Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

ObjectivesThe objective of the study was to investigate to which degree systematic review protocols adhere to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) reporting guideline. Study Design and SettingWe randomly sampled 50 publications of systematic review protocols indexed in PubMed and 50 protocols uploaded to the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) from 2016 onward. Two authors independently extracted data and assessed adherence to the 26 items specified by PRISMA-P. For each protocol, we categorized adherence to PRISMA-P as complete (≥90% of PRISMA-P items were fully reported) or partial (≥60% of PRISMA-P items were fully reported). We also assessed adherence to each PRISMA-P item across the protocols. ResultsFour (8%) of the PubMed-indexed protocols adhered completely and 45 (90%) adhered partially to PRISMA-P but with considerable variation. None (0%) of the PROSPERO-uploaded protocols adhered completely and only 6 (12%) adhered partially to PRISMA-P. For both types of protocols, aspects related to the role of the sponsor, procedures for doing qualitative data synthesis if quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, and methods for assessing publication or outcome reporting biases and confidence in cumulative evidence were often not reported. ConclusionAdherence to the PRISMA-P reporting guideline was somewhat inadequate in PubMed-indexed protocols and clearly inadequate in PROSPERO-uploaded protocols. Authors of systematic review protocols who decide to report according to PRISMA-P should carefully check all items included in the guideline, and journal editors and peer reviewers should consider PRISMA-P adherence when reviewing protocols for potential publication.

Systematic reviews have become very popular. A recent estimate suggests that 22 new systematic reviews are published daily [1]. One reason for this interest is that they serve many purposes. For example, the influential Institute of Medicine has indicated that a systematic review is an essential component when developing clinical practice guidelines within the USA [2]. Some granting agencies are now advocating for the use of systematic reviews as an evidence-based rationale for the conduct of a proposed randomized trial [3]. And journals are now demanding the use of systematic reviews to provide readers with context of the results of a clinical trial [4]. For systematic reviews to be useful, they need to be reported in the highest possible quality thus facilitating their accurate use across a wide spectrum of stakeholders, including patients. Unfortunately, surveys of the published literature indicate that the quality of reporting is not optimal. For example, there is evidence indicating that reporting biases, particularly selective outcome reporting, is prevalent. An early example of differences between outcomes reported in protocols and the paired completed review was an examination of 47 Cochrane reviews in which 43 (91 %) contained a major change, such as the addition or deletion of outcomes, between the protocol and the full publication [5]. More recently, in an examination of 485 Cochrane protocol-review pairs, 38 % (95 % CI 23 to 54 %) were found to have discrepant outcomes (i.e., added, omitted, or changed the priority) between the protocol and completed review [6]. The vast majority of these discrepancies were without attribution with more significant outcomes being upgraded or added. Whether or not, and to what extent, these examples reflect reporting biases is not clear. However, they represent inconsistencies that should be avoided by authors. The gold standard for identifying reporting biases is a comparison of the completed review with its paired protocol. Such an examination is difficult with systematic reviews as too few of them report working from a protocol, although a growing number of funders are now requiring them. Perhaps, systematic reviewers do not report or use protocols because there has been little guidance on how to report them until recently. To help facilitate the use of reporting systematic review protocols, the three of us and several colleagues developed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) [7]. This is a reporting guideline consisting of a 17-item checklist, to help prospective authors in the preparation and reporting of a scientifically rigorous systematic review protocol. We also prepared a pedagogical explanation and elaboration document to facilitate its use [8]. Readers appear interested in the guidance. Since its publication a little more than a year ago, it has been downloaded about 45,000 times and cited (Google scholar) nearly 100 times. This journal and others have endorsed PRISMA-P. Here, we describe how the journal intends to implement it. All protocol submissions to the journal should use continuous line numbering in their manuscript. Authors should also include a completed PRISMA-P checklist indicating whether or not the requested item information is reported (by completing the check mark). If the item is checked, authors should then specify the line number (or range of line numbers) where this information is described. Manuscripts accepted for publication will have the completed PRIMSA-P checklist (on submission) included as an Appendix to their publication, which must be referenced within the main text (Additional file 1). Prospective authors can download a Word version of the PRISMA-P checklist, which includes the two added columns, from the journal’s website (URL to be added)or the PRISMA website (ttp://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/Protocols.aspx). If PRISMA-P was used to help report the protocol, it should be cited or the PRISMA-P URL (http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/Protocols.aspx) on the PRISMA website should be reported. About half of what the journal publishes are protocols of systematic reviews. We want to ensure they are published to the highest possible quality. Endorsement and implementation of reporting guidelines appears to improve the completeness of reporting. For example, a systematic review examining the completeness of reporting in more than 16,000 randomized trials in journals that endorsed the CONSORT statement, compared to journals that did not, found more complete reporting [9]. Similarly, examining 300 systematic reviews published in February 2014 found that mention of PRISMA was associated with better reporting [1]. There is always a tension between an optimal implementation strategy and ensuring minimal barriers to submission for prospective authors. We believe the journal has achieved a good balance with this strategy. Protocols submitted for publication consideration from now on that do not include a completed checklist, including the two aforementioned columns, will be returned to the authors with instructions about the journal’s systematic review protocol implementation strategy and invited to resubmit their continuously line numbered manuscript and appropriately completed checklist.

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for...

Background: In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the incidence of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) appears to be rising, yet insufficient epidemiological data and subsequent under-reporting obscure its true impact. This gap in knowledge undermines efforts to secure the resources needed for comprehensive FTD care and also complicates the development of targeted public health strategies in these regions. Objective: To examine the incidence and prevalence of FTD in low- and middle-income countries and explore how methodological and contextual factors (e.g., diagnostic criteria, health system infrastructure, and under-reporting) influence the accuracy of these estimates and the development of effective public health responses. Methods: We developed this protocol using the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines. Our plan is to perform a thorough search of the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PsycInfo, and Global Index Medicus (WHO), covering all records from their inception through January 31, 2025. Additional studies will be identified through reference lists of relevant full-text articles. Two independent reviewers will complete initial screening, data extraction, and bias assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for cohort and analytical cross-sectional research. Studies that are homogeneous will be subjected to meta-analysis; any that are not will be discussed through a narrative summary. Expected Results: Help illuminate the true impact of FTD in LMICs, provide guidance for more effective policies, and lay a solid foundation for future research that improves diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Relevance: This review will advance our knowledge, improve health care outcomes, and promote equity in addressing FTD in LMICs. Background: In many low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), the incidence of frontotemporal dementia (FTD) appears to be rising, yet insufficient epidemiological data and subsequent under-reporting obscure its true impact. This gap in knowledge undermines efforts to secure the resources needed for comprehensive FTD care and also complicates the development of targeted public health strategies in these regions. Objective: To examine the incidence and prevalence of FTD in low- and middle-income countries and explore how methodological and contextual factors (e.g., diagnostic criteria, health system infrastructure, and under-reporting) influence the accuracy of these estimates and the development of effective public health responses. Methods: We developed this protocol using the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) guidelines. Our plan is to perform a thorough search of the following electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Google Scholar, PsycInfo, and Global Index Medicus (WHO), covering all records from their inception through January 31, 2025. Additional studies will be identified through reference lists of relevant full-text articles. Two independent reviewers will complete initial screening, data extraction, and bias assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tools for cohort and analytical cross-sectional research. Studies that are homogeneous will be subjected to meta-analysis; any that are not will be discussed through a narrative summary. Expected Results: Help illuminate the true impact of FTD in LMICs, provide guidance for more effective policies, and lay a solid foundation for future research that improves diagnosis, treatment, and outcomes. Relevance: This review will advance our knowledge, improve health care outcomes, and promote equity in addressing FTD in LMICs.

Author adherence and experiences with PRISMA-P 2015: a cross-sectional study.

Background: PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Methods: A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported. Results: Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups. Conclusions: PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of a priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.

Background: PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). Methods: A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported. Results: Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups. Conclusions: PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source of a priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.

Background: PROSPERO is an international prospective register for systematic review protocols. Many of the registrations are the only available source of information about planned methods. This study investigated the extent to which records in PROSPERO contained the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P).Methods: A random sample of 439 single entry PROSPERO records of reviews of health interventions registered in 2018 was identified. Using a piloted list of 19 PRISMA-P items, divided into 63 elements, two researchers independently assessed the registration records. Where the information was present or not applicable to the review, a score of 1 was assigned. Overall scores were calculated and comparisons made by stage of review at registration, whether or not a meta-analysis was planned and whether or not funding/sponsorship was reported.Results: Some key methodological details, such as eligibility criteria, were relatively frequently reported, but much of the information recommended in PRISMA-P was not stated in PROSPERO registrations. Considering the 19 items, the mean score was 4.8 (SD 1.8; median 4; range 2-11) and across all the assessed records only 25% (2081/8227) of the items were scored as reported. Considering the 63 elements, the mean score was 33.4 (SD 5.8; median 33; range 18-47) and overall, 53% (14,469/27,279) of the elements were assessed as reported. Reporting was more frequent for items required in PROSPERO than optional items. The planned comparisons showed no meaningful differences between groups.Conclusions: PROSPERO provides reviewers with the opportunity to be transparent in their planned methods and demonstrate efforts to reduce bias. However, where the PROSPERO record is the only available source ofa priori reporting, there is a significant shortfall in the items reported, compared to those recommended. This presents challenges in interpretation for those wishing to assess the validity of the final review.

BackgroundHead and neck cancers form a significant share of all cancer incidences worldwide. Though treatment modalities exist, post-treatment recurrence and survival rates in recurrent patients continue to be high. MiRNAs offer an effective method of estimating the probability of recurrence and survival of HNC patients, thereby allowing for effective treatment and better survival rates.MethodsThe systematic review protocol was prepared according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Relevant studies will be identified by a rigorous search of multiple bibliographical databases, including MEDLINE, Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase and Science Direct, without any language restrictions (up to June 2018). The primary screening will be performed by a review team via analysis of titles and abstracts of published articles. Final selection of articles will be achieved by two independent reviewers, based on predefined selection criteria. Data will be extracted from eligible studies using a pre-piloted data extraction form. Statistical analysis will be performed on the basis of available data, extracted from eligible studies. Meta-analysis will be performed, and a forest plot will be generated, to determine pooled hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) using CMA. A fixed or random-effects model of meta-analysis will be used depending upon the between-study heterogeneity; publication bias will be determined by the Egger’s bias indicator test. A narrative synthesis will be undertaken where statistical data is found to be insufficient.DiscussionThere is a lack of highly sensitive and specific biomarkers for estimating the HNC patients’ prognostic outcomes, particularly in post-treatment conditions. This systematic review will identify and validate specific miRNA as prognostic biomarkers by utilising a collection of previously published data on miRNA expression and survival. Highlighting these prognostic specific miRNAs will have major clinical implications by allowing for better overall treatment strategies and patient survival estimates, by offering clinicians a method of quantitatively analysing prognosis via miRNA expression.Systematic review registrationThis review protocol was registered on PROSPERO and assigned the registration number CRD42017077411.

IntroductionNeck pain is one of the most prevalent musculoskeletal pain conditions with multifactorial impact including pain, disability and reduced quality of life. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic...

Background:Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most frequently occurring malignancy tumors. Surgical treatment has made great progress in CRC liver metastasis (CRLM), including radiofrequency ablation (RFA), and hepatectomy. We perform a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided RFA and hepatectomy in treating CRLM.Methods:This systematic review protocol will be reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement. The protocol has been registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022371561). PubMed, EMBASE, MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang Database, ClinicalTrials.gov trials registry, and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry will be searched from January 1980 to December 2022. Only randomized controlled trials will be included. Cochrane systematic evaluation tool is used to assess the risk of bias. The RevMan 5.3 software (Cochrane Collaboration, Oxford, UK) will be applied to conduct the meta-analyses.Results:The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis will be publicly available and published in a peer-reviewed journal.Conclusion:This study may provide more convincing evidence to help surgeons make decisions when dealing with CRLM.

Several high-income countries are currently experiencing an unprecedented and multifaceted housing crisis. The crisis is escalating rapidly, and its negative ramifications are shared disproportionately by migrant and refugee communities. Although housing is often cited as an important social determinant of health, the relationship between housing inequalities and health outcomes in the context of migrant and refugee populations remain under-explored, particularly in high-income countries. This paper presents a protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review which will synthesize the evidence on the key housing and health inequalities faced by migrant and refugee populations in high-income countries. It will inform the identification of pathways linking housing inequalities to health outcomes. The protocol for this systematic review was developed with guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for mixed-methods systematic reviews using a convergent integrated approach to synthesis and integration, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) statement. Quantitative, qualitative and mixed-methods studies reporting the association of housing inequalities with physical and mental health outcomes among refugee and migrant populations in high-income countries will be included. Medline, Web of Science, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus and CINAHL will be searched for peer-reviewed literature. This will be supplemented by gray literature searches using Google Scholar, MedNar and WHOLIS. Two reviewers will independently screen and select studies, assess the methodological quality and conduct data extraction. This systematic review will elucidate the different pathways linking housing inequalities and health outcomes, which may guide the development of targeted housing and public health interventions to improve the health and wellbeing of migrant and refugee populations. The review is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42022362868).

Bronchoscopy is a common invasive procedure that can cause significant anxiety, discomfort, and pain in patients. Virtual reality (VR) has emerged as a promising non-pharmacological intervention to alleviate these negative experiences and improve patient outcomes. This systematic review aims to comprehensively synthesize the current evidence on the effectiveness of VR in enhancing pain management, anxiety control, and patient satisfaction during bronchoscopy procedures. The review will follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and systematically search multiple electronic databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, PsycINFO, and Scopus, from their inception to July 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing VR interventions to standard care or other non-pharmacological interventions in adult patients undergoing bronchoscopy will be included. The primary outcomes of interest are pain intensity, anxiety levels, and patient satisfaction, measured using validated scales or questionnaires. Secondary outcomes will include physiological parameters, procedure duration, medication use, and adverse events related to VR interventions. Two reviewers will independently screen studies, extract data, and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomized studies. If feasible, a meta-analysis will be conducted to quantitatively synthesize the results. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses will be performed to explore potential sources of heterogeneity and assess the robustness of the findings. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach will be used to evaluate the overall certainty of evidence for each outcome. This systematic review protocol is guided by established frameworks, including the PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome), PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols), and FINER (Feasible, Interesting, Novel, Ethical, and Relevant) criteria. By providing a transparent and rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness of VR in improving patient experience during bronchoscopy, this review will offer valuable insights to inform clinical practice, guide health policy decisions, and identify areas for future research.

Systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) are the supreme collective scientific evidence available in our literature. Conducting a SRMA is a time consuming, relatively expensive team work. There are many funding options for a relevant SRMA. Hence it is advisable to check whether our proposed SRMA is unique or whether someone else is currently doing it. One can do it by searching PROSPERO maintained by University of York, Cochrane library, PubMed and Google Scholar. It is mandatory to register SRMA; PROSPERO is a major registration option. PROSPERO doesn’t allow multiple registrations of the same topic unless a valid justification can be given. PROSPERO requires a registration which is free of coast. Registration can be done by visiting https:// www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ . After login, we can either register our SRMA or we can search ongoing SRMA. Having a protocol as per PRISMA-P guidelines is mandatory for a smooth registration process. Registration increases the credibility of the SRMA and eliminates the chance of unnecessary duplication of the work. Protocol helps to plan and anticipate problems associated with SRMA. There are different methods for preparing the protocol; Cochrane protocols and PRISMA-P protocols. This editorial will deal with PRISMA-P protocols. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) was published in 2015 ( Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1). PRISMA-P specifically talks about protocols, PRISMA about manuscript writing and PRISMA-S about reporting search strategies. PRISMA-P statement (http://www.prisma-statement. org/Extensions/Protocols ) contains some very important items. Administrative information includes identification (Title, original or updated SRMA), registration details, author information (primary and contributors), amendments (indicate ONLY if the protocol is a modification of the earlier one) and support (information regarding funding). Introduction includes rationale and objectives. Methods include eligibility criteria (study characters like PICO, study design and setting, time frame etc.), information sources (all intended digital and other sources), search strategy (MESH terms, Boolean operators, synonyms etc.), study records (data management methods like Rayyan, selection process like who screens the data and data collection process like MS excel / spread sheet), data (define al variables), role of bias in individual studies (describe methods for assessing risk of bias at study level or outcome level or both), data synthesis (describe the statistical aspects), meta bias (publication bias among studies, possibility of selective reporting) and confidence in cumulative evidence.

IntroductionSystematic reviews and meta-analyses are methodologically rigorous studies that are said to form the reference standard for summarising evidence to guide health care. Reporting quality of reviews is of critical importance in order to judge the quality and risk of bias in a review to ensure sound healthcare decisions are made. This is particularly important in the field of dermatology due to the growing number of systematic reviews and their key role in informing healthcare decision within dermatology. A contemporary and comprehensive review of the compliance of dermatology systematic reviews and meta-analyses with the PRISMA checklist, in the highest impact factor dermatology journals, has not yet been assessed. To our knowledge, our review represents the most extensive study assessing reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published within dermatology to date. Methods and analysisOur protocol is reported in line with the Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 guidelines. MEDLINE will be searched to look for systematic reviews and meta-analysis in selected years within the top four highest impact factor dermatology journals in 2017. Records and full texts will be screened independently by five researchers. Data will be extracted onto a standard data extraction database. A training session will take place to ensure accurate data extraction and scoring of studies with the PRISMA checklist. The data will be analysed and outcomes will be determined. Primary outcome will be the compliance of reviews with the PRISMA checklist.