Research institution
University of Southern Denmark
DK
2 researchers0 verified3 linked papers135,906 indexed citations
Researchers
Public research profiles associated with University of Southern Denmark.
Research from this institution
Publications linked through researcher authorship records.
2021 · BMJ · 102,011 citations
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
2019 · BMJ · 32,401 citations
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.
2021 · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · 1,494 citations
The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement: 208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder
BACKGROUND: Misconceptions about ADHD stigmatize affected people, reduce credibility of providers, and prevent/delay treatment. To challenge misconceptions, we curated findings with strong evidence base. METHODS: We reviewed studies with more than 2000 participants or meta-analyses from five or more studies or 2000 or more participants. We excluded meta-analyses that did not assess publication bias, except for meta-analyses of prevalence. For network meta-analyses we required comparison adjusted funnel plots. We excluded treatment studies with waiting-list or treatment as usual controls. From this literature, we extracted evidence-based assertions about the disorder. RESULTS: We generated 208 empirically supported statements about ADHD. The status of the included statements as empirically supported is approved by 80 authors from 27 countries and 6 continents. The contents of the manuscript are endorsed by 366 people who have read this document and agree with its contents. CONCLUSIONS: Many findings in ADHD are supported by meta-analysis. These allow for firm statements about the nature, course, outcome causes, and treatments for disorders that are useful for reducing misconceptions and stigma.