Author Archives: Dina

PRISMA-S Extension for Reporting Literature Searches

Posted on by

First introduced in 2009, the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement provides guidance to authors, journal editors, and readers about which informational elements should ideally be reported on and in what detail in a systematic review (SR) publication.

With the increase in systematic review publications over the last decade came more variance and variety within the SR/evidence synthesis study design, prompting the need for even more specialized guidance. Responding to this need, various special interest PRISMA groups worked to develop “extensions” to the PRISMA reporting guidelines, their number now reaching ten.

From the Equator Network:

PRISMA-Equity: Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, O’Neill J, Waters E, White H; PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group. PRISMA-Equity 2012 Extension: Reporting Guidelines for Systematic Reviews with a Focus on Health Equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9(10):e1001333. PMID: 23222917

PRISMA-Abstracts: Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, Gøtzsche PC, Lasserson T, Tovey D; PRISMA for Abstracts Group. PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10(4):e1001419. PMID: 23585737

PRISMA-P: Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. PMID: 25554246

PRISMA-IPD: Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, Riley RD, Simmonds M, Stewart G, Tierney JF; PRISMA-IPD Development Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657-1665. PMID: 25919529

PRISMA extension for network meta-analyses: Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, Ioannidis JP, Straus S, Thorlund K, Jansen JP, Mulrow C, Catalá-López F, Gøtzsche PC, Dickersin K, Boutron I, Altman DG, Moher D. The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777-784. PMID: 26030634

PRISMA-harms: Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, Golder S, Santaguida P, Altman DG, Moher D, Vohra S; PRISMA harms group. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157. PMID: 26830668

PRISMA-CI: Guise JM, Butler ME, Chang C, Viswanathan M, Pigott T, Tugwell P; Complex Interventions Workgroup. AHRQ Series on Complex Intervention Systematic Reviews – Paper 6: PRISMA-CI Extension Statement & Checklist. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017. PMID: 28720516

PRISMA-DTA: McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM; and the PRISMA-DTA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement. JAMA. 2018;319(4):388-396. PMID: 29362800

PRISMA-ScR: Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O’Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, Moher D, Peters MDJ, Horsley T, Weeks L, Hempel S, Akl EA, Chang C, McGowan J, Stewart L, Hartling L, Aldcroft A, Wilson MG, Garritty C, Lewin S, Godfrey CM, Macdonald MT, Langlois EV, Soares-Weiser K, Moriarty J, Clifford T, Tunçalp Ö, Straus SE. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018. PMID: 30178033

The latest PRISMA extension to be published in 2021 is the PRISMA-S extension which provides detailed guidance related to the preferred reporting of SR literature searches.

Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, Koffel JB; PRISMA-S Group. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev. 2021 Jan 26;10(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z. PMID: 33499930; PMCID: PMC7839230.

To learn more about best practices regarding the literature search required – and its reporting – for a systematic review, be sure to check out the MSK Library’s Systematic Review Service LibGuide and/or consider attending an upcoming training class.

Reporting Standards and Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs)

Posted on by

Following reporting guidelines of all kinds has become common – if not required – practice in health research and publishing over the last decade. The EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network which promotes “transparent and accurate reporting and wider use of robust reporting guidelines”, now makes available 448 reporting guidelines in its online library. Among them is one entitled – “Unique identification of research resources in the biomedical literature: the Resource Identification Initiative (RRID)”. 

As per the two papers cited below, the “Resource Identification Initiative was launched as a pilot project to improve the reporting standards for research resources in the methods sections of papers and thereby improve identifiability and scientific reproducibility”.

What is a Research Resource Identifier (RRID)?

An RRID is essentially a “Persistent Unique Identifier” that “is designed to help researchers cite the key biological resources used to produce their scientific findings”. Key resources can include: Antibodies, Model Organisms, Cell Lines, Plasmids, and other Tools (software, databases, services). Adding this degree of detail about the resources used in their research makes it possible for others to track these items down should they be interested in replicating or building on the published work. Authors can search for existing RRIDs using the Resource Identification Portal which was created in support of the Resource Identification Initiative, and whose aim is “to promote research resource identification, discovery, and reuse”. 

Not surprising, journal publishers – including Nature and AACR – have gotten on-board and started encouraging the use of RRIDs by authors submitting manuscripts for publication in their journals. In fact, in June 2020, it was announced that AACR journals will be integrating a text-mining tool called SciScore into its journals’ submission platform to help them with better implementing this effort.

From their Press Release:

“SciScore evaluates scientific manuscripts for compliance with recommendations and requirements designed to address different aspects of rigor and reproducibility in the published literature, e.g., MDAR, ARRIVE, CONSORT, and RRID standards. This tool provides a score and a supporting report to identify whether key areas of reproducibility and transparency are addressed in the manuscript.“

To learn more about this new development, be sure to view the video recording of the December 17, 2020 Advancing Authorship event entitled: Meeting the Challenges of Reproducibility, hosted by the MSK Library. The first speaker was Daniel Evanko, PhD, Director of Journal Operations and Systems at the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR), who has “been heavily involved in efforts to improve the communication, transparency, and reproducibility of published scientific research for over 10 years”. 

For more information on reporting standards, be sure to Ask Us at the MSK Library!

Coming Soon: EndNote 20’s New Interface

Posted on by

Clarivate Analytics released the latest version of the EndNote citation management software in Fall 2020. The DigITs Technology Division plans to update MSK accounts to EndNote 20 in the early months of 2021. Please keep an eye on the MSK Library’s homepage for an upcoming notification message regarding the expected date for the MSK EndNote 20 scheduled update.

Here’s “What’s new in EndNote 20” according to the vendor (see 2:01 min video):

    • New modern interface design
    • Duplicate detection enhancements
    • Improved PDF reading experience
    • Time-saving workflow improvements

If you were a heavy user of the extensive toolbars of buttons/icons used in previous Endnote versions, you may miss them in this more minimalist, pared-down interface layout which was intentionally designed to be sleeker and more “modern”. Beyond aesthetics, however, the latest version has not changed very much in terms of functionality. As this comparison table between previous versions demonstrates, no functionality has actually been taken away.

New features in terms of functionality

Particularly for those who use EndNote to manage citations for systematic review projects, the enhanced duplicate detection functionality will be a welcome addition, with DOIs and PMCIDs now available as optional comparison fields. Also, for those who have a need to work between multiple libraries simultaneously, the ability to have more than one library open within the same window in EndNote 20 will make switching back and forth between multiple libraries easier. There is also more flexibility in how PDFs stored within EndNote can be viewed and handled.

Another notable change with EndNote 20 is that all of the 7,000+ bibliographic output styles available for EndNote will now come pre-loaded in the EndNote 20 desktop version, minimizing the possibility that authors will not find their needed output style and have to go download it from the vendor’s website. Additional tweaks to the number caps for various functions have been made to the latest updates of EndNote 20 and EndNote Online (for desktop users). All of these details can be found in these latest version comparison charts: HTML version and PDF version.

If you have any questions or concerns about the upcoming EndNote 20 update, please feel free to Ask Us at the MSK Library!