PREPARING FOR A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW: PLANNING THE PROCESS - VIDEO 2 transcript 2 00:00 --> 00:13 Welcome to the 2nd video in our Conducting a Systematic Review, planning the process, class. In this video, we will address items from the PRISMA-P checklist's administrative and introductory sections. 3 00:14 --> 00:47 What is a systematic review protocol? The PRISMA-P statement defines it as "a document that presents an explicit plan for a systematic review. The protocol details the rationale and a priori methodological and analytical approach of the review." Your protocol is a recipe, a roadmap for your team to reference throughout the review process. Systematic reviews are rigorous and complex. Putting in the effort at the beginning to create a protocol will save you time and confusion down the road. 4 00:48 --> 01:18 You may have heard of the PRISMA statement, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses, which specifies what information you should include when writing up your review. It is recommended, though not required. PRISMA P is an extension of the PRISMA statement and specifies what should be reported in a protocol. It's a 17 item checklist, divided into three categories: administrative information, introductory information, and methods. 5 01:19 --> 01:55 Here is the PRISMA-P website. This is the full statement paper. This is the checklist you would follow. The explanation and elaboration (E & E) paper provides more detail and examples for each checklist item, should you need clarification. Here is the PRISMA-P checklist that we will be moving through today. We will not discuss every item. The items we do not address either do not require clarification, such as the protocol title, or are areas in which we do not have expertise to add. 6 01:56 --> 02:04 The first five items on the PRISMA P checklist specify administrative information, such as the protocol title. 7 02:05 --> 02:27 Item two: registration. If registered provide the name of the registry. If for example, you register your protocol on PROSPERO, you would specify that in the protocol. You won't receive a registration number from PROSPERO until your protocol is accepted, so you would go back in after the fact and update that information. 8 02:28 --> 03:26 There are several reasons to register your protocol, instead of keeping it as an internal document. Transparency: Someone reviewing your paper for a journal or reading your published review should be able to compare what you ultimately did to what you set out to do. Prevention of competing reviews: In the last video, we discussed checking to see if there's an existing or ongoing systematic review. Theoretically, if someone comes across your review in a registry, or any of the other places that you can register your protocol, they will back off. It's on the PRISMA checklist. So if you will say in your systematic review that you are adhering to the PRISMA guideline, then you need to register your protocol. It is recommended by most standards for systematic reviews, and more and more journal publishers expect authors to adhere to those standards. 9 03:27 --> 04:05 There are a few places you can register. PROSPERO, as discussed in the last video, is an online systematic review registry and is free. They accept only systematic reviews, not scoping reviews or other rigorous review types. There's also a journal called Systematic Reviews that publishes systematic, rapid, and scoping reviews and protocols. If your team is pursuing a scoping review, and you do not wish to formally publish your protocol in a journal, you might consider uploading it to DigitalHub (soon to be renamed), the institutional repository managed by Galter Library. 10 04:06 --> 04:54 Item three: authors. Names, affiliations, etc for all protocol authors. This is self-explanatory, but let's pause here to discuss who should be on your review team. You need to have a minimum of two team members and a minimum of two people screening records for your review. However many team members you have, they should bring the following expertise to the table. Subject matter (any reviewers or tiebreakers should have subject matter expertise). Searching for evidence (usually a librarian). An expert in statistics or whatever quantitative/qualitative methods you will use to synthesize data for your review. Lastly, an expert in systematic review methods. 11 04:55 --> 05:05 The introduction section of the PRISMA P checklist includes only two items, the rationale for and objectives of your review. 12 05:06 --> 05:36 Item 7: Objectives. Clearly state the question or questions your review will address, ideally using PICO, a framework for clinical questions. The P in PICO standards for population, problem or patient. The I stands for intervention (though it could also be an exposure or diagnostic test). C is for comparison or control. O is for outcomes. 13 05:37 --> 06:12 Let's look at a sample PICO for a review of early versus delayed feeding in patients with acute pancreatitis. The population of interest to the team was hospitalized adults with acute pancreatitis. Their intervention was early feeding, with delayed feeding as a comparison. Some outcomes of interest were length of stay, cost, symptoms, and other clinical outcomes. Your PICO will come in handy later on, when establishing eligibility criteria. 14 06:13 --> 06:20 To learn about the methods section on the PRISMA P checklist, please proceed to Video 3.