It is a methodological study of overviews of systematic reviews/meta-analyses in the field of Psychiatry, which aims to study methodologically whether the reporting guidelines of the PRIOR statement are already applied in the current literature. A part of the work has already been done (part of Table of Contents, Introduction, Methods, Data Extraction, Discussion, Conclusions, References) and I have uploaded the relevant material and sources that can be used to complete the work.
I ask you to take care of the completion of the task, i. e. the completion of the data extraction (Data_extraction_1. xlsx file, 5 columns for 60 studies), the statistical analysis via Rstudio (descriptive statistics only, no meta-analysis or hypothesis/correlations tests need to be done) and the writing of the `2. 6 field. Data analysis’ of the Methods describing the statistical analysis performed, the completion of the writing of the Results, the completion of the Discussion (main findings, limitations, implications) and the Conclusions based on the Results, the presentation of the data and results in appropriate Tables and Figures. I also ask you to write the Abstract at the end (up to 300 words). The total paper should be 8000-10000 words (not including Abstract, Tables, Figures, References, Appendices) and about 4000 words have already been written. The writing of the paper has to follow the guidelines of the PRISMA 2020 statement for systematic reviews, although it is not a genuine systematic review, but a methodological study, for which there are no reporting guidelines yet.
I attach the work that I have done (thesis_copy. doc, discussion-conclusions. doc)
Title: Reporting completeness of published overviews of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of interventions in the field of psychiatry: a methodological study using the PRIOR statement
This thesis aims to methodologically appraise the reporting characteristics and quality of published overviews of SRs and MAs of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for mental health outcomes, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement.
To this end, this thesis will describe the reporting characteristics of the relevant overviews for each PRIOR statement item and evaluate the degree to which these publications adhere to the PRIOR statement’s guidelines for reporting overviews of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions.
The data will be analysed using RStudio IDE for R. Appropriate summary measures will be used for the descriptive statistics (absolute frequencies and relative frequencies in percentages for the categorical data, median and interquartile range for the continuous data). The results will also be presented graphically (barplots for the frequency distributions).
The results of this analysis are expected to shed light on the reporting quality of overviews of interventions of the past 22 years, and to inform researchers, journal editors and policy makers about the applicability of the PRIOR statement guidelines as a method of standardisation of reporting, as well as about the existing gaps in reporting transparency.
This thesis aims to methodologically appraise the reporting characteristics and quality of published overviews of SRs and MAs of pharmacological or non-pharmacological interventions for mental health outcomes, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR) statement.
To this end, this thesis will describe the reporting characteristics of the relevant overviews for each PRIOR statement item and evaluate the degree to which these publications adhere to the PRIOR statement’s guidelines for reporting overviews of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions.
The data will be analysed using RStudio IDE for R. Appropriate summary measures will be used for the descriptive statistics (absolute frequencies and relative frequencies in percentages for the categorical data, median and interquartile range for the continuous data). The results will also be presented graphically (barplots for the frequency distributions).
The results of this analysis are expected to shed light on the reporting quality of overviews of interventions of the past 22 years, and to inform researchers, journal editors and policy makers about the applicability of the PRIOR statement guidelines as a method of standardisation of reporting, as well as about the existing gaps in reporting transparency.