THE PRISMA 2020 STATEMENT: AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE APPROPRIATE REPORTING OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS WITH ANNOTATED EXAMPLES
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.13765705Keywords:
Methods, Research, Meta-analysis, ChecklistAbstract
A systematic review (SR) is a study design that uses pre-planned methods and a collection of primary studies as its units of analysis. More specifically, RS is scientific investigation that focuses on a specific research question using planned and clear methods to identify, select, evaluate, and summarize the findings of similar but individual studies. When publishing results from SR studies in scientific articles, authors need to make sure that this is a clear presentation of what was done, providing readers with the information necessary to enable a critical assessment of the research. This is the exact purpose of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Therefore, this study aims to present, in detail, the PRISMA 2020 declaration, its seven sections and 27 items, presenting commented examples. The PRISMA statement was prepared by a group of experts, published in 2009 (PRISMA 2009), updated in 2020 (PRISMA 2020), and serves as support for SR authors in order to make them skilled in producing an article report, appropriately formulated, and presented. The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a checklist of 27 items, which authors need to follow before submitting the SR article. Although there are no guarantees, authors who comply with the PRISMA 2020 declaration have a better chance of successfully publishing an SR in scientific journals.
Downloads
References
AMERICAN COLLEGE OF SPORTS MEDICINE. ACSM’s Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription. 11. ed. Japan: Wolters Kluwer, 2021.
BARBOSA FILHO, V. C. Revisão sistemática com metanálise. Cenas Educacionais, v.7, n.e18349, p.1–16, 2024.
BELLER, E. M. et al. PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts. PLoS Medicine, v.10, n.4, p.e1001419, 2013.
BERKMAN, N. D. et al. Grading the strength of a body of evidence when assessing health care interventions: an EPC update. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v.68, n.11, p.1312–1324, 2015.
BORENSTEIN, M. et al. Chapter 19: Subgroup analyses. In: INTRODUCTION TO META-ANALYSIS. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009a. p. 421.
BORENSTEIN, M. et al. Chapter 20: Meta-regression. In: INTRODUCTION TO META-ANALYSIS. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009b. p. 421.
BORENSTEIN, M. et al. Chapter 30: Publication Bias. In: INTRODUCTION TO META-ANALYSIS. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009c. p. 421.
BRUNHEROTI, K. A. et al. Evaluation of the effect of physical exercise interventions in Primary Health Care in Brazil on cardiometabolic risk factors: a systematic review. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano, v.25, p.e86876, 2023.
CARNEIRO, L. et al. Web-based exercise interventions for patients with depressive and anxiety disorders: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Brazilian Journal of Psychiatry, v.44, p.331-341, 2022.
CENTRE FOR REVIEWS AND DISSEMINATION (org.). CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. 3 ed. York: York Publishing Services Ltd, 2009. (Systematic reviews).
CORTES, M. B. et al. Effect of aerobic and resistance exercise training on endothelial function in individuals with overweight and obesity: a systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Scientific Reports, v.13, p.11826, 2023.
DAVOLI, G. B. Q.; LIMA, L. R. A.; SILVA, D. A. S. Abdominal muscular endurance in Brazilian children and adolescents: systematic review of cross-sectional studies. Revista Brasileira de Cineantropometria & Desempenho Humano, v. 20, p. 483–496, 2018.
DE OLIVEIRA, N. T. et al. Dose-response effect of lower limb resistance training volume on pain and function of women with patellofemoral pain: A systematic review and meta-regression. Physical Therapy in Sport, v.63, p.95-103, 2023.
DELEVATTI, R. S. et al. The Role of Aerobic Training Variables Progression on Glycemic Control of Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: a Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine - Open, v.5, n.1, p.22, 2019.
FALCÃO, L. M. et al. Intervenção educativa realizada por enfermeiros para controle da pressão arterial: revisão sistemática com metanálise. Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem, v.31, p.e3929, 2023.
FANDINO, W. Formulating a good research question: Pearls and pitfalls. Indian Journal of Anaesthesia, v.63, n.8, p.611-616, 2019.
GLESER, L. J.; OLKIN, I. Models for Estimating the Number of Unpublished Studies. Statistics in Medicine, v.15, n.23, p.2493-2507, 1996.
GRADE WORKING GROUP. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, v.328, n.7454, p.1-8, 2004.
GUYATT, G. H. et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ, v.336, n.7650, p.924-926, 2008.
GUYATT, G. H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing Summary of Findings tables—binary outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v.66, n.2, p.158-172, 2013a.
GUYATT, G. H. et al. GRADE guidelines: 13. Preparing Summary of Findings tables and evidence profiles—continuous outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v.66, n.2, p.173-183, 2013b.
HANSEN, C. et al. Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, v.8, n.8, p.MR000047, 2019.
HIGGINS, J. et al. A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. In: CHANDLER, J. et al. (ed.). Cochrane Methods. 1. ed. [S. l.: s. n.], 2016. (Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2016). v. 10.
HIGGINS, J. P. T.; GREEN, S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. [S. l.]: Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
JOHNSON, B. T.; HUEDO-MEDINA, T. B. Meta-Analytic Statistical Inferences for Continuous Measure Outcomes as a Function of Effect Size Metric and Other Assumptions. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), 2013. Methods Research Reports.
KIRKHAM, J. J. et al. Outcome reporting bias in trials: a methodological approach for assessment and adjustment in systematic reviews. BMJ (Clinical research ed.), v.362, p.k3802, 2018.
LEAL, J. C. et al. Exergames in Older Adult Community Centers and Nursing Homes to Improve Balance and Minimize the Risk of Falls in Older Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Healthcare, v.11, n.13, p.1872, 2023.
LIMA, G. L. S. et al. A influência das máscaras N95 e PFF2 sobre variáveis cardiorrespiratórias em indivíduos saudáveis durante o exercício aeróbico: revisão sistemática e meta-análise. Jornal Brasileiro de Pneumologia, v.49, p.e20220143, 2023.
LOURENÇO, B. M. et al. Efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological therapies on pain intensity and disability for plantar fasciitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of Sports Medicine, v.57, n.23, 2023.
LOURENÇO, C. L. M.; QUEIROZ, C. O. TESTEX: uma ferramenta para avaliação da qualidade metodológica e qualidade de relato em estudos de treinamento com exercício físico. Cenas Educacionais, v.7, n.e16552, p.1–16, 2024.
MAHER, C. G. et al. Reliability of the PEDro Scale for Rating Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials. Physical Therapy, v.83, n.8, p.713–721, 2003.
MARIANO, I. M. et al. Exercise training improves blood pressure reactivity to stress: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports, v.13, p.10962, 2023.
MINATTO, G. et al. School-Based Interventions to Improve Cardiorespiratory Fitness in Adolescents: Systematic Review with Meta-analysis. Sports Medicine, v.46, n.9, p.1273–1292, 2016.
MINISTÉRIO DA SAÚDE, SECRETARIA DE CIÊNCIA, TECNOLOGIA E INSUMOS ESTRATÉGICOS, DEPARTAMENTO DE CIÊNCIA E TECNOLOGIA. Diretrizes metodológicas: elaboração de revisão sistemática e metanálise de ensaios clínicos randomizados. Brasília: Editora do Ministério da Saúde, 2012. (Série A: Normas e Manuais Técnicos).
MIYAMOTO, S. T. et al. Brazilian version of the Berg balance scale. Brazilian Journal of Medical and Biological Research, v.37, p.1411–1421, 2004.
MOHER, D. et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v.62, n.10, p.1006–1012, 2009.
MUNN, Z. et al. What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. BMC Medical Research Methodology, v.18, p.5, 2018.
NAGATA, C. de A. et al. Are Dose-Response Relationships of Resistance Training Reliable to Improve Functional Performance in Frail and Pre-Frail Older Adults? A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression of Randomized Controlled Trials. Ageing Research Reviews, v.91, p.102079, 2023.
NIKOLAKOPOULOU, A. et al. CINeMA: An approach for assessing confidence in the results of a network meta-analysis. PLOS Medicine, v.17, n.4, p.e1003082, 2020.
OLIVEIRA, R. F. de et al. Efeito de uma sessão e de múltiplas sessões de autoliberação miofascial: revisão sistemática. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, v.28, p.358-367, 2022.
ORWIN, R. G. A Fail-Safe N for Effect Size in Meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Statistics, v.8, n.2, p.157–159, 1983.
PACHECO, T. B. F. et al. Effectiveness of exergames for improving mobility and balance in older adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Systematic Reviews, v.9, n.1, p.163, 2020.
PAGE, M. J. et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, v.372, n.160, 2021a.
PAGE, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, v.372, n.71, 2021b.
PAGE, M. J.; HIGGINS, J. P. T.; STERNE, J. A. C. Chapter 13: Assessing risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis. In: HIGGINS, J. P. T. et al. (ed.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. [S. l.]: version 6.4 (updated August 2023). The Cochrane Collaboration, 2017.
PERRIER-MELO, R. J. et al. Efeito Agudo do Exercício Intervalado versus Contínuo sobre a Pressão Arterial: Revisão Sistemática e Metanálise. Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia, v.115, n.1, p.5-14, 2020.
PESCATELLO, L. S. et al. Exercise for Hypertension: A Prescription Update Integrating Existing Recommendations with Emerging Research. Current Hypertension Reports, v.17, n.11, p.1-10, 2015.
PETERS, J. L. et al. Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v.61, n.10, p.991-996, 2008.
REIA, T. A. et al. Acute physical exercise and hypertension in the elderly: a systematic review. Revista Brasileira de Medicina do Esporte, v.26, n.4, p.347-353, 2020.
RIOS, M. A. et al. Exercícios físicos no controle de dor ou fadiga associadas às infecções virais: revisão sistemática. BrJP, v.5, p.248-257, 2022.
ROSENTHAL, R. The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, v.86, n.3, 1979.
SADOYU, S. et al. Methodological approaches for assessing certainty of the evidence in umbrella reviews: A scoping review. PLoS ONE, v.17, n.6, p.e0269009, 2022.
SAQUETTO, M. B. et al. Effects of water-based exercises on functioning of postmenopausal women: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Experimental Gerontology, v.166, p.111875, 2022.
SHEA, B. J. et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ, v.358, p.j4008, 2017.
SILVA, K. L. S. et al. The impact of exercise training on calf pump function, muscle strength, ankle range of motion, and health-related quality of life in patients with chronic venous insufficiency at different stages of severity: a systematic review. Jornal Vascular Brasileiro, v.20, p.e20200125, 2021.
SMART, N. A. et al. Validation of a new tool for the assessment of study quality and reporting in exercise training studies: TESTEX. International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare, v.13, n.1, p.9-18, 2015.
STERNE, J. A. C. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, v.366, p.l4898, 2019.
STERNE, J. A.; EGGER, M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. Journal of clinical epidemiology, v.54, n.10, p.1046-1055, 2001.
WHITING, P. et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, v.69, p.225-234, 2016.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Camilo Luis Monteiro Lourenço
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
Copyright
The submission of originals to Cenas Educacionais (Educational Scenes - CEDU) implies the transfer, by the authors, of the publication rights. The copyright for the manuscripts published in this journal is the author(s), with CEDU rights over the first publication. Authors(s) may only use the same results in other publications by explicitly indicating CEDU as the means of the original publication.
Creative Commons License
Except where otherwise specified, the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License license apply to the material published in this journal, which allows unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided the original publication is correctly cited.
This work is licensed with a License 