Read on Twitter
Introducing a @PRISMAStatement extension for ecology and evolutionary biology: #PRISMAEcoEvo.
Guidance on what to report or request when you write or review a systematic review & meta-analysis manuscript in #EcoEvo.
Open Access in Biological Reviews: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12721
(1/9)
Guidance on what to report or request when you write or review a systematic review & meta-analysis manuscript in #EcoEvo.
Open Access in Biological Reviews: https://doi.org/10.1111/brv.12721
(1/9)
User-friendly versions of the checklist: https://osf.io/t8qd2/ and https://prisma-ecoevo.shinyapps.io/checklist/
The #PRISMAEcoEvo main text includes: checklist items, explanations and elaborations, and comparisons between systematic review & meta-analysis practices in #EcoEvo and medicine.
(2/9)
The #PRISMAEcoEvo main text includes: checklist items, explanations and elaborations, and comparisons between systematic review & meta-analysis practices in #EcoEvo and medicine.
(2/9)
The Supporting Information https://osf.io/atwrk/ includes: how the guideline was developed (it started with a meeting between @dmoher and @itchyshin over three years ago); examples from published papers of each reporting item; and descriptions of two surveys.
(3/9)
(3/9)
First, we used #PRISMAEcoEvo to assess reporting quality of 102 #EcoEvo systematic review and meta-analysis papers (pub. 2010-2019).
The small subset of papers that mentioned a reporting guideline were better reported (all but one of these mentioned the original PRISMA).
(4/9)
The small subset of papers that mentioned a reporting guideline were better reported (all but one of these mentioned the original PRISMA).
(4/9)
Better reporting quality = more potential for others to build upon the review and calibrate their confidence in the review’s conclusions.
We’ve much room to improve! Low hanging fruit = reporting more details of how studies were found, screened, and how data were extracted. (5/9)
We’ve much room to improve! Low hanging fruit = reporting more details of how studies were found, screened, and how data were extracted. (5/9)
Second, we asked #EcoEvo authors/reviewers/editors of systematic review/meta-analysis papers for their perceptions of reporting standards, the proposed #PRISMAEcoEvo checklist, and the least commonly reported items (review registration and critical appraisal; see Table S5). (6/9)
Estimated reporting quality tended to be lower than the community’s perceptions, especially for the details of how studies were selected for inclusion in the review (suggesting a checklist could help both authors and reviewers when writing/reading these details). (7/9)
I really hope you will find the #PRISMAEcoEvo guideline and checklist helpful as an author or reviewer.
The Main Text and Supporting Information sections can be read, and returned to, out of order.
For questions/suggestions please see https://osf.io/gb5vx/wiki/home/. (8/9)
The Main Text and Supporting Information sections can be read, and returned to, out of order.
For questions/suggestions please see https://osf.io/gb5vx/wiki/home/. (8/9)
With many thanks to the wonderful (and patient!) #PRISMAEcoEvo team:
Malgorzata Lagisz; @Mikejennions; @KorichevaLab; @DanielWANoble; @TimParker88; Jessica Gurevitch; @mjpages; @metanutter; @dmoher and @itchyshin. (9/9).
Malgorzata Lagisz; @Mikejennions; @KorichevaLab; @DanielWANoble; @TimParker88; Jessica Gurevitch; @mjpages; @metanutter; @dmoher and @itchyshin. (9/9).
