Researcher profile

Lesley Stewart

· University of York

0Publications
0KT Citations
0KT h-index
0KT i10-index

KT metrics are calculated only from papers uploaded or published on KnowledgeTrend and citations matched between those KnowledgeTrend papers. Imported metadata and external citation counts are excluded.

Research interests

Research interests have not yet been added.

Academic profiles & contact

Publications

4 research records shown

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · BMJ · DOI 10.1136/bmj.n71

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.

Read paper
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
2019 · BMJ · DOI 10.1136/bmj.l4898

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.

Read paper
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
2018 · Annals of Internal Medicine · DOI 10.7326/m18-0850

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

Read paper
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement
2015 · Systematic Reviews · DOI 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Read paper

Co-authors

David Moher

Ottawa Hospital

3 shared publications
Tianjing Li

Johns Hopkins University

2 shared publications
Penny Whiting

University of Bristol

2 shared publications
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson

University of Southern Denmark

2 shared publications
Andrea C. Tricco

St. Michael's Hospital

2 shared publications
Matthew J. Page

Monash Health

2 shared publications
Elie A. Akl

Impact

2 shared publications
Isabelle Boutron

Inserm

2 shared publications
Larissa Shamseer

University of Ottawa

2 shared publications
Julian P. T. Higgins

MRC Biostatistics Unit

1 shared publication
Cynthia D. Mulrow

The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center

1 shared publication
Paul Shekelle

Southern California Reproductive Center

1 shared publication