Anti-VEGF drugs compared with laser photocoagulation for the treatment of diabetic retinopathy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background: Diabetic retinopathy is a major cause of sight loss in people with diabetes. The most severe form, proliferative diabetic retinopathy, carries a high risk of vision loss, vitreous haemorrhage, macular oedema and other harms. Panretinal photocoagulation is the primary treatment for proliferative diabetic retinopathy.

Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews.

Rapid reviews (RRs) are produced using abbreviated methods compared with standard systematic reviews (SR) to expedite the process for decision-making. This paper provides interim guidance to support the complete reporting of RRs. Recommendations emerged from a survey informed by empirical studies of RR reporting, in addition to collective experience.

Anti-Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor Drugs Compared With Panretinal Photocoagulation for the Treatment of Proliferative Diabetic Retinopathy: A Cost-Effectiveness Analysis.

Objectives: This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of anti-vascular endothelial growth factor drugs (anti-VEGFs) compared with panretinal photocoagulation (PRP) for treating proliferative diabetic retinopathy (PDR) in the United Kingdom.

Methods: A discrete event simulation model was developed, informed by individual participant data meta-analysis. The model captures treatment effects on best corrected visual acuity in both eyes, and the occurrence of diabetic macular edema and vitreous hemorrhage.

A structured approach to information retrieval improved identification of funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews.

Objectives: To compare the contemporary Cochrane review approach for retrieving information on trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest with a structured approach for information retrieval.

Study Design And Setting: Methodological study of 100 Cochrane reviews from August to December 2020 and one randomly selected trial from each review. Reporting of trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in reviews was compared with information identified using a structured retrieval process, and time to retrieve information was noted.

Strengthening the clinical academic pathway: a systematic review of interventions to support clinical academic careers for doctors and dentists.

Objective: Evaluate existing evidence on interventions intended to increase recruitment, retention and career progression within clinical academic (CA) careers, including a focus on addressing inequalities.

Design: Systematic review.

Data Sources: Medline, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials, PsycINFO and Education Resource Information Center searched October 2019.

[The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsDeclaración PRISMA 2020: una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas].

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies.

Retrieval barriers in individual participant data reviews with network meta-analysis.

Objectives: Individual participant data (IPD) from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can be used in network meta-analysis (NMA) to underpin patient care and are the best analyses to support the development of guidelines about the use of healthcare interventions for a specific condition. However, barriers to IPD retrieval pose a major threat. The aim of this study was to present barriers we encountered during retrieval of IPD from RCTs in two published systematic reviews with IPD-NMA.

Extent and nature of duplication in PROSPERO using COVID-19-related registrations: a retrospective investigation and survey.

Objectives: During COVID-19, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) experienced a surge in registrations for COVID-19-related systematic reviews, and duplication of research questions became apparent. Duplication can waste funding, time and research effort and make policy making more difficult.This project explored the extent of and reasons for duplication of COVID-19-related systematic review registrations in PROSPERO during the pandemic.

Comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin regimens for adults with type 1 diabetes: an individual patient data network meta-analysis.

Objective: To examine the comparative efficacy and complications of long-acting and intermediate-acting insulin for different patient characteristics for type 1 diabetes mellitus (T1DM).

Design: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA).

Data Sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched through June 2015.

Intensive behavioural interventions based on applied behaviour analysis (ABA) for young children with autism: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

Background: The economic and social costs of autism are significant. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of early intensive Applied Behaviour Analysis (ABA)-based interventions for autistic pre-school children in the UK.

Methods: A de novo economic analysis was developed in Microsoft Excel comparing early intensive ABA-based interventions compared with treatment as usual (TAU).

Using individual participant data to improve network meta-analysis projects.

A network meta-analysis combines the evidence from existing randomised trials about the comparative efficacy of multiple treatments. It allows direct and indirect evidence about each comparison to be included in the same analysis, and provides a coherent framework to compare and rank treatments. A traditional network meta-analysis uses aggregate data (eg, treatment effect estimates and standard errors) obtained from publications or trial investigators.

Comparative safety and efficacy of cognitive enhancers for Alzheimer's dementia: a systematic review with individual patient data network meta-analysis.

Objective: To examine the comparative efficacy and safety of cognitive enhancers by patient characteristics for managing Alzheimer's dementia (AD).

Design: Systematic review and individual patient data (IPD) network meta-analysis (NMA) based on our previously published systematic review and aggregate data NMA.

Data Sources: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register, CINAHL, AgeLine and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials up to March 2016.

Sharing individual participant data: through a systematic reviewer lens.

An increasing prevalence of data-sharing models, aimed at making individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials widely available, should facilitate the conduct of systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on IPD. We have assessed these different data-sharing approaches, from the perspective of experienced IPD reviewers, to examine their utility for conducting systematic reviews based on IPD, and to highlight any challenges. We present an overview of the range of different models, including the traditional, single question approach, topic-based repositories, and the newer generic data platforms, and show that there are benefits and drawbacks to each.

Coenzyme Q10 to manage chronic heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction: a systematic review and economic evaluation.

Background: Chronic heart failure is a debilitating condition that accounts for an annual NHS spend of £2.3B. Low levels of endogenous coenzyme Q10 may exacerbate chronic heart failure.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies.

Developing a topic-based repository of clinical trial individual patient data: experiences and lessons learned from a pilot project.

Background: Building a dataset of individual participant data (IPD) for meta-analysis represents considerable research investment as well as collaboration across multiple institutions and researchers. Making arrangements to curate and share the dataset beyond the IPD meta-analysis project for which it was established, for reuse in future research projects, would maximise the value of this investment.

Methods: Our aim was to establish the Cochrane repository for individual patient data from clinical trials in pregnancy and childbirth (CRIB) as an example of how an IPD repository could become part of Cochrane infrastructure.

Top health research funders' guidance on selecting journals for funded research.

Funded health research is being published in journals that many regard as "predatory", deceptive, and non-credible. We do not currently know whether funders provide guidance on how to select a journal in which to publish funded health research. We identified the largest 46 philanthropic, public, development assistance, public-private partnership, and multilateral funders of health research by expenditure, globally as well as four public funders from lower-middle income countries, from the list at https://healthresearchfunders.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies.

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews.

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

Matthew Page and co-authors describe PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.