Updated brief recommendations onwriting and presenting systematic reviews: what’s new in PRISMA-2020 guidelines?

In this paper we present brief recommendations on planning, performing and presenting results of systematic reviews. Recent changes reflected in PRISMA-2020 statement have been taken into account. The article is not an official translation of PRISMA-2020 guidelines. It aims to assist Russian researchers to better understand the principles of writing systematic reviews, to see the difference between systematic and traditional reviews and to be able to present the results of information synthesis in accordance with international guidelines to ensure the interest of the international research audience.

1. Unguryanu T.N., Zhamaliyeva L.M., Grjibovski A.M. Brief recommendations on how to write and publish systematic reviews. West Kazakhstan Medical Journal, 2019, Vol. 61, No. 1, pp. 26–36 (In Russ.)]

2. Karpin V.A. Medical ecology of the Russian North: a systematic review of the relevance, achievements and perspectives. Human Ecology, 2021, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 4–11 (In Russ.). doi: 10.33396/1728-0869-2021-8-4-11.

3. Karpin V.A. Modern environmental aspects of radon isotopes natural emanation: a literature review. Human Ecology, 2020, Vol. 27, No. 6. pp. 34–40 (In Russ.). doi: 10.33396/1728-0869-2020-6-34-40.

4. Raitskaya L.K., Tikhonova E.V. Reviews as a promising kind of scholarly publication, its types and characteristics. Science Editor and Publisher, 2019, Vol. 4, No 3–4, pp. 131–139 (In Russ.). doi: 10.24069/2542-0267-2019-3-4-131-139.

5. Spiegel A.S., Belousova L.G., Khaikin M.B. Principles of evidence-based medicine as a methodological basis for the adoption of clinical and managerial decisions in dentistry. Bulletin of the Samara Scientific Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 2015, Vol. 17, No. 1–3, pp. 778–780 (In Russ.).

6. Kulakova E.N., Nastausheva T.L., Kondratjeva I.V. Scoping Review Methodology: History, Theory and Practice. Current Pediatrics, 2021, Vol. 20, No. 3, pp. 210–222 (In Russ.). doi: 10.15690/vsp.v20i3/2271.

7. Arksey H., O’Malley L. Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework // International Journal of Social Research Methodology: Theory and Practice. 2005. Vol. 8, No. 1. Р. 19–32. doi: 10.1080/1364557032000119616.

8. Grant M., Booth A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies // Health Information and Libraries Journal. 2009. Vol. 26, No. 2. Р. 91–108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471–1842.2009.00848.x

9. Munn Z., Peters M.D.J., Stern C., Tufanaru C., McArthur A., Aromataris E. Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach // BMC Med. Res. Methodol. 2018. Vol. 18, No. 1. Р. 143. doi: 10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x.

10. Peters M.D.J., Marnie G., Tricco A.C., Pollock D., Munn Z., Lyndsay A., McInerney P., Godfrey C.M., Khalil H. Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews // JBI Evid Synth. 2020. Vol. 18, No. 10. Р. 2119–2126. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-20-00167.

11. Moher D., Shamseer L., Clarke M., Ghersi D.,Liberati A., Petticrew M., Shekelle P., Stewart L.A. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement // Syst. Rev. 2015. Vol. 4, No. 1. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.

12. LukinaYu.V., Martsevich S.Yu., Kutishenko N.P. Systematic review and meta-analysis: pitfalls of methods. Ration Pharmacother. Cardiol., 2016, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 180–185 (In Russ.). doi: 10.20996/1819-6446-2016-12-2-180-185.

13. Koikov V.V. Good practice in writing a research publication. Part 2. Review article. J. Health Dev., 2018, Vol. 2, No. 27, pp. 47–55 (In Russ.).

14. Milchakov K.S. Doing an information study in medicine: tips about strategies and recourses for literature review. Science & Healthcare, 2019, Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 68–76 (In Russ.).

15. Fedyaeva V.K., Zhuravlev N.I., Galeeva Z.A. A systematic review of the clinical effectiveness of monitoring patients with diabetes mellitus using individual blood glucose meters with function of transmitting measurements via GSM channel or via the Internet. Diabetes Mellitus, 2019, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 328–335 (In Russ.). doi: 10.14341/DM9941.

16. Dyachenko D.Yu. Dyachenko S.V. Finite element method in computer simulation for improved patient care in dentistry: A systematic review. Kuban scientific medical bulletin, 2021, Vol. 28, No 5, pp. 98–116 (In Russ.). doi: 10.25207/1608-6228-2021-28-5-98-116.

17. Shubitidze M.M., Kosyreva T.F., Generalova Yu.A., Sheroziya M.G., Nedashkovsky A.A., Shubaeva V.S., Zoryan A.V. The use of the Carriere Motion 3d in orthodontist practice. А systematic review. Endodontics today, 2020, Vol. 18, No 2, pp. 62–67 (In Russ.). doi: 10.36377/1683-2981-2020-18-2-62-67.

18. Page M.J., McKenzie J.E., Bossuyt P.M., Boutron I., Hoffmann T.C., Mulrow C.D., Shamseer L., Tetzlaff J.M., Akl E.A., Brennan S.E., Chou R., Glanville J., Grimshaw J.M., Hróbjartsson A., Lalu M.M., Tianjing Li, Loder E.W., Mayo-Wilson E., McDonald S., McGuinness L.A., Stewart L.A., Thomas J., Tricco A.C., Welch V.A., Whiting P., Moher D. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews // BMJ. 2021. Vol. 372, No. 71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71.

19. Maksimov S.A., Tsygankova D.P., Danilchenko Ya.V., Shal’nova S.A., Zelenina A.A., Drapkina O.M. Associations between the characteristics of large national regions, individual alcohol consumption and tobacco smoking: a systematic review protocol // Human ecology. 2021. Vol. 28, No. 6. Р. 58–64. doi: 10.33396/1728-0869-2021-6-58-64.