Content area
Full Text
Key words: meta-analysis as topic; periodicals as topic/standards; publishing/standards; oncology nursing
The number of systematic reviews in the literature has increased substantially to include "umbrella reviews" (Conn & Coon Sells, 2014) and systematic reviews of systematic reviews (Adam, Bond, & Murchie, 2015; Corry, While, Neenan, & Smith, 2015). The overall goal of a systematic review is to synthesize and appraise all relevant high-quality research in an effort to answer a specific research or clinical question. The key steps in a systematic review include "the selection of predefined objectives and eligibility criteria for studies, a reproducible methodology, a systematic search targeting all studies that meet the eligibility criteria, an evaluation of the validity of the study findings, and a synthesis and presentation of the findings of the included studies" (Cope, 2014, p. 208). These steps, particularly the reproducible methodology, demonstrate the importance of rigor and consistency to achieve reliable, valid research findings. Consistency is not only critical for the research process, but also is critical in research reporting. Several guidelines exist to promote consistency in research reporting. This article will present the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines and discuss implications and use in oncology nursing research.
As a result of an increase in published clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, research reporting guidelines were developed to promote uniformity. These include the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT), the Standards for Quality Improvement Reporting Excellence, and PRISMA, which specifically is devoted to systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA guidelines first were published in 1996 as part of the Quality of Reporting of Meta-Analyses statement, and, in a 2009 update, systematic reviews were added to meta-analyses and PRISMA became its own statement (Foster, 2012; Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Altman, 2009). The original intent of PRISMA was to improve on any inadequate or inaccurate reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the literature (Foster, 2012; Milner, 2015). PRISMA "encourages authors to describe steps taken to minimize bias and maximize accuracy in locating and selecting reports for inclusion, abstracting data from reports, and analyzing overall intervention effect" (Kearney, 2014, p. 86).
The 27-item PRISMA checklist is available at www.prisma-statement .org/statement.htm and covers what should be included in the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion,...