Developing reporting checklist items from systematic review findings: a roadmap and lessons to be learned from ACCORD

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 174, pp. 111490

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To demonstrate how researchers can identify and translate reporting gaps from a systematic review into checklist items for reporting guidelines. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Good quality research reporting ensures transparency, reproducibility, and utility, facilitated by reporting guidelines. Conducting a systematic review is an essential step in the development of these guidelines. The Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) Network's toolkit (2010) assists researchers in this process and is due for an update to address current gaps and evolving research methods. One significant gap is the translation of systematic review findings into checklist items. Reflecting on our experience developing the ACcurate Consensus Reporting Document, we illustrate this translation process aiming to empower researchers developing reporting guidelines to address potential biases and promote transparency. We highlight the challenges faced and how they were addressed. RESULTS: The systematic review search process was iterative, involving multiple adjustments to balance precision and sensitivity. Excessively stringent exclusion criteria may lead to missed valuable insights, especially when studies offer relevant content. An information specialist was invaluable in developing the search strategy. Key lessons learned include the necessity of maintaining flexibility and openness during data extraction, continuous adaptation based on panelist feedback, and promoting clear communication through understandable language. These principles can guide the development of future reporting guidelines and the updating of the EQUATOR toolkit, promoting transparency and robustness in research reporting. CONCLUSION: Maintaining flexibility, capturing evolving insights, clear communication, and accommodating changes in research and technologies are key to translating systematic review findings into effective reporting checklists.

Authors 6

1. Esther J van Zuuren corresponding Aachen Department of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Centre

   Leiden University · Leiden University Medical Center

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands. Electronic address: e.j.van_zuuren@lumc.nl

   Department of Dermatology, Leiden University Medical Centre, Leiden, The Netherlands

2. Amy I Price

   Dartmouth College · Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice · BMJ Group (United Kingdom)

   Affiliation as printed

   The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College USA, Hanover, NH, USA; BMJ, London, UK

   BMJ, London, UK

   The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy & Clinical Practice Geisel School of Medicine, Dartmouth College USA, Hanover, NH, USA

3. Paul Blazey

   University of British Columbia

   Affiliation as printed

   Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

4. Ellen L. Hughes
   Affiliation as printed

   Camino Communications Ltd, Mansfield, UK

5. Zbys Fedorowicz
   Affiliation as printed

   Veritas Health Sciences Consultancy, Huntingdon, UK

6. Patrícia Logullo

   University of Oxford

   Affiliation as printed

   Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, and EQUATOR Network UK Centre, Oxford, UK