For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
87
views
27
references
 Top references
cited by
860
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      578
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          In systematic reviews that lack data amenable to meta-analysis, alternative synthesis methods are commonly used, but these methods are rarely reported. This lack of transparency in the methods can cast doubt on the validity of the review findings. The Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) guideline has been developed to guide clear reporting in reviews of interventions in which alternative synthesis methods to meta-analysis of effect estimates are used. This article describes the development of the SWiM guideline for the synthesis of quantitative data of intervention effects and presents the nine SWiM reporting items with accompanying explanations and examples.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

          Adrian Aldcroft, Chantelle Garritty, Simon Lewin … (2018)
          Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.
          Article 0 comments Cited 6949 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

            David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2011)
            David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
            Article 0 comments Cited 4893 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

              Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff … (2010)
              Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
              Article 0 comments Cited 3450 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Mhairi Campbell:
                ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4416-7270
                Role: research associate
                Joanne E McKenzie: Role: associate professor
                Amanda Sowden: Role: professor
                Srinivasa Vittal Katikireddi: Role: clinical senior research fellow
                Sue E Brennan: Role: research fellow
                Simon Ellis: Role: associate director
                Jamie Hartmann-Boyce: Role: senior researcher
                Rebecca Ryan: Role: senior esearch fellow
                Sasha Shepperd: Role: professor
                James Thomas: Role: professor
                Vivian Welch: Role: associate professor
                Hilary Thomson: Role: senior research fellow
                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): BMJ
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): BMJ
                Journal ID (publisher-id): BMJ-UK
                Journal ID (hwp): bmj
                Title: The BMJ
                Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
                ISSN (Print): 0959-8138
                ISSN (Electronic): 1756-1833
                Publication date Collection: 2020
                Publication date (Electronic): 16 January 2020
                Volume: 368
                Electronic Location Identifier: l6890
                Affiliations
                [1 ]MRC/CSO Social and Public Health Sciences Unit, University of Glasgow, UK
                [2 ]School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
                [3 ]Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
                [4 ]Centre for Guidelines, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, London, UK
                [5 ]Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [6 ]School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia
                [7 ]Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
                [8 ]Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Coordinating Centre, University College London, London, UK
                [9 ]Bruyere Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
                Author notes
                Correspondence to: M Campbell Mhairi.Campbell@ 123456glasgow.ac.uk
                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4416-7270
                Article
                Publisher ID: camm051291
                DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6890
                PMC ID: 7190266
                PubMed ID: 31948937
                SO-VID: bf47895d-2714-4a6a-8849-555af38ba63b
                Copyright © © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
                License:

                This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt and build upon this work, for commercial use, provided the original work is properly cited. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

                History
                Date accepted : 08 October 2019
                Categories
                Subject: Research Methods & Reporting

                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine
                Data availability:
                ScienceOpen disciplines: Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content578

                See all similar

                Cited by863

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors979

                See all reference authors