Why the study?
Guidance was needed for authors and peer reviewers on conducting and reporting systematic reviews to ensure transparency, structure, reproducibility, and accountability.
Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Design
Guideline article
Supports higher-quality evidence for clinical decisions in regional anesthesia; extends standardized reporting for systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
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) reported a review. This article provides guidelines for conducting and reporting the results of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in regional anesthesia and pain medicine.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: