Skip to main content
Log in

A Neuropsychologist’s Guide To Undertaking a Systematic Review for Publication: Making the most of PRISMA Guidelines

  • Review
  • Published:
Neuropsychology Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

There is increasing impetus to improve the quality of research and scientific writing. Systematic reviews provide Class 1 research evidence, are based upon an established rigor and communicate results in a comprehensive manner, and are therefore particularly relevant to clinicians and researchers. Clinician requirements for quality systematic reviews are twofold: to keep up to date with research and to make informed decisions including those required for diagnoses, disease or risk assessment, and treatment. Researchers rely upon quality systematic reviews to compete for diminishing research funds, prove efficacy for intervention trials, and to meet increasing demand for evidence based intervention. However, insufficient systematic reviews are undertaken, and the methodological rigor and quality are often variable. The aim of this article is to guide researchers through the iterative systematic review process in order to improve quality and thereby increase publication rates. The step by step guide provides a road map through the EQUATOR network and practical suggestions in order to meet the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) (Moher et al. 2009) as well as encouraging high standards through the use of quality rating scales. Lastly, information is provided to encourage quantitative analysis to improve the synthesis of results and qualitative interpretation, such as calculating effect sizes or conducting a meta-analyses as the ultimate goal of a systematic review.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bax, L., Yu, L., Ikeda, N., & Moons, K. (2007). A systematic comparison of software dedicated to meta-analysis of causal studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 40. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-40.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Booth, A., Clarke, M., Dooley, G., Ghersi, D., Moher, D., Petticrew, M., et al. (2012). The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international register of systematic reviews. Systems Review, 1(1), 2.

  • Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bossuyt, P.M., Reitsma, J.B., Bruns, D.E., Gatsons, C.A., Glasziou P.P., et al. For the STARD group (2015). STARD 2015; An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies. BMJ 351:h5527.

  • Chelune, G. J. (2010). Evidence-Based research and practice in Clinical Neuropsychology. The Clinical Neuropsychologist., 24(3), 454–467.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clare, L., & Woods, T. R. (2004). Cognitive training and cognitive rehabilitation for people with early-stage Alzheimer's disease: A review. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 14(4), 385–401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M., & Smith, D. G. (1998). Bias in locatioon and selection of stuydies. British Medical Journal, 316(7124), 61–66.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis detection by a simple graphical test. British Medical Journal, 315, 629–634.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Faggion, C. M. (2015). Critical appraisal of AMSTAR: challenges, limitations, and potential solutions from the perspective of an assessor. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15, 63. doi:10.1186/s12874-015-0062-6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fleming, P. S., Koletsi, D., Seehra, J., & Pandis, N. (2014). Systematic reviews published in higher impact clinical journals were of higher quality. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 754–759.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gates, N., & Valenzuela, M. J. (2010). Cognitive exercise and its role in cogitive function in older adults. Current Psychiatry Reports, 12, 20–27.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gates, N., Fiatarone Singh, M. A., Sachdev, P. S., & Valenzuela, M. (2013). The Effect of Exercise Training on Cognitive Function in Older Adults with Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. The American Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry, 21(11), 1086–1097.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gianola, S., Gasparini, M., Agostini, M., Castellini, G., Corbette, D., Gozzer, P., et al. (2013). Survey of the reporting characteristics of systematic reviews in rehabilitation. Physical Therapy, 93(11), 1456–1466.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Glasziou, P., Altman, D. G., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Clarke, M., Julious, S., et al. (2014). Reducing waste from incomplete or unusab;e reports of biomedical research. Lancet, 383(9913), 267–276.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Hausner, E., Guddat, C., Hermanns, T., Lampert, U., & Waffenschmidt, S. (2015). Development of search strategies for systematic reviews: Validation showed the non-inferiority of the objective approach. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(2), 191–199.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Haynes, R. B., Devereaux, P. J., & Gyatt, G. H. (2002). Clinical expertise in the era of evidence-based medicine and patient choice. Evidence-Based Medicine, 7(2), 36–38. doi:10.1136/ebm.7.2.36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, J. P. T. (2011). The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. British Medical Journal, 343, d5928.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.

  • Huckans, M., Hutson, L., Twamley, E., Jak, A., Kaye, J., & Storzbach, D. (2013). Efficacy of cognitive rehabilitation therapies for mild cognitive impairment (MCI) in older adults: Working toward a theoretical model and evidence-based interventions. Neuropsychology Review, 1(23), 63–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ioannidis, J., Patsopoulos, N., & Evangelou, E. (2007). Uncertainty in hetergenoity estimates in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 335(7626), 914–916.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Kable, A. K., Pich, J., & Maslin-Prothero, S. E. (2012). A structured approach to documenting a search strategy for publication: a 12 step guideline for authors. Nurse Education Today, 31(8), 878–886.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Katikireddi, S. V., Egan, M., & Petticrew, M. (2015). How do systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessmemts into the synthesis of evidence? A methodological study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69, 189–195.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., et al. (2009). The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reveiws and Meta-Analyses of Studies that evaluate health care intervention: Explanation and Elaboration. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), W-65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liu, Z., Yao, Z., Li, C., Liu, X., Chen, H., & Gao, C. (2013). A step-by-step guide to the systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic and prognostic test accuracy evaluations. British Journal of Cancer, 108(11), 2299–2303.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Tsertsvadze, A., Tricco A., et al. (2008). When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Methods Review Group. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000023.pub3

  • Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. British Medical Journal, 339(b2535), 332–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Hopewell, S., Schulz, K. F., Montori, V., Gotzsche, P. C., Devereaux, P. J., et al. (2010). CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials.". British Medical Journal, 340, c869.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement. Systematic reviews, 4(1), 1.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pieper, D., Buechter, R. B., Li, L., Prediger, B., & Eikermann, M. (2015). Systematic review found AMSTAR, but not R(evised)-AMSTAR, to have good measurement properties. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(5), 574–583.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Popovich, I., Windsor, B., Jordan, V., Showell, M., & Shea, B. (2012). Methodological quality of systematic reviews in subfertility: A comparison of two differnt approaches. PloS One, 7(12), e50403.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Prince, M., Bryce, R., Albanese, E., Wimon, A., Ribeiro-CleusaW., & PFerri, P. (2013). "The global prevalence of dementia: A systematic review and meta-analysis." Alzheimer's & Dementia 9, 63–75.

  • Rey–Casserly, C., Roper, B. L., & Bauer, R. M. (2012). Application of a competency model to clinical neuropsychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 43(5), 422–431.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (Eds.) (2005). Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments. Chichester, UK: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sackett, D. L., Rosenberg, W. M., Gray, J. A., Haynes, R. B., & Richardson, W. S. (1996). Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. British Medical Journal, 312, 71–72.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research synthesis (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, California USA: Sage.

  • Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., et al. (2014). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboratrion and explanation. British Medical Journal, 349, g7647.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shea, B. J., Grimshaw, J. M., Wells, G. A., Boers, M., Andersson, N., Hamel, C., et al. (2007). Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, 10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Simera, I., Moher, D., Hirst, A., Hoey, J., Schulz, K. F., & Altman, D. G. (2010). Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Medicine, 8, 24.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Sterne, J. A. C., Sutton, A. J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Jones, D. R., Lau, J. L., et al. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asyymetry in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343, d4002.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stovold, E., Beecher, D., Foxlee, R., & Noel-Storr, A. (2014). Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: and adepted PRISMA flow diagram. Systematic reviews, 3, 54–58.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Tate, R. L., & Douglas, J. (2011). Use of reporting guidleines in scientific writing: PRISMA, CONSORT, STROBE, STARD and other resources. Brain Impairment, 12(1), 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Heugten, C., Gregorio, G. W., & Wade, D. (2012). Evidence-based rehabilitationafter Acquired brain injury: A systematic review of content and treatment. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation, 22(5), 653–673.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gotzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007). Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement guidelines for reporting observational studies. Annals of Internal Medicine, 147(8), 573–577.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiting, P., et al. (2016). ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69, 225–234.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Zeng, X., Zhang, Y., Kwong, J. S. W., Zhang, C., Zhang, C., Li., S., et al. (2015). The methodological quality assessment tools for preclinical and clinical studies, systematic review and meta-analysis, and clinical practice guideline: a systematic review. Journal of Evidence Based Medicine, 8, 2–10.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicola J. Gates.

Ethics declarations

Funding

Neither NG nor EM received any funding support.

Glossary

AMSTAR

Assessing the Methodological quality of Systematic Reviews

CAT

Critical Appraisal Tool

CEBM

Oxford Centre of Evidence-Based Medicine

CONSORT

Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials

EBNP

Evidence Based Neuropsychological Practice

EQUATOR

Enhancing the Quality And Transparency Of health Research

MESH

Medical Subject Headings

PICOS

Participants Interventions Control Outcome/s Study design

PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PRISMA

P Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-Protocols

PROSPERO

Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews

ROBIS

Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews

STARD

Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

STROBE

Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

SRDR

Systematic Review Data Repository

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Gates, N.J., March, E.G. A Neuropsychologist’s Guide To Undertaking a Systematic Review for Publication: Making the most of PRISMA Guidelines. Neuropsychol Rev 26, 109–120 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9318-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-016-9318-0

Keywords

Navigation