Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Neuropsychology Review
Published in: Neuropsychology Review 2/2016

01-06-2016 | Review

A Neuropsychologist’s Guide To Undertaking a Systematic Review for Publication: Making the most of PRISMA Guidelines

Authors: Nicola J. Gates, Evrim G. March

Published in: Neuropsychology Review | Issue 2/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

There is increasing impetus to improve the quality of research and scientific writing. Systematic reviews provide Class 1 research evidence, are based upon an established rigor and communicate results in a comprehensive manner, and are therefore particularly relevant to clinicians and researchers. Clinician requirements for quality systematic reviews are twofold: to keep up to date with research and to make informed decisions including those required for diagnoses, disease or risk assessment, and treatment. Researchers rely upon quality systematic reviews to compete for diminishing research funds, prove efficacy for intervention trials, and to meet increasing demand for evidence based intervention. However, insufficient systematic reviews are undertaken, and the methodological rigor and quality are often variable. The aim of this article is to guide researchers through the iterative systematic review process in order to improve quality and thereby increase publication rates. The step by step guide provides a road map through the EQUATOR network and practical suggestions in order to meet the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al. 2009) as well as encouraging high standards through the use of quality rating scales. Lastly, information is provided to encourage quantitative analysis to improve the synthesis of results and qualitative interpretation, such as calculating effect sizes or conducting a meta-analyses as the ultimate goal of a systematic review.
Glossary
AMSTAR
Assessing the Methodological quality of Systematic Reviews
CAT
Critical Appraisal Tool
CEBM
Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine
CONSORT
Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials
EBNP
Evidence Based Neuropsychological Practice
EQUATOR
Enhancing the Quality And Transparency Of health Research
MESH
Medical Subject Headings
PICOS
Participants Interventions Control Outcome/s Study design
PRISMA
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
PRISMA
P Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols
PROSPERO
Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews
ROBIS
Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews
STARD
Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
STROBE
Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology
SRDR
Systematic Review Data Repository
Literature
Booth, A., Clarke, M., Dooley, G., Ghersi, D., Moher, D., Petticrew, M., et al. (2012). The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international register of systematic reviews. Systems Review, 1(1), 2.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.CrossRef
Bossuyt, P.M., Reitsma, J.B., Bruns, D.E., Gatsons, C.A., Glasziou P.P., et al. For the STARD group (2015). STARD 2015; An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. BMJ 351:h5527.
Chelune, G. J. (2010). Evidence-Based research and practice in Clinical Neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist., 24(3), 454–467.CrossRefPubMed
Clare, L., & Woods, T. R. (2004). Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for people with early-stage Alzheimer's disease: A review. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(4), 385–401.CrossRef
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detection by a simple graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Fleming, P. S., Koletsi, D., Seehra, J., & Pandis, N. (2014). Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 754–759.CrossRefPubMed
Gates, N., & Valenzuela, M. J. (2010). Cognitive exercise and its role in cogitive function in older adults. Current Psychiatry Reports, 12, 20–27.CrossRefPubMed
Gates, N., Fiatarone Singh, M. A., Sachdev, P. S., & Valenzuela, M. (2013). The Effect of Exercise Training on Cognitive Function in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(11), 1086–1097.CrossRefPubMed
Gianola, S., Gasparini, M., Agostini, M., Castellini, G., Corbette, D., Gozzer, P., et al. (2013). Survey of the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in rehabilitation. Physical Therapy, 93(11), 1456–1466.CrossRefPubMed
Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusab;e reports of biomedical research. Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.CrossRefPubMed
Hausner, E., Guddat, C., Hermanns, T., Lampert, U., & Waffenschmidt, S. (2015). Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: Validation showed the non-inferiority of the objective approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(2), 191–199.CrossRefPubMed
Haynes, R. B., Devereaux, P. J., & Gyatt, G. H. (2002). Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice. Evidence-Based Medicine, 7(2), 36–38. doi:10.​1136/​ebm.​7.​2.​36.CrossRef
Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.​cochrane-handbook.​org.
Huckans, M., Hutson, L., Twamley, E., Jak, A., Kaye, J., & Storzbach, D. (2013). Efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapies for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older adults: Working toward a theoretical model and evidence-based interventions. Neuropsychology Review, 1(23), 63–80.CrossRef
Ioannidis, J., Patsopoulos, N., & Evangelou, E. (2007). Uncertainty in hetergenoity estimates in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 335(7626), 914–916.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Kable, A. K., Pich, J., & Maslin-Prothero, S. E. (2012). A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Education Today, 31(8), 878–886.CrossRef
Katikireddi, S. V., Egan, M., & Petticrew, M. (2015). How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessmemts into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69, 189–195.CrossRefPubMed
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. (2009). The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reveiws and Meta-Analyses of Studies that evaluate health care intervention: Explanation and Elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), W-65.CrossRef
Liu, Z., Yao, Z., Li, C., Liu, X., Chen, H., & Gao, C. (2013). A step-by-step guide to the systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic test accuracy evaluations. British Journal of Cancer, 108(11), 2299–2303.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. British Medical Journal, 339(b2535), 332–336.
Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., et al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.". British Medical Journal, 340, c869.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement. Systematic reviews, 4(1), 1.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Pieper, D., Buechter, R. B., Li, L., Prediger, B., & Eikermann, M. (2015). Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(5), 574–583.CrossRefPubMed
Popovich, I., Windsor, B., Jordan, V., Showell, M., & Shea, B. (2012). Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: A comparison of two differnt approaches. PloS One, 7(12), e50403.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Prince, M., Bryce, R., Albanese, E., Wimon, A., Ribeiro-CleusaW., & PFerri, P. (2013). "The global prevalence of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Alzheimer's & Dementia 9, 63–75.
Rey–Casserly, C., Roper, B. L., & Bauer, R. M. (2012). Application of a competency model to clinical neuropsychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 422–431.CrossRef
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.) (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–72.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research synthesis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California USA: Sage.
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2014). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboratrion and explanation. British Medical Journal, 349, g7647.CrossRef
Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., et al. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Simera, I., Moher, D., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Medicine, 8, 24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J. L., et al. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asyymetry in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343, d4002.CrossRefPubMed
Stovold, E., Beecher, D., Foxlee, R., & Noel-Storr, A. (2014). Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: and adepted PRISMA flow diagram. Systematic reviews, 3, 54–58.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Tate, R. L., & Douglas, J. (2011). Use of reporting guidleines in scientific writing: PRISMA, CONSORT, STROBE, STARD and other resources. Brain Impairment, 12(1), 1–21.CrossRef
van Heugten, C., Gregorio, G. W., & Wade, D. (2012). Evidence-based rehabilitationafter Acquired brain injury: A systematic review of content and treatment. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 22(5), 653–673.CrossRefPubMed
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gotzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement guidelines for reporting observational studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(8), 573–577.CrossRef
Whiting, P., et al. (2016). ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69, 225–234.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S. W., Zhang, C., Zhang, C., Li., S., et al. (2015). The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. Journal of Evidence Based Medicine, 8, 2–10.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
A Neuropsychologist’s Guide To Undertaking a Systematic Review for Publication: Making the most of PRISMA Guidelines
Authors
Nicola J. Gates
Evrim G. March
Publication date
01-06-2016
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Neuropsychology Review / Issue 2/2016
Print ISSN: 1040-7308
Electronic ISSN: 1573-6660
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9318-0

Other articles of this Issue 2/2016

Neuropsychology Review 2/2016 Go to the issue

Editorial

Editorial

Review

Resilience and Other Possible Outcomes After Mild Traumatic Brain Injury: a Systematic Review

Review

A Guide to Conducting a Meta-Analysis

Review

Weighing the Evidence: A Systematic Review on Long-Term Neurocognitive Effects of Cannabis Use in Abstinent Adolescents and Adults

Review

Social Cognition in Multiple Sclerosis: a Meta-Analysis

Review

Functional Disability in Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis