Why the study?
Guidance was needed for authors and peer reviewers conducting systematic reviews to adhere to transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability.
This article provides methodological guidelines to improve the transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability of systematic reviews in regional anesthesia and pain medicine.
Enhances reliability of evidence for regional anesthesia decisions; extends GRADE and heterogeneity standards for future systematic reviews.
In Part I of this series, we provide guidance for preparing a systematic review protocol. In this article, we highlight important steps and supplement with exemplars on conducting and reporting the results of a systematic review. We suggest how authors can manage protocol violations, multiplicity of outcomes and analyses, and heterogeneity. The quality (certainty) of the evidence and strength of recommendations should follow the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. It is our goal that Part II of this series provides valid guidance to authors and peer reviewers who conduct systematic reviews to adhere to important constructs of transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability. This will likely result in more rigorous systematic reviews being submitted for publication to the journals like Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine and Anesthesia & Analgesia .
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
D’Souza et al. (2023) conducted a review in Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine. Guidelines for performing systematic reviews was evaluated. This article provides guidance on conducting and reporting systematic reviews, including managing protocol violations, multiplicity, heterogeneity, and using the GRADE approach.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: