Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Mar 1;23(3):517-526.
doi: 10.11124/JBIES-24-00308. Epub 2025 Jan 20.

Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: a scoping review protocol

Affiliations

Update to the PRISMA guidelines for network meta-analyses and scoping reviews and development of guidelines for rapid reviews: a scoping review protocol

Areti Angeliki Veroniki et al. JBI Evid Synth. .

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this scoping review is to develop a list of items for potential inclusion in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guidelines for network meta-analysis (NMA), scoping reviews (ScRs), and rapid reviews (RRs).

Introduction: The PRISMA extensions for NMA and ScRs were published in 2015 and 2018. However, since then, their methodologies and innovations, including automation, have evolved. There is no reporting guideline for RRs. In 2020, an updated PRISMA statement was published, reflecting advances in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. These advances are not yet incorporated into these PRISMA extensions. We will update our previous methods for scoping reviews to inform the update of PRISMA-NMA and PRISMA-ScR as well as the development of the PRISMA-RR reporting guidelines.

Inclusion criteria: This review will include any study design evaluating the completeness of reporting, offering reporting guidance, or assessing methods relevant to NMA, ScRs, or RRs. Editorial guidelines and tutorials that describe items related to reporting completeness will also be eligible.

Methods: We will follow the JBI guidance for scoping reviews. For each PRISMA extension, we will i) search multiple electronic databases from inception to present, ii) search for unpublished studies, and iii) scan the reference lists of included studies. There will be no language limitations. Screening and data extraction will be conducted by 2 researchers independently. A third researcher will resolve discrepancies. We will conduct frequency analyses of the identified items. The final list of items will be considered for potential inclusion in the relevant PRISMA reporting guidelines.

Review registration: NMA protocol (OSF: osf.io/7bkwy ); ScR protocol (OSF: osf.io/7bkwy ); RR protocol (OSF: osf.io/3jcpe ); EQUATOR registration link: https://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/reporting-guidelines-under-development-for-systematic-reviews/.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

BH has previously received honoraria from Eversana Inc. for the provision of methodologic advice related to systematic reviews and meta-analysis. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. Hoffmann F, Allers K, Rombey T, Helbach J, Hoffmann A, Mathes T, et al. Nearly 80 systematic reviews were published each day: observational study on trends in epidemiology and reporting over the years 2000-2019. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;138:1-11. - PubMed
    1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet 2014: 383(9912):156-65. - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JP, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 2014: 383(9912):166-75. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Ghassemi M, Nincic V, Lillie E, Page MJ, et al. Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol 2018;96:133-42. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources