NDLI: Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis

Content Provider	Springer Nature : BioMed Central
Author	Moher, David
Abstract	Systematic reviews are popular. A recent estimate indicates that 11 new systematic reviews are published daily. Nevertheless, evidence indicates that the quality of reporting of systematic reviews is not optimal. One likely reason is that the authors’ reports have received inadequate peer review. There are now many different types of systematic reviews and peer reviewing them can be enhanced by using a reporting guideline to supplement whatever template the journal editors have asked you, as a peer reviewer, to use. Additionally, keeping up with the current literature, whether as a content expert or being aware of advances in systematic review methods is likely be make for a more comprehensive and effective peer review. Providing a brief summary of what the systematic review has reported is an important first step in the peer review process (and not performed frequently enough). At its core, it provides the authors with some sense of what the peer reviewer believes was performed (Methods) and found (Results). Importantly, it also provides clarity regarding any potential problems in the methods, including statistical approaches for meta-analysis, results, and interpretation of the systematic review, for which the peer reviewer can seek explanations from the authors; these clarifications are best presented as questions to the authors.
Related Links	https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/counter/pdf/10.1186/s12916-015-0509-y.pdf
Ending Page	4
Page Count	4
Starting Page	1
File Format	HTM / HTML
ISSN	17417015
DOI	10.1186/s12916-015-0509-y
Journal	BMC Medicine
Issue Number	1
Volume Number	13
Language	English
Publisher	BioMed Central
Publisher Date	2015-11-02
Access Restriction	Open
Subject Keyword	Medicine Public Health Biomedicine Meta-analysis Peer review PRISMA Reporting guidelines Systematic review The EQUATOR Network Medicine/Public Health
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Medicine
Journal Impact Factor	7.1/2023
5-Year Journal Impact Factor	8.8/2023

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis

Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?—two systematic reviews

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Quality Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to PRISMA 2020 Guidelines: Results from Recently Published Papers in the Korean Journal of Radiology.

Taking advantage of unexpected WebCONSORT results

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network

Methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the association between sleep duration and hypertension

Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis

Similar Documents

Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA extension statement for network meta-analysis

Are child-centric aspects in newborn and child health systematic review and meta-analysis protocols and reports adequately reported?—two systematic reviews

PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Quality Reporting of Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis According to PRISMA 2020 Guidelines: Results from Recently Published Papers in the Korean Journal of Radiology.

Taking advantage of unexpected WebCONSORT results

Impact of interventions to improve the quality of peer review of biomedical journals: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network

Methodological and reporting quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the association between sleep duration and hypertension

Optimal strategies to consider when peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis