Grant: Project Grant

A systematic review (SR) is a summary of the evidence on a clearly formulated question that uses systematic methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesize evidence that meets pre-specified inclusion criteria. SRs are a powerful tool used in decision-making to optimize patient care, and are being published at an increasing rate, estimated at >10,000/year. Meta-analysis can be part of a SR and is the statistical synthesis of at least 2 trial results. The Preferred Reporting Items for SRs and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to increase transparency and reproducibility of SRs. PRISMA, published in 2009, was designed for SRs with meta-analyses of healthcare interventions and has been widely used by authors and journals. It is of major importance to report SR methods and results so these methods can be reproduced by others, which can help avoid biased healthcare recommendations and decision-making. Multiple types of knowledge synthesis exist in the literature with the most common being SRs with network meta-analysis (NMA), rapid reviews (RR) and scoping reviews (ScR). NMAs are meta-analyses in which multiple interventions are compared and ranked according to their efficacy using evidence from entire networks of trials. RRs accelerate the process of conducting a SR through streamlining methods to produce evidence for knowledge users in a resource-efficient manner, typically to meet urgent decision-making timelines. ScRs aim to map the literature on a specific topic and identify key concepts, gaps, and evidence sources to inform future research. Extensions to the PRISMA 2009 statement have been developed to guide reporting of SRs with NMA and ScRs. Similarly, the PRISMA for RRs has started but was not completed. In 2020, the PRISMA statement was updated to reflect advances in the reporting of SRs. These important advances have yet to be incorporated into the PRISMA for NMA, RR, and ScR, and we aim to improve these reporting tools through this research.