Interpretation of reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: the PRIOR statement_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

AN Ranxun ¹ , XU Yuan ² , SHI Haoran ³ , DENG Haibo ⁴ , WANG Lei ⁵ , SUN Jianhua ⁶ , WANG Xiaojie ⁷ , WANG Yu ⁴ , ZHU Liyun ⁴ , LU Qiaodan ¹ , ZHOU Xinyi ¹ ,  MA Yufen ⁸

1. Department of Nursing, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, P. R. China;
2. Department of Health Care, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, P. R. China;
3. School of Nursing, Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100144, P. R. China;
4. Department of Cardiac Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, P. R. China;
5. Department of Vascular Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, P. R. China;
6. Department of Critical Care, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, P. R. China;
7. Department of Breast Surgery, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, P. R. China;
8. Labor Union, Peking Union Medical College Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences & Peking Union Medical College, Beijing 100730, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

MA Yufen, Email: yumafen@126.com

Keywords：

PRIOR; Overview of reviews; Reporting guideline; Interpretation

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202303051

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

To improve the comprehensive and accurate of overviews of reviews, BMJ published the guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: the PRIOR statement. This paper explained the background and core contents of PRIOR statement and interpreted each item with examples to provide references for domestic scholars to write overviews of reviews.

Citation： AN Ranxun, XU Yuan, SHI Haoran, DENG Haibo, WANG Lei, SUN Jianhua, WANG Xiaojie, WANG Yu, ZHU Liyun, LU Qiaodan, ZHOU Xinyi, MA Yufen. Interpretation of reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: the PRIOR statement. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(8): 978-987. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202303051 Copy

1.	Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 138: 1-11.
2.	Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, et al. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev, 2017, 6(1): 131.
3.	Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ, 2022, 378: e070849.
4.	Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, et al. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 39.
5.	Gates M, Gates A, Guitard S, et al. Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review. Syst Rev, 2020, 9(1): 254.
6.	Liu Z, Dumville JC, Norman G, et al. Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018, (2): CD012653.
7.	Thomson D, Russell K, Becker L, et al. The evolution of a new publication type: steps and challenges of producing overviews of reviews. Res Synth Methods, 2010, 1(3-4): 198-211.
8.	Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n160.
9.	Bougioukas KI, Bouras E, Apostolidou-Kiouti F, et al. Reporting guidelines on how to write a complete and transparent abstract for overviews of systematic reviews of health care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 106: 70-79.
10.	Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.
11.	Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, et al. Chapter V: overviews of reviews. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3.
12.	Levebvre C, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, et al. Chapter 4: search for and selecting studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3.
13.	Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, et al. Chapter 10: umbrella reviews. JBI manual for evidence synthesis.
14.	McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 75: 40-46.
15.	Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, et al. A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev, 2019, 8(1): 29.
16.	Mathes T, Klaßen P, Pieper D. Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2017, 17(1): 152.
17.	Lunny C, Pieper D, Thabet P, et al. Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2021, 21(1): 140.
18.	Pieper D, Antoine SL, Mathes T, et al. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol, 2014, 67(4): 368-375.
19.	Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, et al. The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev, 2019, 8(1): 18.
20.	Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 69: 225-234.
21.	Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.
22.	Biondi-Zoccai G. Umbrella reviews: evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016.
23.	Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, et al. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 159.
24.	ROB-ME Development Group. A tool for assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in a synthesis (ROB-ME).
25.	高亚, 刘明, 杨珂璐, 等. 系统评价报告规范: PRISMA 2020与PRISMA 2009的对比分析与实例解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2021, 21(5): 606-616.
26.	Brennan S, McKenzie J, Middleton P, et al. Developing GRADE guidance for overviews of systematic reviews. Abstracts of the global evidence summit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017, (9 Suppl 1).
27.	Bougioukas KI, Vounzoulaki E, Mantsiou CD, et al. Methods for depicting overlap in overviews of systematic reviews: An introduction to static tabular and graphical displays. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 132: 34-45.
28.	Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019, 366: l4898.
29.	Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 10: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3.
30.	Romain PL. Conflicts of interest in research: looking out for number one means keeping the primary interest front and center. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 2015, 8(2): 122-127.
31.	Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, et al. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019, 8(8): MR000047.
32.	Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med, 2018, 44(10): 1603-1612.
33.	Sauermann H, Haeussler C. Authorship and contribution disclosures. Sci Adv, 2017, 3(11): e1700404.
34.	International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.
35.	Elsevier. CrediT Author Statement.
36.	Stocks A, Simcoe D, Toroser D, et al. Substantial contribution and accountability: best authorship practices for medical writers in biomedical publications. Curr Med Res Opin, 2018, 34(6): 1163-1168.
37.	Chawinga WD, Zinn S. Global perspectives of research data sharing: a systematic literature review. Libra Infor Sci Res, 2019, 41(2): 109-122.

1. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 138: 1-11.
2. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, et al. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev, 2017, 6(1): 131.
3. Gates M, Gates A, Pieper D, et al. Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement. BMJ, 2022, 378: e070849.
4. Hunt H, Pollock A, Campbell P, et al. An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 39.
5. Gates M, Gates A, Guitard S, et al. Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review. Syst Rev, 2020, 9(1): 254.
6. Liu Z, Dumville JC, Norman G, et al. Intraoperative interventions for preventing surgical site infection: an overview of Cochrane Reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2018, (2): CD012653.
7. Thomson D, Russell K, Becker L, et al. The evolution of a new publication type: steps and challenges of producing overviews of reviews. Res Synth Methods, 2010, 1(3-4): 198-211.
8. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n160.
9. Bougioukas KI, Bouras E, Apostolidou-Kiouti F, et al. Reporting guidelines on how to write a complete and transparent abstract for overviews of systematic reviews of health care interventions. J Clin Epidemiol, 2019, 106: 70-79.
10. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021, 372: n71.
11. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, et al. Chapter V: overviews of reviews. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3.
12. Levebvre C, Briscoe S, Littlewood A, et al. Chapter 4: search for and selecting studies. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3.
13. Aromataris E, Fernandez R, Godfrey C, et al. Chapter 10: umbrella reviews. JBI manual for evidence synthesis.
14. McGowan J, Sampson M, Salzwedel DM, et al. PRESS peer review of electronic search strategies: 2015 guideline statement. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 75: 40-46.
15. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, et al. A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev, 2019, 8(1): 29.
16. Mathes T, Klaßen P, Pieper D. Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2017, 17(1): 152.
17. Lunny C, Pieper D, Thabet P, et al. Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2021, 21(1): 140.
18. Pieper D, Antoine SL, Mathes T, et al. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol, 2014, 67(4): 368-375.
19. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Newton AS, et al. The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Syst Rev, 2019, 8(1): 18.
20. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 69: 225-234.
21. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, 2017, 358: j4008.
22. Biondi-Zoccai G. Umbrella reviews: evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies. Switzerland: Springer International Publishing, 2016.
23. Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, et al. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Syst Rev, 2018, 7(1): 159.
24. ROB-ME Development Group. A tool for assessing risk of bias due to missing evidence in a synthesis (ROB-ME).
25. 高亚, 刘明, 杨珂璐, 等. 系统评价报告规范: PRISMA 2020与PRISMA 2009的对比分析与实例解读. 中国循证医学杂志, 2021, 21(5): 606-616.
26. Brennan S, McKenzie J, Middleton P, et al. Developing GRADE guidance for overviews of systematic reviews. Abstracts of the global evidence summit. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017, (9 Suppl 1).
27. Bougioukas KI, Vounzoulaki E, Mantsiou CD, et al. Methods for depicting overlap in overviews of systematic reviews: An introduction to static tabular and graphical displays. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 132: 34-45.
28. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019, 366: l4898.
29. Deeks JJ, Higgins JPT, Altman DG. Chapter 10: analysing data and undertaking meta-analyses. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3.
30. Romain PL. Conflicts of interest in research: looking out for number one means keeping the primary interest front and center. Curr Rev Musculoskelet Med, 2015, 8(2): 122-127.
31. Hansen C, Lundh A, Rasmussen K, et al. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019, 8(8): MR000047.
32. Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med, 2018, 44(10): 1603-1612.
33. Sauermann H, Haeussler C. Authorship and contribution disclosures. Sci Adv, 2017, 3(11): e1700404.
34. International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Recommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals.
35. Elsevier. CrediT Author Statement.
36. Stocks A, Simcoe D, Toroser D, et al. Substantial contribution and accountability: best authorship practices for medical writers in biomedical publications. Curr Med Res Opin, 2018, 34(6): 1163-1168.
37. Chawinga WD, Zinn S. Global perspectives of research data sharing: a systematic literature review. Libra Infor Sci Res, 2019, 41(2): 109-122.

Previous Article
Current status and challenges of living guidelines
Next Article
Evidence-based search engines: SUMSearch and TRIP database

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Interpretation of reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: the PRIOR statement

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content