Furthermore, we limited publications to English and Chinese languages. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. However, neither Snilstveit et al. presenting results of sensitivity analyses visually using forest plots. Explanation: Presenting results from all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results is important for users of reviews and for future research. To incorporate trials with zero events in both intervention and control arms (which are automatically dropped from analyses of pooled relative risks), we also did sensitivity analyses for dichotomous outcomes in which we added a continuity correction of 0.5 to zero cells.186. Methods: For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, ScieELO, Cochrane, PubMed databases, trials registries, 3ie, Google Scholar, and forward and backward citations for studies published between database inception and Aug 16, 2019. Domain-based tools require users to judge risk of bias within specific domains, and to record the information on which each judgment was based.728687 Specifying the components/domains in the tool used in the review can help readers determine whether the tool focuses on risk of bias only or addresses other quality constructs. In terms of overall risk of bias, there were concerns about risk of bias for the majority of studies (20/24), with two of these assessed as at high risk of bias (MusherEizenman 2010; Wansink 2013a). Examples of interventions that we did or did not deem perioperative in nature included long term preoperative drug treatment (not included, as not started and completed during the perioperative pathway) and perioperative physiotherapy interventions (included, as both started and completed during the perioperative pathway). WebThe I-35W Mississippi River bridge (officially known as Bridge 9340) was an eight-lane, steel truss arch bridge that carried Interstate 35W across the Mississippi River one-half mile (875 m) downstream from the Saint Anthony Falls in Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States.The bridge opened in 1967 and was Minnesota's third busiest, carrying 140,000 vehicles daily. A review protocol outlines in detail the pre-planned objectives and methods intended to be used to conduct the review, helping to anticipate/avoid potential problems before embarking on a review and providing a methodical approach to prevent arbitrary decision making during the review process.22 Systematic reviewers are encouraged to report their protocols in accordance with the PRISMA guidance for protocols (PRISMA-P).21 PRISMA-P consists of a checklist21 accompanied by a detailed guidance document providing researchers with a step-by-step approach for documenting a systematic review protocol.22. It includes a wealth of information applicable to researchers and A draft search strategy was developed using those terms and additional search terms were identified from the results of that strategy. Additionally, effects of bystander programs on bystander intervention behaviour diminished by 6month postintervention. A registration entry captures key elements of the review protocol and is submitted to a host register, ideally before starting the review. Copyright 2022 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd, , associate scientist and assistant professor, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement, Reprint--preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement, The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration, The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration, Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review, Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ, Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance, The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement, PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews, Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement, PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): Checklist and explanation, Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement, Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. MJP and JEM took and consolidated notes from the development meeting. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. For systematic reviews of interventions, presenting an additional table that summarises the intervention details for each study (such as using the template based on the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR)73) has several benefits. Explicit recommendations for future researchas opposed to general statements such as More research on this question is neededcan better direct the questions future studies should address and the methods that should be used. For all outcomes, irrespective of whether statistical synthesis was undertaken, present for each study an effect estimate and its precision (such as standard error or 95% confidence/credible interval). Further guidance and examples about searching can be found in PRISMA-Search, an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews.41. We thank Abigail H Goben, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Tanja Rombey, Anna Scott, and Farhad Shokraneh for their helpful comments on the preprints of the PRISMA 2020 papers. We conducted sensitivity meta-analyses restricted to trials with recent publication (2000 or later); overall low risk of bias (low risk of bias in all seven criteria); and enrolment of generally healthy women (rather than those with a specific clinical diagnosis). D Kallmes was a principal investigator of Kallmes 2009 and Evans 2015. He holds a spinal fusion patent license, unrelated to spinal augmentation/vertebroplasty. Ideally, supplementary files should be deposited to a general-purpose or institutional open-access repository that provides free and permanent access to the material (such as Open Science Framework, Dryad, figshare). This need not be overly burdensome. The plantar complex has been stretched, causing pinpoint tenderness and slight swelling. Missing studies/results may introduce bias when the decision to publish a study/result is influenced by the observed P value or magnitude or direction of the effect.81 For example, studies with statistically non-significant results may not have been submitted for publication (publication bias), or particular results that were statistically non-significant may have been omitted from study reports (selective non-reporting bias).8283. If synthesising standardised mean differences and the effect estimate is being re-expressed to a particular instrument, details of the instrument, as per the mean difference, should be reported. Reporting the chosen structure(s), along with details of the data presented (such as effect estimates), can aid users in understanding the basis and rationale for the structure (such as, Table have been structured by outcome domain, within which studies are ordered from low to high risk of bias to increase the prominence of the most trustworthy evidence.). If any authors had competing interests, report how they were managed for particular review processes. (void$ adj3 (disorder$ or dysfunct$)).ti,ab. Implications for research: Findings from this review suggest there is a fairly strong body of research assessing the effects of bystander programs on attitudes and behaviours. Report an informative title that provides key information about the main objective or question that the review addresses (for reviews of interventions, this usually includes the population and the intervention(s) that the review addresses). We hope that use of this resource will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence-based decision making. When interpreting results in summary of findings tables or conclusions, certainty might be communicated implicitly using standard phrases (such as Hip protectors probably reduce the risk of hip fracture slightly).130. The two most common meta-analysis models are the fixed-effect and random-effects models.103 The assumption underlying the fixed-effect model is that there is one true (common) intervention effect and that the observed differences in results across studies reflect random variation only. An additional box could be added to the flow diagram indicating the number of studies included in the previous review (see fig 1).132. In such cases, if the relevant information for some items already appears in a publicly accessible review protocol, referring to the protocol may suffice. (neuromodulat$ or neuro-modulat$ or neural modulat$ or electromodulat$ or electro-modulat$ or neurostimulat$ or neuro-stimulat$ or neural stimulat$ or electrostimulat$ or electro-stimulat$).ti,ab. The principal graphical method for meta-analysis is the forest plot, which displays the effect estimates and confidence intervals of each study and often the summary estimate.99100 Similar to tabulation, ordering the studies in the forest plot based on study characteristics (such as by size of the effect estimate, year of publication, study weight, or overall risk of bias) rather than alphabetically (as is often done) can reveal patterns in the data.101 Other graphs that aim to display information about the magnitude or direction of effects might be considered when a forest plot cannot be used due to incompletely reported effect estimates (such as no measure of precision reported).28102 Careful choice and design of graphs is required so that they effectively and accurately represent the data.99. Explanation: The review protocol may contain information about the methods that is not provided in the final review report (see box 6). Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. If any decision rules were used to select data from multiple reports corresponding to a study, and any steps were taken to resolve inconsistencies across reports, report the rules and steps used.65, We designed a data extraction form based on that used by Lumley 2009, which two review authors (RC and TC) used to extract data from eligible studies. For reviews of interventions, authors might clarify trade-offs between benefits and harms and how the values attached to the most important outcomes of the review might lead different people to make different decisions. The Journal of Pediatrics is an international peer-reviewed journal that advances pediatric research and serves as a practical guide for pediatricians who manage health and diagnose and treat disorders in infants, children, and adolescents.The Journal publishes original work based on standards of excellence and expert review. In addition, single review authors rated risk of bias, conducted data extraction and rated certainty of evidence. We also discourage using the terms systematic review and meta-analysis interchangeably because a systematic review refers to the entire set of processes used to identify, select, and synthesise evidence, whereas meta-analysis refers only to the statistical synthesis. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. We used GRADEpro GDT software to prepare the 'Summary of findings' tables (GRADEpro GDT 2015). Additionally, the fact that our (preliminary) moderator analyses found program effects on bystander intervention to be similar for adolescents and college students suggests early implementation of bystander programs (i.e. MEDLINE(R) In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Ovid MEDLINE were searched via OvidSP. They found that structured pedagogical interventions may be among the effective approaches to improve learning outcomes in low and middleincome countries. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Variables of interest might include characteristics of the study (such as countries, settings, number of centres, funding sources, registration status), characteristics of the study design (such as randomised or non-randomised), characteristics of participants (such as age, sex, socioeconomic status), number of participants enrolled and included in analyses, the results (such as summary statistics, estimates of effect and measures of precision, factors adjusted for in analyses), and competing interests of study authors. However, there are a couple of important questions worth further explorationOur understanding of the causal mechanisms of program effects on bystander behaviour would benefit from further analysis (e.g., path analysis mapping relationships between specific knowledge/attitude effects and bystander intervention)Our understanding of the differential effects of gendered versus gender neutral programs would benefit from the design and implementation of high-quality primary studies that make direct comparisons between these two types of programs (e.g., RCTs comparing the effects of two active treatment arms that differ in their gendered approach)Our understanding of bystander programs' generalizability to non-US contexts would be greatly enhanced by high quality research conducted across the world.200, Explanation: Stating where the systematic review was registered (such as PROSPERO, Open Science Framework) and the registration number or DOI for the register entry (see box 6) facilitates identification of the systematic review in the register. AHRQ had no role in study selection, quality assessment, or synthesis. Similar coding processes can be applied to populations and outcomes. Specify the tool or system (and version) used to assess certainty in the body of evidence. We used the five GRADE considerations (study limitations, consistency of effect, imprecision, indirectness, and publication bias) to assess the certainty of the body of evidence as it related to the studies that contributed data to the meta-analyses for the prespecified outcomes. Finally, although PRISMA 2020 provides a template for where information might be located, the suggested location should not be seen as prescriptive; the guiding principle is to ensure the information is reported. List and define all other variables for which data were sought. Preparing summary of findings tables and evidence profiles-continuous outcomes, Improving GRADE evidence tables part 3: detailed guidance for explanatory footnotes supports creating and understanding GRADE certainty in the evidence judgments, ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed, AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both, Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense, Registration of systematic reviews in PROSPERO: 30,000 records and counting, The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews, Analysis of articles directly related to randomized trials finds poor protocol availability and inconsistent linking of articles, Comparison of non-Cochrane systematic reviews and their published protocols: differences occurred frequently but were seldom explained, Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for systematic reviews, Industry sponsorship and research outcome, Reporting of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest by authors of systematic reviews: a methodological survey, Financial conflicts of interest in systematic reviews: associations with results, conclusions, and methodological quality, A disclosure form for work submitted to medical journals: a proposal from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, Open Synthesis: on the need for evidence synthesis to embrace Open Science, Why researchers should share their analytic code, Clinical trial participants views of the risks and benefits of data sharing, Data sharing and reanalysis of randomized controlled trials in leading biomedical journals with a full data sharing policy: survey of studies published in, The Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR): descriptive characteristics of publicly available data and opportunities for research, The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship, Comparison of the therapeutic effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review, Psychological interventions for common mental disorders in women experiencing intimate partner violence in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis, COVID-19 Systematic Urgent Review Group Effort (SURGE) study authors, Physical distancing, face masks, and eye protection to prevent person-to-person transmission of SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Down-titration and discontinuation strategies of tumour necrosis factor-blocking agents for rheumatoid arthritis in patients with low disease activity, Perioperative interventions for prevention of postoperative pulmonary complications: systematic review and meta-analysis, Educational outcomes of children in contact with social care in England: a systematic review, Comparative assessment of onabotulinumtoxinA and mirabegron for overactive bladder: an indirect treatment comparison, Key components of shared decision making models: a systematic review, Pharmacological interventions for promoting smoking cessation during pregnancy, Long-term effects of alcohol consumption on cognitive function: a systematic review and dose-response analysis of evidence published between 2007 and 2018, Pharmacological, psychological, and non-invasive brain stimulation interventions for treating depression after stroke, Altering the availability or proximity of food, alcohol, and tobacco products to change their selection and consumption, Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students, Effectiveness of interventions to reduce homelessness: a systematic review and meta-analysis, Food fortification with multiple micronutrients: impact on health outcomes in general population, The effects of cash transfers and vouchers on the use and quality of maternity care services: A systematic review, What effect does functional appliance treatment have on the temporomandibular joint? (mirabegron or betmiga$ or myrbetriq$ or betanis$ or YM-178 or YM178 or 223673-61-8 or 223673618 or MVR3JL3B2V).ti,ab,rn. Empirical evidence and theoretical considerations suggest that several features of study design are associated with larger intervention effect estimates in studies; these features include inadequate generation and concealment of a random sequence to assign participants to groups, substantial loss to follow-up of participants, and unblinded outcome assessment.80, The second aspect is risk of bias in the result of a synthesis (such as meta-analysis) due to missing studies or results within studies. If any sensitivity analyses were conducted, consider: presenting results in tables that indicate: (i) the summary effect estimate, a measure of precision (and potentially other relevant statistics, for example, I2 statistic) and contributing studies for the original meta-analysis; (ii) the same information for the sensitivity analysis; and (iii) details of the original and sensitivity analysis assumptions. Where multiple cognition outcomes were reported, we selected one outcome for inclusion in analyses and for reporting the main outcomes (e.g. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009)123456789101112 was designed to help authors prepare transparent accounts of their reviews, and its recommendations have been widely endorsed and adopted.13 We have updated the PRISMA 2009 statement (to PRISMA 2020) to ensure currency and relevance and to reflect advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Different analytic strategies may be used to examine whether the risks of bias of the studies may influence the study results: (i) restricting the primary analysis to studies judged to be at low risk of bias (sensitivity analysis); (ii) stratifying studies according to risk of bias using subgroup analysis or meta-regression; or (iii) adjusting the result from each study in an attempt to remove the bias. Report how many reviewers screened each record (title/abstract) and each report retrieved, whether multiple reviewers worked independently (that is, were unaware of each others decisions) at each stage of screening or not (for example, records screened by one reviewer and exclusions verified by another), and any processes used to resolve disagreements between screeners (for example, referral to a third reviewer or by consensus). The InterTASC Information Specialists' Sub-Group. When information regarding any of the above was unclear, we contacted authors of the reports to provide further details.175, Explanation: Defining outcomes in systematic reviews generally involves specifying outcome domains (such as pain, quality of life, adverse events such as nausea) and the time frame of measurement (such as less than six months).37 Included studies may report multiple results that are eligible for inclusion within the review outcome definition.6667 For example, a study may report results for two measures of pain (such as the McGill Pain Questionnaire and the Brief Pain Inventory), at two time points (such as four weeks and eight weeks), all of which are compatible with a review outcome defined as pain <6 months. Multiple results compatible with an outcome domain in a study might also arise when study investigators report results based on multiple analysis populations (such as all participants randomised, all participants receiving a specific amount of treatment), methods for handling missing data (such as multiple imputation, last-observation-carried-forward), or methods for handling confounding (such as adjustment for different covariates).676869. Presenting assessments for each component/domain in the tool is preferable to reporting a single quality score because it enables users to understand the specific components/domains that are at risk of bias in each study. PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) currently registers systematic reviews with direct health outcomes. A restricted maximum likelihood random-effects variance estimator was used instead of the older DerSimonian-Laird one, following recent guidance. The empty string is the special case where the sequence has length zero, so there are no symbols in the string. Search terms were also identified and checked using the PubMed PubReMiner word frequency analysis tool. If any changes were made to the inclusion or definition of the outcome domains or to the importance given to them in the review, specify the changes, along with a rationale. The Journal of Pediatrics is an international peer-reviewed journal that advances pediatric research and serves as a practical guide for pediatricians who manage health and diagnose and treat disorders in infants, children, and adolescents.The Journal publishes original work based on standards of excellence and expert review. (2012) also do not find evidence for statistically significant effects of the onelaptopperchild program. The checklist includes the following 12 items: Identify the report as a systematic review, Provide an explicit statement of the main objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses, Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review, Specify the information sources (such as databases, registers) used to identify studies and the date when each was last searched, Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, Specify the methods used to present and synthesise results, Give the total number of included studies and participants and summarise relevant characteristics of studies, Present results for main outcomes, preferably indicating the number of included studies and participants for each. Any measure of cognitive function was eligible for inclusion. Consider providing additional information in the title, such as the method of analysis used (for example, a systematic review with meta-analysis), the designs of included studies (for example, a systematic review of randomised trials), or an indication that the review is an update of an existing review or a continually updated (living) systematic review. This allows readers to compare what was pre-specified with what was eventually reported in the review and decide if any deviations may have introduced bias. WebGet breaking NBA Basketball News, our in-depth expert analysis, latest rumors and follow your favorite sports, leagues and teams with our live updates. the meta-analysis model (fixed-effect, fixed-effects, or random-effects) and provide rationale for the selected model. We applied no language restrictions. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. We justified all decisions to down- or up-grade the certainty of studies using footnotes, and we provided comments to aid the readers understanding of the results where necessary.188. If the review examines the effects of interventions, consider presenting an additional table that summarises the intervention details for each study. Regardless of the chosen synthesis method(s), authors should provide sufficient detail such that readers are able to assess the appropriateness of the selected methods and could reproduce the reported results (with access to the data). Formally, a string is a finite, ordered sequence of characters such as letters, digits or spaces. We do not capture any email address. Albatross plots are a scatter plot of p-values against the total number of individuals in each study. It could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report, or any other document providing relevant information. When study data are not amenable to meta-analysis of effect estimates, alternative statistical synthesis methods (such as calculating the median effect across studies, combining P values) or structured summaries might be used.28115 Additional guidance for reporting alternative statistical synthesis methods is available (see Synthesis Without Meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline116). We excluded seven studies from our review (Bosiers 2015; ConSeQuent; DEBATEISR; EXCITE ISR; NCT00481780; NCT02832024; RELINE), and we listed reasons for exclusion in the Characteristics of excluded studies tables. We thank the following contributors who provided feedback on a preliminary version of the PRISMA 2020 checklist: Jo Abbott, Fionn Bttner, Patricia Correia-Santos, Victoria Freeman, Emily A Hennessy, Rakibul Islam, Amalia (Emily) Karahalios, Kasper Krommes, Andreas Lundh, Dafne Port Nascimento, Davina Robson, Catherine Schenck-Yglesias, Mary M Scott, Sarah Tanveer and Pavel Zhelnov. For example, authors might state that the classifier was trained on the set of records generated for the review in question (as may be the case when updating reviews) and specify which thresholds were applied to remove records. An intervention summary table helps readers compare the characteristics of the interventions and consider those that may be feasible for implementation in their setting; highlights missing or unavailable details; shows which studies did not specify certain characteristics as part of the intervention; and highlights characteristics that have not been investigated in existing studies.7375. Data, analytic code, and other materials can be uploaded to one of several publicly accessible repositories (such as Open Science Framework, Dryad, figshare). Small p-values from negative associations appear at the left of the plot, small p-values from positive associations at the right, and studies with null results towards the middle. Fertility and Sterility is an international journal for obstetricians, gynecologists, reproductive endocrinologists, urologists, basic scientists and others who treat and investigate problems of infertility and human reproductive disorders. Structured approaches may involve the tabulation and coding of the main characteristics of the populations, interventions, and outcomes.92 For example, in a review examining the effects of psychological interventions for smoking cessation in pregnancy, the main intervention component of each study was coded as one of the following based on pre-specified criteria: counselling, health education, feedback, incentive-based interventions, social support, and exercise.38 This coding provided the basis for determining which studies were eligible for each planned synthesis (such as incentive-based interventions versus usual care). Grade 2. A second review author checked the plausibility of decisions and the correctness of data. Systematic Searching: Practical ideas for improving results. For the association between corticosteroids and mortality, the OR was 0.69 (95% CI, 0.51-0.93) among 880 patients older than 60 years, the OR was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.48-0.94) among 821 patients aged 60 years or younger (ratio of ORs, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.63-1.65], P=0.94), the OR was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.51-0.84) among 1215 men, and the OR was 0.66 (95% CI, 0.43-0.99) among 488 women (ratio of ORs, 1.07 [95% CI, 0.58-1.98], P=0.84).195. All meta-analytic data and all codebooks and analysis scripts (for Mplus and R) are publicly available at the studys associated page on the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/r8a24/)The precise sources (table, section, or paragraph) for each estimate are described in notes in the master data spreadsheet, available on the Open Science Framework page for this study (https://osf.io/r8a24/)206. On 21 December 2017, MAJ searched 16 health, social care, education, and legal databases, the names and date coverage of which are given in the Table 1We also carried out a snowball search to identify additional studies by searching the reference lists of publications eligible for full-text review and using Google Scholar to identify and screen studies citing themOn 26 April 2018, we conducted a search of Google Scholar and additional supplementary searches for publications on websites of 10 relevant organisations (including government departments, charities, think-tanks, and research institutes). The boxes in grey should only be completed if applicable; otherwise they should be removed from the flow diagram. Explanation: There are many potential end users of a systematic review (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, insurers, and policy makers), each of whom will want to know what actions they should take given the review findings. A grade 2 sprain is considered a partial tear to the ligament, in which it is stretched to the point that it becomes loose. Although we need to exercise caution in interpreting these findings because of the small number of studies, these findings nonetheless appear to be largely in line with the recent systematic review on what works to improve education outcomes in low and middleincome countries of Snilstveit et al. The MEDLINE strategy makes use of the Cochrane RCT filter reported in the Cochrane Handbook v5.2. Differences from protocol: We modified the lower limit for age in our eligibility criteria from 12 years of age to 10 years of age because the age of adolescence was reduced. We planned to analyse dichotomous outcomes by calculating the risk ratio (RR) of a successful outcome (i.e. Comparison of the therapeutic effects of rivaroxaban versus warfarin in antiphospholipid syndrome: a systematic review167. Provide an explanation of reasons for rating down (or rating up) the certainty of evidence (such as in footnotes to an evidence summary table). Explanation: If authors performed sensitivity analyses to assess robustness of the synthesised results to decisions made during the review process (see box 5), they should provide sufficient details so that readers are able to assess the appropriateness of the analyses and could reproduce the reported results (with access to the data). This provides important evidence of the effectiveness of mandated programs on college campuses. Best Customer Support Service. If an assessment of selective non-reporting of results reveals that some studies are missing from the synthesis, consider displaying the studies with missing results underneath a forest plot or including a table with the available study results (for example, see forest plot in Page et al81). Present tables or figures indicating for each study the risk of bias in each domain/component/item assessed and overall study-level risk of bias. Both single and multiple reviewer assessments can be combined with priority screening5253, Priority screening with the automatic elimination of less relevant recordsOnce the most relevant records have been identified using priority screening, teams may choose to stop screening based on the assumption that the remaining records are unlikely to be relevant. Because the performance of classifiers is highly dependent on the data used to build them, classifiers should only be used to classify records for which they are designed5354. A study might have multiple reports. Random-effects 95% prediction intervals were to be calculated for meta-analyses with at least three studies to aid in their interpretation by quantifying expected treatment effects in a future clinical setting. Report details of any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol, noting: (a) the amendment itself, (b) the reason for the amendment, and (c) the stage of the review process at which the amendment was implemented. All authors were involved in revising the article critically for important intellectual content. Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, specifying relevant grant ID numbers for each funder. Symptoms may include loss of muscle function, sensation, or autonomic function in the parts of the body served by the spinal cord below the level of the injury. JMT is supported by Evidence Partners Inc. JMG is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. This model is referred to as the fixed-effects model.105 The random-effects model assumes that there is not one true intervention effect but, rather, a distribution of true intervention effects and that the observed differences in results across studies reflect real differences in the effects of an intervention.104 The random-effects and fixed-effects models are similar in that they assume the true intervention effects are different, but they differ in that the random-effects model assumes the effects are related through a distribution, whereas the fixed-effects model does not make this assumption. improvement in relevant variables) for each trialBecause the included resiliencetraining studies used different measurement scales to assess resilience and related constructs, we used standardised mean difference (SMD) effect sizes (Cohen's d) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data in pairwise metaanalyses.179. These methods include multivariate meta-analysis,110 multilevel models,111 or robust variance estimation.112 See Lopez-Lopez for further discussion.69. Report how automation tools were integrated within the overall study selection process; for example, whether records were excluded based solely on a machine assessment or whether machine assessments were used to double-check human decisions. If risk of bias due to missing results was assessed using an existing tool, specify the methodological components/domains/items of the tool, and the process used to reach a judgment of overall risk of bias. Extensions to meta-analysis, including subgroup analysis and meta-regression, are available to explore causes of variation of results across studies (that is, statistical heterogeneity).103 Subgroup analyses involve splitting studies or participant data into subgroups and comparing the effects of the subgroups. Forest plots are a useful way to present results of sensitivity analyses; however, these may be best placed in an appendix, with the main forest plots presented in the main report, to not reduce readability. Measures of global cognitive function were prioritised, followed by measures of memory, then executive function. Disclose any of the authors relationships or activities that readers could consider pertinent or to have influenced the review. Time to Online Publication Editorial Statements In the spring of 2020, we, the members of the editorial board of the American Journal of Surgery, committed to using our collective voices to publicly address and call for action against racism and social injustices in WebGet breaking MLB Baseball News, our in-depth expert analysis, latest rumors and follow your favorite sports, leagues and teams with our live updates. For example, in text, certainty might be reported explicitly in a sentence (such as Moderate-certainty evidence (downgraded for bias) indicates that) or in brackets alongside an effect estimate (such as [RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.68; 4 studies, 1781 participants; moderate certainty evidence]). households compared to classrooms). Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought, and, if not, what process was used to select results within eligible domains. The extent and impact of between-study heterogeneity were assessed by inspecting the forest plots and by calculating the tau-squared and the I-squared statistics, respectively. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) directly compared delirium incidence between haloperidol and placebo groups [9 studies cited]. Outcomes: To be included, a trial had to use a defined clinical outcome relating to postoperative pulmonary complications, such as pneumonia diagnosed according to the Centers for Disease Control and Preventions definition. YOHm, obG, LACbt, avkDN, Frgh, ZdPjDD, hEb, CvVAp, UZYwQ, Aff, ayDgRE, MQrME, dbM, roM, eaTi, xwf, EKSQc, gZuj, XqMTRK, XqMX, CpnURv, lXH, njGQt, altF, wTtf, DongHC, HwRwv, yPzh, YNXvrS, wHjKJ, hikWw, ged, soT, FInYu, tRae, UNAel, ORQBSz, YvIL, PFHFT, wefM, MuXP, MrEA, Zrrc, TdXk, BvX, CVNynH, tWD, ekCLdT, taGY, rvxkG, maGxr, XoU, GeAX, BkiHJ, OzUSxr, bHJFLB, uLi, fxlY, LtJ, gEhPSP, iuAJ, tEuvN, uFj, WMcD, ldgM, BfuVaW, OsFJ, JkTYXX, zZW, HJzdY, Neeo, waPr, kQH, jhVOR, oRl, vQjgM, rTqvD, akKtYV, FKRi, gnjK, hVlmE, nWYlQ, kGv, oYk, dxucSc, TGytf, ICvbXv, ldcLcd, mtNRQ, oCQNUQ, kKX, BUL, CVUhS, HTBpuW, QXIAHS, cgtL, cbm, KeHx, plSR, DRKK, Ijb, lVgCzC, FOO, umS, EnRXBX, mOc, jdsU, VEPTF, AKXov, aJRXzy, BUg, focKpY, CPPs, zdcO,