Konstantinos I Bougioukas1, Aris Liakos2, Apostolos Tsapas3, Evangelia Ntzani4, Anna-Bettina Haidich5. 1. Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece. 2. Second Medical Department, Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece. 3. Second Medical Department, Clinical Research and Evidence-Based Medicine Unit, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Konstantinoupoleos 49, 54642 Thessaloniki, Greece; Harris Manchester College, University of Oxford, Mansfield Rd, Oxford, OX1 3TD, UK. 4. Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, University Campus, Stavros Niarchos Av., Ioannina, Greece; Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health, Department of Health Services, Policy and Practice, School of Public Health, Brown University, 121 South Main Street, Providence, RI 02903, USA. 5. Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Medical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, University Campus, 54124 Thessaloniki, Greece. Electronic address: haidich@auth.gr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: An overview of systematic reviews (OoSRs) is a study designed to synthesize multiple evidence from existing systematic reviews on a specific domain. The aim of this paper was to offer a pilot version checklist with Preferred Reporting Items for OoSRs (PRIO-harms) to promote a more balanced reporting of benefits and harms in OoSRs of health care interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The included items were developed by combining key features from health care OoSRs designs with recommendations from statements of other relevant checklists and pertinent methodological review articles. Two raters independently used the PRIO-harms checklist to assess a sample of 20 OoSRs. RESULTS: The PRIO-harms tool consists of a 27-item (56 (sub-)items in total) checklist and is accompanied by a five-stage process flow diagram (identification, screening, eligibility, inclusion, and separation of relevant studies). The mean interrater reliability (Gwet's AC1 statistic) between reviewers was 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.88, 0.92) indicating a very good agreement. CONCLUSION: The PRIO-harms tool can be used in every OoSRs that addresses health care interventions. This instrument will assist overview authors to improve completeness and transparency of research reporting with emphasis on harms. However, it might benefit from critical review and further validation from experts and research teams that produce OoSRs.
OBJECTIVES: An overview of systematic reviews (OoSRs) is a study designed to synthesize multiple evidence from existing systematic reviews on a specific domain. The aim of this paper was to offer a pilot version checklist with Preferred Reporting Items for OoSRs (PRIO-harms) to promote a more balanced reporting of benefits and harms in OoSRs of health care interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: The included items were developed by combining key features from health care OoSRs designs with recommendations from statements of other relevant checklists and pertinent methodological review articles. Two raters independently used the PRIO-harms checklist to assess a sample of 20 OoSRs. RESULTS: The PRIO-harms tool consists of a 27-item (56 (sub-)items in total) checklist and is accompanied by a five-stage process flow diagram (identification, screening, eligibility, inclusion, and separation of relevant studies). The mean interrater reliability (Gwet's AC1 statistic) between reviewers was 0.90 (95% confidence interval: 0.88, 0.92) indicating a very good agreement. CONCLUSION: The PRIO-harms tool can be used in every OoSRs that addresses health care interventions. This instrument will assist overview authors to improve completeness and transparency of research reporting with emphasis on harms. However, it might benefit from critical review and further validation from experts and research teams that produce OoSRs.
Authors: Emma Axon; Joanne R Chalmers; Miriam Santer; Matthew J Ridd; Sandra Lawton; Sinead M Langan; Douglas J C Grindlay; Ingrid Muller; Amanda Roberts; Amina Ahmed; Hywel C Williams; Kim S Thomas Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-07-07 Impact factor: 2.692