Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis

BMC Medicine

David Moher¹ 

[1] Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, General Campus, 501 Smyth Rd, Room L1288, Ottawa K1H 8L6, ON, Canada

关键词: The EQUATOR Network;    Systematic review;    Reporting guidelines;    PRISMA;    Peer review;    Meta-analysis;   

Others  :  1231064
DOI  :  10.1186/s12916-015-0509-y

 received in 2015-07-10, accepted in 2015-09-23,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Systematic reviews are popular. A recent estimate indicates that 11 new systematic reviews are published daily. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that the quality of reporting of systematic reviews is not optimal. One likely reason is that the authors’ reports have received inadequate peer review. There are now many different types of systematic reviews and peer reviewing them can be enhanced by using a reporting guideline to supplement whatever template the journal editors have asked you, as a peer reviewer, to use. Additionally, keeping up with the current literature, whether as a content expert or being aware of advances in systematic review methods is likely be make for a more comprehensive and effective peer review. Providing a brief summary of what the systematic review has reported is an important first step in the peer review process (and not performed frequently enough). At its core, it provides the authors with some sense of what the peer reviewer believes was performed (Methods) and found (Results). Importantly, it also provides clarity regarding any potential problems in the methods, including statistical approaches for meta-analysis, results, and interpretation of the systematic review, for which the peer reviewer can seek explanations from the authors; these clarifications are best presented as questions to the authors.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Moher.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Patel J. BioMed Central Blog. A beginner’s guide to peer review: Part One. 2015. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/05/13/beginners-guide-peer-review-part-one/. 22nd September 2015
• [2]Patel J. BioMed Central Blog. A beginner’s guide to peer review: Part Two. 2015. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/06/08/beginners-guide-peer-review-part-two/. 22nd September 2015
• [3]Patel J. BioMed Central Blog. A beginner’s guide to peer review: Part Three. 2015. http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/07/09/beginners-guide-peer-review-part-three/. 22nd September 2015
• [4]Cobo E, Cortes J, Ribera JM, Cardellach F, Selva-O'Callaghan A, Kostov B et al.. Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial. BMJ. 2011; 343:d6783.
• [5]Equator Network. Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research. Library. http://www.equator-network.org/library/.22nd September 2015
• [6]Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP et al.. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151:W65-94.
• [7]Sampson M, McGowan J, Cogo E, Grimshaw J, Moher D, Lefebvre C. An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62:944-52.
• [8]Moher D, Jadad AR. How to peer review a manuscript. In: Peer review in Health Sciences. 2nd ed. Jefferson T, Godlee F, editors. BMJ Books, London; 2003: p.183.
• [9]Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. Allocation concealment in clinical trials. JAMA. 2002; 288:2406-7.
• [10]Savovic J, Jones HE, Altman DG, Harris RJ, Juni P, Pildal J et al.. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann Intern Med. 2012; 157:429-38.
• [11]Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S et al.. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014; 383:267-76.
• [12]Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002; 287:2831-4.
• [13]Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R et al.. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010; 340:c365.
• [14]Moher D, Avey M, Antes G, Altman DG. The National Institutes of Health and guidance for reporting preclinical research. BMC Med. 2015; 13:34. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M et al.. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012; 1:2. BioMed Central Full Text
• [16]Dunn AG, Arachi D, Hudgins J, Tsafnat G, Coiera E, Bourgeois FT. Financial conflicts of interest and conclusions about neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: an analysis of systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161:513-8.
• [17]Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Moher D. The art and science of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011; 64:11-20.
• [18]Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, Riley RD, Simmonds M, Stewart G et al.. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA. 2015; 313:1657-65.
• [19]Cornell JE. The PRISMA extension for network meta-analysis: bringing clarity and guidance to the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med. 2015; 162:797-8.
• [20]Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M et al.. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [21]Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M et al.. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015; 349:g7647.
• [22]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 151:264-9.
• [23]Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, Rennie D et al.. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA. 2000; 283:2008-12.
• [24]Reporting standards for research in psychology: why do we need them? What might they be? Am Psychol. 2008; 63:839-51.
• [25]Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012; 12:181. BioMed Central Full Text
• [26]Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013; 11:21. BioMed Central Full Text
• [27]The RAMESES Projects. http://www.ramesesproject.org/index.php?pr=Home_Page. Accessed 22 September 2015.