Skip to main content

Table 6.3 Concise Guide to best practices for evidence syntheses, version 1.0a

From: Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews

 

Intervention

Diagnostic

Prognostic

Qualitative or mixed methods

Prevalence and Incidence

Etiology and Risk

Measurement Properties

Overviews (umbrella reviews)

Scoping Reviews

Methodological guidance

Cochraneb, JBI

Cochrane, JBI

Cochrane

Cochrane, JBI

JBI

JBI

JBI

Cochrane, JBI

JBI

Reportingc

 Protocol

PRISMA-P [116]

PRISMA-P

PRISMA-P

PRISMA-P

PRISMA-P

PRISMA-P

PRISMA-P

PRISMA-P

PRISMA-P

 Systematic review

PRISMA 2020 [112]

PRISMA-DTA [120]

PRISMA 2020

eMERGe [213]d

ENTREQ [214]d

PRISMA 2020

PRISMA 2020

PRISMA 2020

PRIOR [215]

PRISMA-ScR [121]

 Synthesis without MA

SWiM [180]

PRISMA-DTA [120]

SWiMe

eMERGe [213]dENTREQ [214]d

SWiMe

SWiMe

SWiMe

PRIOR [215]

RoB assessment of included studiesf

For RCTs: Cochrane RoB2 [157]

For NRSI:

ROBINS-I [158]

Other primary researchg

QUADAS-2[216]

Factor review QUIPS [217]

Model review PROBAST [65]

CASP qualitative checklist [218]

JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist [219]h

JBI checklist for studies reporting prevalence data [220]

For NRSI: ROBINS-I [158]

Other primary researchg

COSMIN RoB Checklist [67]

AMSTAR-2 [6] or ROBIS [4]

Not requiredi

Overall level of evidence certainty

GRADE [27]

GRADE adaptationj

GRADE adaptationk

CERQual [221]

ConQual [222]l

GRADE adaptationm

Risk factorsn

GRADE adaptationo

GRADE (for intervention reviews)

Risk factorsn

Not applicable

  1. AMSTAR A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews, CASP Critical Appraisal Skills Programme, CERQual Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research, ConQual Establishing Confidence in the output of Qualitative research synthesis, COSMIN COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments, DTA diagnostic test accuracy, eMERGe meta-ethnography reporting guidance, ENTREQ enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research, GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation, MA meta-analysis, NRSI non-randomized studies of interventions, P protocol, PRIOR Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews, PRISMA Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, PROBAST Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool, QUADAS quality assessment of studies of diagnostic accuracy included in systematic reviews, QUIPS Quality In Prognosis Studies, RCT randomized controlled trial, RoB risk of bias, ROBINS-I Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies of Interventions, ROBIS Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews, ScR scoping review, SWiM systematic review without meta-analysis
  2. a Superscript numbers represent citations provided in the main reference list. Additional File 6 lists links to available online resources for the methods and tools included in the Concise Guide
  3. b The MECIR manual [30] provides Cochrane’s specific standards for both reporting and conduct of intervention systematic reviews and protocols
  4. c Editorial and peer reviewers can evaluate completeness of reporting in submitted manuscripts using these tools. Authors may be required to submit a self-reported checklist for the applicable tools
  5. d The decision flowchart described by Flemming and colleagues [223] is recommended for guidance on how to choose the best approach to reporting for qualitative reviews
  6. e SWiM was developed for intervention studies reporting quantitative data. However, if there is not a more directly relevant reporting guideline, SWiM may prompt reviewers to consider the important details to report. (Personal Communication via email, Mhairi Campbell, 14 Dec 2022)
  7. f JBI recommends their own tools for the critical appraisal of various quantitative primary study designs included in systematic reviews of intervention effectiveness, prevalence and incidence, and etiology and risk as well as for the critical appraisal of systematic reviews included in umbrella reviews. However, except for the JBI Checklists for studies reporting prevalence data and qualitative research, the development, validity, and reliability of these tools are not well documented
  8. g Studies that are not RCTs or NRSI require tools developed specifically to evaluate their design features. Examples include single case experimental design [155, 156] and case reports and series [82]
  9. hThe evaluation of methodological quality of studies included in a synthesis of qualitative research is debatable [224]. Authors may select a tool appropriate for the type of qualitative synthesis methodology employed. The CASP Qualitative Checklist [218] is an example of a published, commonly used tool that focuses on assessment of the methodological strengths and limitations of qualitative studies. The JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research [219] is recommended for reviews using a meta-aggregative approach
  10. i Consider including risk of bias assessment of included studies if this information is relevant to the research question; however, scoping reviews do not include an assessment of the overall certainty of a body of evidence
  11. j Guidance available from the GRADE working group [225, 226]; also recommend consultation with the Cochrane diagnostic methods group
  12. k Guidance available from the GRADE working group [227]; also recommend consultation with Cochrane prognostic methods group
  13. l Used for syntheses in reviews with a meta-aggregative approach [224]
  14. m Chapter 5 in the JBI Manual offers guidance on how to adapt GRADE to prevalence and incidence reviews [69]
  15. n Janiaud and colleagues suggest criteria for evaluating evidence certainty for meta-analyses of non-randomized studies evaluating risk factors [228]
  16. o The COSMIN user manual provides details on how to apply GRADE in systematic reviews of measurement properties [229]
Back to article page

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053