. A sample of non-COVID-19 systematic reviews from November 2020 served as a comparator. Results We identified 246 systematic reviews on COVID-19. In the abstract of these reviews, just over half (57%) reported the search date (day/month/year or month/year) while 43% failed to report any date. When the full text was considered, the search date was missing from 6% of reviews. The median time from last search to publication online was 91 days (IQR 63–130). Time from search to publication was similar for the subset of 15 rapid or living reviews (92 days) but shorter for the 29 reviews published as preprints (37 days). The median number of studies or publications included per review was 23 (IQR 12–40). In the sample of 290 non-COVID SRs, around two-thirds (65%) reported the search date while a third (34%) did not include any date in the abstract. The median time from search to publication online was 253 days (IQR 153–381) and each review included a median of 12 studies (IQR 8–21). Conclusions Despite the context of the pandemic and the need to easily ascertain the currency of systematic reviews, reporting of the search date information for COVID-19 reviews was inadequate. Adherence to reporting guidelines would improve the transparency and usefulness of systematic reviews to users.

Forensic scientific practitioners and researchers must navigate a rapidly growing body of research. This makes it increasingly challenging to inform courts, lawyers, and other decision makers about the state of the field, thus heightening the chances of wrongful convictions and acquittals. When similar challenges have arisen in other fields, they have turned to systematic reviews, which are research reviews that use formal, articulated methods to provide a comprehensive summary of the literature on a specific research question. Systematic reviews allow users to evaluate how the authors identified research and synthesised its findings, making them more transparent than informal literature reviews. This article lays out a justification and plan for systematic reviews in forensic science.

Objectives: This study aimed at systematically review the evidence for the efficacy of Tumor Necrosis Factor (TNF) inhibitors on symptoms and structural outcomes in hand osteoarthritis. Methods: Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy of TNF inhibitors in hand osteoarthritis. Two authors extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. The mean difference (MD) was calculated, and a random-effects meta-analysis was performed. Results: Four studies were identified involving 276 participants. Meta-analysis showed that TNF inhibitors had no effect on pain at 4–6 weeks (MD -0.93, 95%CI -7.41 to 5.55; 2 studies) and 24–26 weeks (MD -3.82, 95%CI -11.46 to 3.83; 2 studies) and no effect on grip strength at 12 months (MD -0.35, 95%CI -1.08 to 0.37; 2 studies). There was limited evidence for the effect of TNF inhibitors on structural outcomes at 12 months. Subgroup analysis from 2 studies showed beneficial effect of TNF inhibitors on reducing the progression of structural outcomes in hand OA patients with signs of inflammation but not in those without inflammation. The certainty of the evidence was low for the effect of TNF inhibitor on pain and moderate for the effect on grip strength. Conclusion: This study found no effect of TNF inhibitors on clinical outcomes in hand osteoarthritis over the short term (

A declaração dos Principais Itens para Relatar Revisões Sistemáticas e Meta-análises (PRISMA), publicada em 2009, foi desenvolvida para ajudar revisores sistemáticos a relatar de forma transparente por que a revisão foi feita, os métodos empregados e o que os autores encontraram. Na última década, os avanços na metodologia e terminologia de revisões sistemáticas exigiram a atualização da diretriz. A declaração PRISMA 2020 substitui a declaração de 2009 e inclui novas orientações para relato que refletem os avanços nos métodos para identificar, selecionar, avaliar e sintetizar estudos. A estrutura e apresentação dos itens foram modificadas para facilitar a implementação. Neste artigo, apresentamos a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 de 27 itens, uma lista de checagem expandida que detalha as recomendações para relato para cada item, a lista de checagem PRISMA 2020 para resumos e os fluxogramas revisados para novas revisões e para atualização de revisões.

Abstract Background Various stakeholders are calling for increased availability of data and code from cancer research. However, it is unclear how commonly these products are shared, and what factors are associated with sharing. Our objective was to evaluate how frequently oncology researchers make data and code available and explore factors associated with sharing. Methods A cross-sectional analysis of a random sample of 306 cancer-related articles indexed in PubMed in 2019 which studied research subjects with a cancer diagnosis was performed. All articles were independently screened for eligibility by two authors. Outcomes of interest included the prevalence of affirmative sharing declarations and the rate with which declarations connected to data complying with key FAIR principles (e.g. posted to a recognised repository, assigned an identifier, data license outlined, non-proprietary formatting). We also investigated associations between sharing rates and several journal characteristics (e.g. sharing policies, publication models), study characteristics (e.g. cancer rarity, study design), open science practices (e.g. pre-registration, pre-printing) and subsequent citation rates between 2020 and 2021. Results One in five studies declared data were publicly available (59/306, 19%, 95% CI: 15–24%). However, when data availability was investigated this percentage dropped to 16% (49/306, 95% CI: 12–20%), and then to less than 1% (1/306, 95% CI: 0–2%) when data were checked for compliance with key FAIR principles. While only 4% of articles that used inferential statistics reported code to be available (10/274, 95% CI: 2–6%), the odds of reporting code to be available were 5.6 times higher for researchers who shared data. Compliance with mandatory data and code sharing policies was observed in 48% (14/29) and 0% (0/6) of articles, respectively. However, 88% of articles (45/51) included data availability statements when required. Policies that encouraged data sharing did not appear to be any more effective than not having a policy at all. The only factors associated with higher rates of data sharing were studying rare cancers and using publicly available data to complement original research. Conclusions Data and code sharing in oncology occurs infrequently, and at a lower rate than would be expected given the prevalence of mandatory sharing policies. There is also a large gap between those declaring data to be available, and those archiving data in a way that facilitates its reuse. We encourage journals to actively check compliance with sharing policies, and researchers consult community-accepted guidelines when archiving the products of their research.

Abstract Background There is some evidence that corticosteroids may have a beneficial effect in hand osteoarthritis. We examined the efficacy of corticosteroids on symptoms and structural outcomes in hand osteoarthritis. Methods Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched from inception to October 2021 for randomized controlled trials investigating the efficacy of corticosteroids in hand osteoarthritis. Two authors independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool. Standardized mean difference (SMD) or mean difference (MD) was calculated, and random-effects meta-analyses were performed. Results Of 13 included trials, 3 examined oral corticosteroids and clinical outcomes in any hand joints, 9 examined intra-articular injection of corticosteroids and clinical outcomes at the first carpometacarpal joint and one in the interphalangeal joints. In meta-analysis, oral corticosteroids reduced pain (SMD -0.53, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.28) and improved stiffness (MD -5.03, 95% CI -9.91 to -0.15; Australian Canadian Osteoarthritis Hand Index stiffness subscale) and function (SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.63 to -0.12) at 4-6 weeks. However, there was no significant persistent effect on pain and function at 3 months which was 6-8 weeks after study medication was stopped. There was no significant effect of intra-articular corticosteroids on pain or function at 4-6 weeks or over 3-12 months in first carpometacarpal osteoarthritis. Two trials evaluated joint structure at 4-6 weeks: one study showed oral corticosteroids reduced synovial thickening, neither showed an effect on synovitis. Conclusions There was low-certainty evidence for a medium effect of oral corticosteroids on pain relief and stiffness improvement and small-to-medium effect on functional improvement at 4-6 weeks, with no significant effect for intra-articular corticosteroids. Corticosteroids had no significant effect on any outcomes over longer term (3-12 months) off treatment. No trials examined the effect of corticosteroids on disease progression. The role of corticosteroids in hand osteoarthritis is limited.

Abstract Background Acute low back pain is a common condition, has high burden, and there are evidence-to-practice gaps in the chiropractic and physiotherapy setting for imaging and giving advice to stay active. The aim of this cluster randomised trial was to estimate the effects of a theory- and evidence-based implementation intervention to increase chiropractors’ and physiotherapists’ adherence to a guideline for acute low back pain compared with the comparator (passive dissemination of the guideline). In particular, the primary aim of the intervention was to reduce inappropriate imaging referral and improve patient low back pain outcomes, and to determine whether this intervention was cost-effective. Methods Physiotherapy and chiropractic practices in the state of Victoria, Australia, comprising at least one practising clinician who provided care to patients with acute low back pain, were invited to participate. Patients attending these practices were included if they had acute non-specific low back pain (duration less than 3 months), were 18 years of age or older, and were able to understand and read English. Practices were randomly assigned either to a tailored, multi-faceted intervention based on the guideline (interactive educational symposium plus academic detailing) or passive dissemination of the guideline (comparator). A statistician independent of the study team undertook stratified randomisation using computer-generated random numbers; four strata were defined by professional group and the rural or metropolitan location of the practice. Investigators not involved in intervention delivery were blinded to allocation. Primary outcomes were X-ray referral self-reported by clinicians using a checklist and patient low back pain-specific disability (at 3 months). Results A total of 104 practices (43 chiropractors, 85 physiotherapists; 755 patients) were assigned to the intervention and 106 practices (45 chiropractors, 97 physiotherapists; 603 patients) to the comparator; 449 patients were available for the patient-level primary outcome. There was no important difference in the odds of patients being referred for X-ray (adjusted (Adj) OR: 1.40; 95% CI 0.51, 3.87; Adj risk difference (RD): 0.01; 95% CI − 0.02, 0.04) or patient low back pain-specific disability (Adj mean difference: 0.37; 95% CI − 0.48, 1.21, scale 0–24). The intervention did lead to improvement for some key secondary outcomes, including giving advice to stay active (Adj OR: 1.96; 95% CI 1.20, 3.22; Adj RD: 0.10; 95% CI 0.01, 0.19) and intending to adhere to the guideline recommendations (e.g. intention to refer for X-ray: Adj OR: 0.27; 95% CI 0.17, 0.44; intention to give advice to stay active: Adj OR: 2.37; 95% CI 1.51, 3.74). Conclusions Intervention group clinicians were more likely to give advice to stay active and to intend to adhere to the guideline recommendations about X-ray referral. The intervention did not change the primary study outcomes, with no important differences in X-ray referral and patient disability between groups, implying that hypothesised reductions in health service utilisation and/or productivity gains are unlikely to offset the direct costs of the intervention. We report these results with the caveat that we enrolled less patients into the trial than our determined sample size. We cannot recommend this intervention as a cost-effective use of resources. Trial registration Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12609001022257 . Retrospectively registered on 25 November 2009

Abstract Background Selective outcome reporting and publication bias threaten the validity of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and can affect clinical decision-making. A rigorous method to evaluate the impact of this bias on the results of network meta-analyses of interventions is lacking. We present a tool to assess the Risk Of Bias due to Missing Evidence in Network meta-analysis (ROB-MEN). Methods ROB-MEN first evaluates the risk of bias due to missing evidence for each of the possible pairwise comparison that can be made between the interventions in the network. This step considers possible bias due to the presence of studies with unavailable results (within-study assessment of bias) and the potential for unpublished studies (across-study assessment of bias). The second step combines the judgements about the risk of bias due to missing evidence in pairwise comparisons with (i) the contribution of direct comparisons to the network meta-analysis estimates, (ii) possible small-study effects evaluated by network meta-regression, and (iii) any bias from unobserved comparisons. Then, a level of “low risk”, “some concerns”, or “high risk” for the bias due to missing evidence is assigned to each estimate, which is our tool’s final output. Results We describe the methodology of ROB-MEN step-by-step using an illustrative example from a published NMA of non-diagnostic modalities for the detection of coronary artery disease in patients with low risk acute coronary syndrome. We also report a full application of the tool on a larger and more complex published network of 18 drugs from head-to-head studies for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder. Conclusions ROB-MEN is the first tool for evaluating the risk of bias due to missing evidence in network meta-analysis and applies to networks of all sizes and geometry. The use of ROB-MEN is facilitated by an R Shiny web application that produces the Pairwise Comparisons and ROB-MEN Table and is incorporated in the reporting bias domain of the CINeMA framework and software.

Objective: While targeting obesity is central to osteoarthritis management, recent meta-analyses demonstrate only modest effects of weight loss on symptoms, and little on structure. The World Health Organisation recommends that effective management of obesity include prevention of weight gain, weight maintenance and weight loss. Therefore, we systematically reviewed the recommendations and approaches for management of obesity in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for osteoarthritis. Design: Nine databases were searched (01.01.2010–15.03.2022) to identify guidelines informing the non-pharmacological management of osteoarthritis. Three reviewers appraised guidelines according to the AGREE II instrument, and independently extracted data on their characteristics. One author extracted and summarised guideline recommendations on weight management. This systematic review is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021274195). Results: Of the included fifteen CPGs (median AGREE II domain score 78.7%), weight loss was recommended for knee (12 of 13) and hip (10 of 11) but not hand (0 of 4) osteoarthritis. Combination approaches of diet and/or exercise were recommended for overweight or obese individuals in knee (8 of 12) and hip (4 of 10) osteoarthritis. Two guidelines specified ≥5% weight loss. One guideline specified strategies for maintenance of lost weight; none specifically recommended preventing weight gain. There was discordance between strength of recommendation for weight loss and level of evidence (3 of 15). Conclusion: Most CPGs for knee and hip osteoarthritis recommend weight loss to manage obesity in osteoarthritis. As steady weight accumulation is common in adults, preventing weight gain should also be considered as it is a missed opportunity to improve outcomes in osteoarthritis.

Abstract Background Reporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy‐to‐use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of a tool for the production of PRISMA 2020‐compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Methods and Findings We developed a free‐to‐use, Open Source R package and web‐based Shiny app to allow users to design PRISMA flow diagrams for their own systematic reviews. Our tool allows users to produce standardised visualisations that transparently document the methods and results of a systematic review process in a variety of formats. In addition, we provide the opportunity to produce interactive, web‐based flow diagrams (exported as HTML files), that allow readers to click on boxes of the diagram and navigate to further details on methods, results or data files. We provide an interactive example here; https://prisma-flowdiagram.github.io/. Conclusions We have developed a user‐friendly tool for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams for users with coding experience and, importantly, for users without prior experience in coding by making use of Shiny (https://estech.shinyapps.io/prisma_flowdiagram/). This free‐to‐use tool will make it easier to produce clear and PRISMA 2020‐compliant systematic review flow diagrams. Significantly, users can also produce interactive flow diagrams for the first time, allowing readers of their reviews to smoothly and swiftly explore and navigate to further details of the methods and results of a review. We believe this tool will increase use of PRISMA flow diagrams, improve the compliance and quality of flow diagrams, and facilitate strong science communication of the methods and results of systematic reviews by making use of interactivity. We encourage the systematic review community to make use of the tool, and provide feedback to streamline and improve their usability and efficiency.

Abstract Background Investigations of transparency, reproducibility and replicability in science have been directed largely at individual studies. It is just as critical to explore these issues in syntheses of studies, such as systematic reviews, given their influence on decision-making and future research. We aim to explore various aspects relating to the transparency, reproducibility and replicability of several components of systematic reviews with meta-analysis of the effects of health, social, behavioural and educational interventions. Methods The REPRISE (REProducibility and Replicability In Syntheses of Evidence) project consists of four studies. We will evaluate the completeness of reporting and sharing of review data, analytic code and other materials in a random sample of 300 systematic reviews of interventions published in 2020 (Study 1). We will survey authors of systematic reviews to explore their views on sharing review data, analytic code and other materials and their understanding of and opinions about replication of systematic reviews (Study 2). We will then evaluate the extent of variation in results when we (a) independently reproduce meta-analyses using the same computational steps and analytic code (if available) as used in the original review (Study 3), and (b) crowdsource teams of systematic reviewers to independently replicate a subset of methods (searches for studies, selection of studies for inclusion, collection of outcome data, and synthesis of results) in a sample of the original reviews; 30 reviews will be replicated by 1 team each and 2 reviews will be replicated by 15 teams (Study 4). Discussion The REPRISE project takes a systematic approach to determine how reliable systematic reviews of interventions are. We anticipate that results of the REPRISE project will inform strategies to improve the conduct and reporting of future systematic reviews.

Abstract Background Literature searches underlie the foundations of systematic reviews and related review types. Yet, the literature searching component of systematic reviews and related review types is often poorly reported. Guidance for literature search reporting has been diverse, and, in many cases, does not offer enough detail to authors who need more specific information about reporting search methods and information sources in a clear, reproducible way. This document presents the PRISMA-S (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses literature search extension) checklist, and explanation and elaboration. Methods The checklist was developed using a 3-stage Delphi survey process, followed by a consensus conference and public review process. Results The final checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. Conclusions The intent of PRISMA-S is to complement the PRISMA Statement and its extensions by providing a checklist that could be used by interdisciplinary authors, editors, and peer reviewers to verify that each component of a search is completely reported and therefore reproducible.

Abstract Background Evidence based medicine aims to integrate scientific evidence, clinical experience, and patient values and preferences. Individual health care professionals need to appraise the evidence from randomized trials and observational studies when guidelines are not yet available. To date, tools for assessment of bias and terminologies for bias are specific for each study design. Moreover, most tools appeal only to methodological knowledge to detect bias, not to subject matter knowledge, i.e. in-depth medical knowledge about a topic. We propose a unified framework that enables the coherent assessment of bias across designs. Methods Epidemiologists traditionally distinguish between three types of bias in observational studies: confounding, information bias, and selection bias. These biases result from a common cause, systematic error in the measurement or common effect of the intervention and outcome respectively. We applied this conceptual framework to randomized trials and show how it can be used to identify bias. The three sources of bias were illustrated with graphs that visually represent researchers’ assumptions about the relationships between the investigated variables (causal diagrams). Results Critical appraisal of evidence started with the definition of the research question in terms of the population of interest, the compared interventions and the main outcome. Next, we used causal diagrams to illustrate how each source of bias can lead to over- or underestimated treatment effects. Then, we discussed how randomization, blinded outcome measurement and intention-to-treat analysis minimize bias in trials. Finally, we identified study aspects that can only be appraised with subject matter knowledge, irrespective of study design. Conclusions The unified framework encompassed the three main sources of bias for the effect of an assigned intervention on an outcome. It facilitated the integration of methodological and subject matter knowledge in the assessment of bias. We hope that graphical diagrams will help clarify debate among professionals by reducing misunderstandings based on different terminology for bias.

Abstract Background Understanding the long-term health effects of low to moderate alcohol consumption is important for establishing thresholds for minimising the lifetime risk of harm. Recent research has elucidated the dose-response relationship between alcohol and cardiovascular outcomes, showing an increased risk of harm at levels of intake previously thought to be protective. The primary objective of this review was to examine (1) whether there is a dose-response relationship between levels of alcohol consumption and long-term cognitive effects, and (2) what the effects are of different levels of consumption. Methods The review was conducted according to a pre-specified protocol. Eligible studies were those published 2007 onwards that compared cognitive function among people with different levels of alcohol consumption (measured ≥ 6 months prior to first follow-up of cognition). Major cognitive impairment was excluded. Searches were limited to MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (January 2007 to April 2018). Screening, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (ROBINS-I) were piloted by three authors, then completed by a single author and checked by a second. Analyses were undertaken to identify and characterise dose-response relationships between levels of alcohol consumption and cognition. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. Results We included 27 cohort studies (from 4786 citations). Eighteen studies examined the effects of alcohol consumption at different levels (risk of bias 16 serious, 2 critical). Ten studies provided data for dose-response analysis. The pooled dose-response relationship showed a maximum standardised mean difference (SMD) indicating slightly better cognition among women with moderate alcohol consumption compared to current non-drinkers (SMD 0.18, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.34, at 14.4 grams/day; 5 studies, very low certainty evidence), and a trivial difference for men (SMD 0.05, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.10, at 19.4 grams/day; 6 studies, very low certainty evidence). Conclusions Major limitations in the design and reporting of included studies made it impossible to discern if the effects of ‘lower’ levels of alcohol intake are due to bias. Further review of the evidence is unlikely to resolve this issue without meta-analysis of individual patient data from cohort studies that address biases in the selection of participants and classification of alcohol consumption.

Individual participant data meta-analyses enable detailed checking of data quality and more complex analyses than standard study-level synthesis of summary data based on publications. However, there is limited existing guidance on the specific systematic checks that should be undertaken to confirm and enhance data quality for individual participant data meta-analyses and how to conduct these checks. We aim to address this gap by developing a checklist of items for data quality checking and cleaning to be applied to individual participant data meta-analyses of randomised trials. This study will comprise three phases: 1) a scoping review to identify potential checklist items; 2) two e-Delphi survey rounds among an invited panel of experts followed by a consensus meeting; and 3) pilot testing and refinement of the checklist, including development of an accompanying R-markdown program to facilitate its uptake.

The PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S guidelines help systematic review teams report their reviews clearly, transparently, and with sufficient detail to enable reproducibility. PRISMA 2020, an updated version of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement, is complemented by PRISMA-S, an extension to PRISMA focusing on reporting the search components of systematic reviews. Several significant changes were implemented in PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S when compared with the original version of PRISMA in 2009, including the recommendation to report search strategies for all databases, registries, and websites that were searched. PRISMA-S also recommends reporting the number of records identified from each information source. One of the most challenging aspects of the new guidance from both documents has been changes to the flow diagram. In this article, we review some of the common questions about using the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram and tracking records through the systematic review process.

Numerous studies have demonstrated low but increasing rates of data and code sharing within medical and health research disciplines. However, it remains unclear how commonly data and code are shared across all fields of medical and health research, as well as whether sharing rates are positively associated with implementation of progressive policies by publishers and funders, or growing expectations from the medical and health research community at large. Therefore this systematic review aims to synthesise the findings of medical and health science studies that have empirically investigated the prevalence of data or code sharing, or both. Objectives include the investigation of: (i) the prevalence of public sharing of research data and code alongside published articles (including preprints), (ii) the prevalence of private sharing of research data and code in response to reasonable requests, and (iii) factors associated with the sharing of either research output (e.g., the year published, the publisher’s policy on sharing, the presence of a data or code availability statement). It is hoped that the results will provide some insight into how often research data and code are shared publicly and privately, how this has changed over time, and how effective some measures such as the institution of data sharing policies and data availability statements have been in motivating researchers to share their underlying data and code.

We aimed to explore, in a sample of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes, whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available. We randomly selected SRs of food/diet and health-related outcomes published between January 2018 and June 2019. We selected the first presented meta-analysis in each review (index meta-analysis), and extracted from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. We calculated the Potential Bias Index (PBI) to quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion. The PBI ranges from 0 to 1; values above or below 0.5 suggest selective inclusion of effect estimates more or less favourable to the intervention, respectively. We also compared the index meta-analytic estimate to the median of a randomly constructed distribution of meta-analytic estimates (i.e., the estimate expected when there is no selective inclusion). Thirty-nine SRs with 312 studies were included. The estimated PBI was 0.49 (95% CI 0.42-0.55), suggesting that the selection of study effect estimates from those reported was consistent with a process of random selection. In addition, the index meta-analytic effect estimates were similar, on average, to what we would expect to see in meta-analyses generated when there was no selective inclusion. Despite this, we recommend that systematic reviewers report the methods used to select effect estimates to include in meta-analyses, which can help readers understand the risk of selective inclusion bias in the SRs.

Background: Interrupted time series (ITS) studies contribute importantly to systematic reviews of population-level interventions. We aimed to develop and validate search filters to retrieve ITS studies in MEDLINE and PubMed. Methods: A total of 1017 known ITS studies (published 2013-2017) were analysed using text mining to generate candidate terms. A control set of 1398 time-series studies were used to select differentiating terms. Various combinations of candidate terms were iteratively tested to generate three search filters. An independent set of 700 ITS studies was used to validate the filters' sensitivities. The filters were test-run in Ovid MEDLINE and the records randomly screened for ITS studies to determine their precision. Finally, all MEDLINE filters were translated to PubMed format and their sensitivities in PubMed were estimated. Results: Three search filters were created in MEDLINE: a "precision-maximising" filter with high precision (78%; 95% CI 74%-82%) but moderate sensitivity (63%; 59%-66%), most appropriate when there are limited resources to screen studies; a sensitivity-and-precision-maximising filter with higher sensitivity (81%; 77%-83%) but lower precision (32%; 28%-36%), providing a balance between expediency and comprehensiveness; and a "sensitivity-maximising" filter with high sensitivity (88%; 85%-90%) but likely very low precision, useful when combined with specific content terms. Similar sensitivity estimates were found for PubMed versions. Conclusion: Our filters strike different balances between comprehensiveness and screening workload and suit different research needs. Retrieval of ITS studies would be improved if authors identified the ITS design in the titles.

Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as “predatory”, deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders’ website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research).

Background: Dietary guidelines should be informed by systematic reviews (SRs) of the available scientific evidence. However, if the SRs that underpin dietary guidelines are flawed in their design, conduct or reporting, the recommendations contained therein may be misleading or harmful. To date there has been little empirical investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of results, and bias due to missing results, in SRs of food/diet-outcome relationships. Objectives: To explore in SRs with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes: (i) whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available; (ii) what impact selective inclusion of study effect estimates may have on meta-analytic effects, and; (iii) the risk of bias due to missing results (publication bias and selective non-reporting bias) in meta-analyses. Methods: We will systematically search for SRs with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes in a generally healthy population, published between January 2018 and June 2019. We will randomly sort titles and abstracts and screen them until we identify 50 eligible SRs. The first reported meta-analysis of a binary or continuous outcome in each SR (the ‘index meta-analysis’) will be evaluated. We will extract from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses (e.g. from multiple instruments and time points) and will quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion of results. We will also assess the risk of bias due to missing results in the index meta-analyses using a new tool (ROB-ME). Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required because information will only be extracted from published studies. Dissemination of the results will be through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. We will make all data collected from this study publicly available via the Open Science Framework.

Abstract Background The International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) was launched in February 2011 to increase transparency of systematic reviews (SRs). There have been few investigations of the content and use of the database. We aimed to investigate the number of PROSPERO registrations from inception to 2017, and website usage in the last year. We also aimed to explore the epidemiological characteristics of and completeness of primary outcome pre-specification in a sample of PROSPERO records from 2017. Methods The PROSPERO database managers provided us with data on the annual and cumulative number of SR registrations up to October 10, 2017, and the number of visits to the PROSPERO website over the year preceding October 10, 2017. One author collected data on the focus of the SR (e.g. therapeutic, diagnostic), health area addressed, funding source and completeness of outcome pre-specification in a random sample of 150 records of SRs registered in PROSPERO between April 1, 2017 and September 30, 2017. Results As of October 10, 2017, there were 26,535 SRs registered in PROSPERO; guided by current monthly submission rates, we anticipate this figure will reach over 30,000 by the end of 2017. There has been a 10-fold increase in registrations, from 63 SRs per month in 2012 to 800 per month in 2017. In the year preceding October 10, 2017, the PROSPERO website received more than 1.75 million page views. In the random sample of 150 registered SRs, the majority were focused on a therapeutic question (78/150 [52%]), while only a few focused on a diagnostic/prognostic question (11/150 [7%]). The 150 registered SRs addressed 18 different health areas. Any information about the primary outcome other than the domain (e.g. timing, effect measures) was not pre-specified in 44/150 records (29%). Conclusions Registration of SRs in PROSPERO increased rapidly between 2011 and 2017, thus benefiting users of health evidence who want to know about ongoing SRs. Further work is needed to explore how closely published SRs adhere to the planned methods, whether greater pre-specification of outcomes prevents selective inclusion and reporting of study results, and whether registered SRs address necessary questions.

Abstract Background The PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations. Methods We searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated). Results We included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions. Conclusions Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.

Background: There are numerous guidelines developed for bone health. Yet, it is unclear whether the differences in guideline development methods explain the variability in the recommendations for vitamin D and calcium intake. The objective of this systematic review was to collate and compare recommendations for vitamin D and calcium across bone health guidelines, assess the methods used to form the recommendations, and explore which methodological factors were associated with these guideline recommendations. Methods: We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and other databases indexing guidelines to identify records in English between 2009 and 2019. Guidelines or policy statements on bone health or osteoporosis prevention for generally healthy adults aged ≥40 years were eligible for inclusion. Two reviewers independently extracted recommendations on daily vitamin D and calcium intake, supplement use, serum 25 hydroxyvitamin D [25(OH)D] level, and sunlight exposure; assessed guideline development methods against 25 recommended criteria in the World Health Organization (WHO) handbook for guideline development; and, identified types identified types of evidence underpinning the recommendations. Results: we included 47 eligible guidelines from 733 records: 74% of the guidelines provided vitamin D (200~600–4000 IU/day) and 70% provided calcium (600–1200 mg/day) recommendations, 96% and 88% recommended vitamin D and calcium supplements, respectively, and 70% recommended a specific 25(OH)D concentration. On average, each guideline met 10 (95% CI: 9–12) of the total of 25 methodological criteria for guideline development recommended by the WHO Handbook. There was uncertainty in the association between the methodological criteria and the proportion of guidelines that provided recommendations on daily vitamin D or calcium. Various types of evidence, including previous bone guidelines, nutrient reference reports, systematic reviews, observational studies, and perspectives/editorials were used to underpin the recommendations. Conclusions: There is considerable variability in vitamin D and calcium recommendations and in guideline development methods in bone health guidelines. Effort is required to strengthen the methodological rigor of guideline development and utilize the best available evidence to underpin nutrition recommendations in evidence-based guidelines on bone health.

Abstract Background Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are childhood onset neurodevelopmental disorders that may persist into adulthood. ASD and ADHD tend to run in families and may have a significant negative impact on the health and longevity of those with the disorder and their relatives. The aim of this study will be to analyze the risk of mortality among children, adolescents, and adults with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives. Methods/design We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, SCOPUS, and ISI Web of Science will be used to identify epidemiological studies. Eligible studies will be observational studies reporting study-specific data for all-cause mortality or cause-specific mortality in children, adolescents, or adults with ASD or ADHD and/or their first-degree relatives. Cohort studies and case-control studies will be included. The primary outcome will be all-cause mortality. The secondary outcome will be cause-specific mortality. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. Data will be abstracted, and study risk of bias/methodological quality will be appraised by two reviewers independently. The methodological quality of epidemiological studies will be appraised using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS). Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects meta-analyses of primary studies will be conducted where appropriate. Subgroup analyses for exploring statistical heterogeneity, if feasible, will include gender, age group, ethnicity, comorbidities, classification of cause of death, and relevant study characteristics. Discussion Our study will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the risk of mortality among children, adolescents, and adults with ASD or ADHD and their first-degree relatives. We anticipate that our findings will be of interest to patients, their families, caregivers, healthcare professionals, scientists, and policy makers. Implications for future epidemiological research will be discussed. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42017059955 .

Abstract Background The selection of appropriate outcomes or domains is crucial when designing clinical trials, to appreciate the effects of different interventions, pool results, and make valid comparisons between trials. If the findings are to influence policy and practice, then the chosen outcomes need to be relevant and important to key stakeholders, including patients and the public, healthcare professionals and others making decisions about health care. There is a growing recognition that insufficient attention has been paid to the outcomes measured in clinical trials. Recent reviews of the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures for shoulder disorders revealed a large selection of diverse measures, many with questionable validity, reliability, and responsiveness. These issues could be addressed through the development and use of an agreed standardized collection of outcomes, known as a core outcome set (COS), which should be measured and reported in all trials of shoulder disorders. The purpose of the present project is to develop and disseminate a COS for clinical trials in shoulder disorders. Methods/Design The methods for the COS development will include 3 phases: (1) a comprehensive review of the core domains used in shoulder disorder trials; (2) an international Delphi study involving relevant stakeholders (patients, clinicians, scientists) to define which domains should be core; and (3) an international focus group informed by the evidence identified in phases 1 and 2, to determine which measurement instruments best measure the core domains and identification of any evidence gaps that require further empiric evidence. Discussion The aim of the current proposal is to convene several meetings of international experts and patients to develop a COS for clinical trials of shoulder disorders and to develop an implementation strategy to ensure rapid uptake of the core set of outcomes in clinical trials. There would be an expectation that the core set of outcomes would always be collected and reported, but it would not preclude use of additional outcomes in a particular trial.

Abstract Background The objective of this study will be to synthesize the epidemiological evidence and evaluate the validity of the associations between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from cancer. Methods/design We will perform an umbrella review of systematic reviews and conduct updated meta-analyses of observational studies (cohort and case-control) investigating the association between central nervous system disorders and the risk of developing or dying from any cancer or specific types of cancer. Searches involving PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS and Web of Science will be used to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. In addition, online databases will be checked for observational studies published outside the time frames of previous reviews. Eligible central nervous system disorders will be Alzheimer’s disease, anorexia nervosa, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, autism spectrum disorders, bipolar disorder, depression, Down’s syndrome, epilepsy, Huntington’s disease, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and schizophrenia. The primary outcomes will be cancer incidence and cancer mortality in association with a central nervous system disorder. Secondary outcome measures will be site-specific cancer incidence and mortality, respectively. Two reviewers will independently screen references identified by the literature search, as well as potentially relevant full-text articles. Data will be abstracted, and study quality/risk of bias will be appraised by two reviewers independently. Conflicts at all levels of screening and abstraction will be resolved through discussion. Random-effects meta-analyses of primary observational studies will be conducted where appropriate. Parameters for exploring statistical heterogeneity are pre-specified. The World Cancer Research Fund (WCRF)/American Institute for Cancer Research (AICR) criteria and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used for determining the quality of evidence for cancer outcomes. Discussion Our study will establish the extent of the epidemiological evidence underlying the associations between central nervous system disorders and cancer and will provide a rigorous and updated synthesis of a range of important site-specific cancer outcomes. Systematic review registration PROSPERO CRD42016052762

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze the reporting and conduct characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) published in dentistry by Brazilian corresponding authors and compare reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs with the rest of the world. METHODS: A search in PubMed was performed to identify SRs published in dentistry in 2017 assessing different aspects of oral heath irrespective of the design of included studies. From this dataset, a subgroup analysis was performed considering only SRs published by Brazilian corresponding authors. Study screening was performed by two researchers independently, while for data extraction, one of three reviewers extracted details related to reporting and conduct of SRs. The completeness of reporting of 24 characteristics, included in the PRISMA Statement of the SRs classified as treatment/therapeutic, was evaluated comparing Brazilian SR to SRs from all other countries. RESULTS: We included 117 SRs with Brazilian corresponding authors. The majority focused on dental treatments (39.3%), with oral surgery (n=19, 16.2%) as the most commonly published. Included SRs presented varying reporting/conduct characteristics. Items such as use of reporting guidelines and screening method used were well reported. However, most SRs did not assess the risk of publication bias and did not use the GRADE assessment. Four (of 24) reporting characteristics of Brazilian SRs compared to SRs from the rest of world were reported statistically significantly more frequently: mention of a SR protocol, trial registry searched, screening method reported, and assessment of risk of bias/quality of studies. CONCLUSION: Reporting and conduct characteristics of Brazilian SRs are highly variable.

Background Systematic reviews that aim to synthesize evidence on the effects of interventions targeted at populations often include interrupted time-series (ITS) studies. However, the suppression of ITS studies or results within these studies (known as reporting bias) has the potential to bias conclusions drawn in such systematic reviews, with potential consequences for healthcare decision-making. Therefore, we aim to determine whether there is evidence of reporting bias among ITS studies. Methods We will conduct a search for published protocols of ITS studies and reports of their results in PubMed, MEDLINE, and Embase up to December 31, 2022. We contact the authors of the ITS studies to seek information about their study, including submission status, data for unpublished results, and reasons for non-publication or non-reporting of certain outcomes. We will examine if there is evidence of publication bias by examining whether time-to-publication is influenced by the statistical significance of the study’s results for the primary research question using Cox proportional hazards regression. We will examine whether there is evidence of discrepancies in outcomes by comparing those specified in the protocols with those in the reports of results, and we will examine whether the statistical significance of an outcome’s result is associated with how completely that result is reported using multivariable logistic regression. Finally, we will examine discrepancies between protocols and reports of results in the methods by examining the data collection processes, model characteristics, and statistical analysis methods. Discrepancies will be summarized using descriptive statistics. Discussion These findings will inform systematic reviewers and policymakers about the extent of reporting biases and may inform the development of mechanisms to reduce such biases.

Background: While the PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to guide the reporting of original systematic reviews, updated systematic reviews, and living systematic reviews (LSRs), its explanation and elaboration document notes that additional considerations for updated systematic reviews and LSRs may need to be addressed. This paper reports the protocol for developing an extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs. Methods: We will follow the EQUATOR Network’s guidance for developing health research reporting guidelines. We will review the literature to identify possible items of the PRISMA 2020 checklist that need modification, as well as new items that need to be added. Then, we will survey representatives of different stakeholder groups for their views on the proposed modifications of the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We will summarize, present, and discuss the results of the survey in an online meeting, aiming to reach consensus on the content of the LSR extension. We will then draft the checklist, explanation and elaboration for each item, and flow diagram for the PRISMA 2020 extension. Then, we will share these initial documents with stakeholder representatives for final feedback and approval. Discussion: We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 extension for LSRs will benefit LSR authors, editors, and peer reviewers of LSRs, as well as different users of LSRs, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders.

Background: While the PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to guide the reporting of original systematic reviews, updated systematic reviews, and living systematic reviews (LSRs), its explanation and elaboration document notes that additional considerations for updated systematic reviews and LSRs may need to be addressed. This paper reports the protocol for developing an extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs. Methods: We will follow the EQUATOR Network’s guidance for developing health research reporting guidelines. We will review the literature to identify possible items of the PRISMA 2020 checklist that need modification, as well as new items that need to be added. Then, we will survey representatives of different stakeholder groups for their views on the proposed modifications of the PRISMA 2020 checklist. We will summarize, present, and discuss the results of the survey in an online meeting, aiming to reach consensus on the content of the LSR extension. We will then draft the checklist, explanation and elaboration for each item, and flow diagram for the PRISMA 2020 extension. Then, we will share these initial documents with stakeholder representatives for final feedback and approval. Discussion: We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 extension for LSRs will benefit LSR authors, editors, and peer reviewers of LSRs, as well as different users of LSRs, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders.

Numerous studies have demonstrated low but increasing rates of data and code sharing within medical and health research disciplines. However it remains unclear how commonly data and code are shared across all fields of medical and health research, as well as whether sharing rates are positively associated with implementation of progressive policies by publishers and funders, or growing expectations from the medical and health research community at large. Therefore this systematic review aims to synthesise the findings of medical and health science studies that have empirically investigated the prevalence of data or code sharing, or both. Objectives include the investigation of: (i) the prevalence of public sharing of research data and code alongside published articles (including preprints), (ii) the prevalence of private sharing of research data and code in response to reasonable requests, and (iii) factors associated with the sharing of either research output (e.g., the year published, the publisher’s policy on sharing, the presence of a data or code availability statement). It is hoped that the results will provide some insight into how often research data and code are shared publicly and privately, how this has changed over time, and how effective some measures such as the institution of data sharing policies and data availability statements have been in motivating researchers to share their underlying data and code.

Background: Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as “predatory”, deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. Methods: We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.org. One of us identified guidance on disseminating funded research from each funders’ website (August/September 2017), then extracted information about selecting journals, which was verified by another assessor. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion. Results were summarized descriptively. This research used publicly available information; we did not seek verification with funding bodies. Results: The majority (44/50) of sampled funders indicated funding health research. 38 (of 44, 86%) had publicly available information about disseminating funded research, typically called “policies” (29, 76%). Of these 38, 36 (95%) mentioned journal publication for dissemination of which 13 (36.11%) offer variable guidance on selecting a journal, all of which relate to the funder’s open access mandate. Six funders (17%) outlined publisher requirements or features by which to select a journal. One funder linked to a document providing features of journals to look for (e.g. listed in the Directory of Open Access Journals) and to be wary of (e.g., no journal scope statement, uses direct and unsolicited marketing). Conclusions: Few funders provided guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded research. Funders have a duty to ensure that the research they fund is discoverable by others. This research is a benchmark for funder guidance on journal selection prior to the January 2021 implementation of Plan S (a global, funder-led initiative to ensure immediate, open access to funded, published research).

Background: Dietary guidelines should be informed by systematic reviews (SRs) of the available scientific evidence. However, if the SRs that underpin dietary guidelines are flawed in their design, conduct or reporting, the recommendations contained therein may be misleading or harmful. To date there has been little empirical investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of results, and bias due to missing results, in SRs of food/diet-outcome relationships. Objectives: To explore in SRs with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes: (i) whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available; (ii) what impact selective inclusion of study effect estimates may have on meta-analytic effects, and; (iii) the risk of bias due to missing results (publication bias and selective non-reporting bias) in meta-analyses. Methods: We will systematically search for SRs with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes in a generally healthy population, published between January 2018 and June 2019. We will randomly sort titles and abstracts and screen them until we identify 50 eligible SRs. The first reported meta-analysis of a binary or continuous outcome in each SR (the ‘index meta-analysis’) will be evaluated. We will extract from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses (e.g. from multiple instruments and time points) and will quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion of results. We will also assess the risk of bias due to missing results in the index meta-analyses using a new tool (ROB-ME). Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required because information will only be extracted from published studies. Dissemination of the results will be through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. We will make all data collected from this study publicly available via the Open Science Framework.