Tag Archives: systematic review

Register Now for “Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis for Research: Your Checklist for Success”

Posted on by

Join us and discover the value of systematic reviews and key statistical concepts for meta-analysis success. Presentations will focus on the differences between a systematic review and meta-analysis, Wiley’s Cochrane Library and their gold standards for conducting a systematic review, and how meta-analysis can summarize and quantify the results pulled from identified studies.  

You’ll also have an opportunity to pose questions to our expert speakers and dive deeper into these research methodologies.  

Date: Thursday, June 16, 2022
Time: 12:00 PM to 1:30 PM, EST
Location – Zoom Webinar – Register Now

Speakers

Colleen Finley, Product Manager, Cochrane Library, Wiley
With over 35 years of experience in publishing, Colleen has an extensive background in product management for digital platforms, with emphasis on database creation and search. As a Product Manager for Wiley Online Library and Cochrane Library search, she evaluates user needs and creates requirements for new features. Prior to joining Wiley, Colleen worked at Elsevier as Online Product manager for Embase.

Celine Soudant, MAgrSc, MLIS, Research Informationist II, MSK Library
Celine Soudant joined the MSK Library in 2019 as a Research Informationist and liaison to the nursing community. Celine assists users with literature searches and offers workshops such as conducting a literature search, introduction to systematic reviews, and understanding reference management tools. In addition, as a member of MSK Library’s Systematic Review Service, she supports teams undertaking systematic reviews. Celine holds a Master of Library and Information Science (Palmer School of Library and Information Science, LIU, New York) and a Master of Science in Agriculture (Ecole supérieure d’Agriculture d’Angers, France).

Andrew Vickers, PhD, Attending Research Methodologist, Epidemiology & Biostatistics, MSK
Dr. Vickers’ research falls into three broad areas: randomized trials, surgical outcomes research and molecular marker studies. A particular focus of his work is the detection and initial treatment of prostate cancer. Dr Vickers has analyzed the ’learning curve’ for radical prostatectomy. He is working on a series of studies demonstrating that a single measure of prostate specific antigen (PSA) taken in middle age can predict lethal prostate cancer up to 30 years subsequently. He has also developed a statistical model to predict the result of prostate biopsy, work that has been commercialized and is clinically available through OPKO Diagnostics. His work on randomized trials focuses on methods for integrating randomized trials into routine surgical practice so as to compare different approaches to surgery. As part of this work he has pioneered the use of web-interfaces for obtaining quality of life data from patients recovering from radical prostatectomy. Dr. Vickers’ methodological research centers primarily on novel methods for assessing the clinical value of predictive tools. In particular, he has developed decision-analytic tools that can be directly applied to a data set, without the need for data gathering on patient preferences or utilities. Dr Vickers has a strong interest in teaching statistics. He is course leader for the MSK biostatistics course and is author of the introductory textbook “What is a p-value anyway?” In his capacity as Co-Director of the PRO-CEL Core Facility, Dr. Vickers spearheads a number of innovative informatics initiatives throughout MSK, including the Amplio quality assurance system. He attended his first Cochrane Collaboration meeting in 1995 and has worked on systematic reviews since 1994. 

Learning How to Conduct a Systematic Review

Posted on by

Thinking about embarking on a systematic review (SR) research project soon? Planning to host some summer trainees or incoming fellows who may be interested in learning more about how to conduct a systematic review?

Here’s a list of SR training resources available to you via the MSK Library:

Cochrane Interactive Learning

Cochrane Interactive Learning is an online introductory course on how to conduct a systematic review of interventions. To gain access to learning modules users will need to register first. Cochrane recommends that users register for an account onsite. When offsite, users may be prompted with a proxy message. Users will need to click the “Please click here first” link within the proxy message to complete registration. Additional instructions are available here.

Covidence SR project management software vendor training opportunities:

Covidence Academy
Find helpful tips and tools for getting started on your systematic review with Covidence.

Covidence Knowledgebase
Peruse Covidence’s library of FAQs and training articles.

Covidence vendor training
You can choose to register for a free weekly “live” in-person Covidence 101 class or listen to the recording of a recent session “On Demand”.

MSK Library classes

Introduction to Systematic Reviews (Online Webinar)
Getting started with a systematic review, but now sure where to start? In this 1-hour session, you’ll learn the basics of the systematic review process, plus key systematic review tools, resources, and guidelines.

Covidence
Covidence is a web-based software platform that streamlines the production of systematic reviews. This class provides an overview of the key systematic review project steps supported by Covidence.

Systematic Review Service LibGuide

LibGuide packed with links to helpful resources and information about collaborating with a MSK Research Informationist to publish your Systematic Review.

Questions? Ask Us at the MSK Library.

PRISMA 2020 Replaces PRISMA 2009

Posted on by

At the end of March 2021, the PRISMA 2020 guideline update was simultaneously published in five journals, officially marking the replacement of the PRISMA 2009 with the updated PRISMA 2020 guideline:

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

  • BMJ 2021 Mar 29;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. PMID: 33782057; PMCID: PMC8005924.
  • Syst Rev. 2021 Mar 29;10(1):89. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4. PMID: 33781348.
  • J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Mar 17:S0895-4356(21)00073-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001. PMID: 33789819.
  • Int J Surg. 2021 Apr;88:105906. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2021.105906. Epub 2021 Mar 29.PMID: 33789826.
  • PLoS Med. 2021 Mar 29;18(3):e1003583. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003583. eCollection 2021 Mar. PMID: 33780438.

Published translations of this guideline into other languages are forthcoming.

For the most detailed description of the new PRISMA 2020 guideline, this accompanying “explanation and elaboration” article was also published:

  • Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R, Glanville J, Grimshaw JM, Hróbjartsson A, Lalu MM, Li T, Loder EW, Mayo-Wilson E, McDonald S, McGuinness LA, Stewart LA, Thomas J, Tricco AC, Welch VA, Whiting P, McKenzie JE. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160. PMID: 33781993; PMCID: PMC8005925.

  • For details about the process that was used to develop the PRISMA 2020 update:

    Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Moher D. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Feb 9;134:103-112. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 33577987.

Noteworthy Changes in the PRISMA 2020 Update

Among the key PRISMA 2020 guideline changes are: more inclusive wording so that it’s more accommodating to other methods from different fields (ex., methods beyond randomized trials of health interventions); some of the categories have been broken down into more granular sub-items that are more explicit and provide more clarity about what exactly should be reported, some new items and sub-items have been introduced or expanded upon; and some of the items have been slightly re-ordered in the checklist.

The new PRISMA 2020 guideline is meant to reflect the changing reality of the current research climate. For example, now that more people are registering their protocols as is recommended by PRISMA, there is a sub-item added to address the clear reporting of potential protocol amendments. Also – in line with the open science movement, there are sub-items related to reporting about the availability of data and statistical code, etc. Furthermore, with automation tools starting to be considered for use in SRs, more explicit reporting in this area is also recommended, as well as the reporting of conflicts of interest of review authors, something which is becoming a more common requirement in all areas of scholarly publishing.

There also has been an obvious push towards greater transparency in the methods, with recommendations to include the full search strategies and number of results for all information resources searched (which is in accordance with the PRISMA-S extension also published this year), as well as to provide the full citations for all of the included studies and citations for the studies that were excluded at the full-text stage, with reasons.

This latest version of PRISMA also appears to recognize that often in SRs, the synthesis of the results includes the grouping or sub-grouping of studies for the analysis, which the guideline suggests should be better reported upon. PRISMA 2020 makes a more explicit request for the reporting of criteria and processes used to group studies. Related to this, PRISMA 2020 also encourages that the reporting of characteristics and risk of bias be handled not for all included studies as a whole but rather to be considered among sub-grouped studies contributing to each synthesis.


New Tools and Templates for PRISMA 2020

It should be noted that the PRISMA guidelines are recommendations and not every item in the checklist applies to every situation. (In fact, it is for that very reason that PRISMA extensions exist and should still be used in conjunction with PRISMA 2020 as not all of these have been perfectly harmonized as of yet.) As such – this guidance should be viewed as useful suggestions for improving the quality of reporting of a systematic review – keeping in mind, however, that not every item is always applicable and mandatory.

This spirit of flexibility is reflected in the increased template options made available on the PRISMA Statement website to accommodate different scenarios. Both the PRISMA 2020 Checklist and Flow Diagram template options are now available for viewing and downloading. In addition to the PDF and Word templates, Shiny App computer applications have also been created that can be used to more easily generate the completed checklist and flow diagram by inputting data.

To learn more, please view a recent presentation on PRISMA 2020 by the first author (Dr. Matthew Page, Monash University) responsible for the update and feel free to send us your questions at Ask Us at the MSK Library or to explore the Systematic Review Service LibGuide.