PRISMA Guidlines considerations

[jdkent]

• Title: identify report as a systematic review
  • could automatically append "systematic review" to Studyset names, but there could be other uses for Studysets besides reviews like
    • machine learning applications
    • automatic large scale reviews
  • could be added as a part of the default name in the frontend
• Abstract:
  • has multiple components, some of which can go into the description field of a Studyset
    • identify reprot as systematic review (done in title)
    • Provide an explicit statement of the main objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses
      • could have some pop/ups suggestions for users in the platform
    • Specify inclusion/exclusion criteria for the review/
      • this information could fit into the metadata field of a dataset, not the description
    • Specify the information sources used to identify studies and the date each one was searched
      • many studies will be ingested on a rolling basis with information about where/when they came from, so this information will be a part of the studyset itself without having to manually input this information
    • specify methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies
      • unkown how this should/could be implemented (all studies automatically ingested need to be open access)
    • Specify the methods used to present and synthesise results
      • this will be specified in the meta-analysis specification and related software
    • Give the total number of included studies and participants and summarise relevant characteristics of studies
      • this can be automatically calculated from Study/Analysis Metadata.
    • Present results for main outcomes, preferably indicating the number of included studies and participants for each. If meta-analysis was done, report the summary estimate and confidence/credible interval. If comparing groups, indicate the direction of the effect (that is, which group is favoured)
      • this will be done with the results of the meta-analysis run with NiMARE.
    • Provide a brief summary of the limitations of the evidence included in the review (such as study risk of bias, inconsistency, and imprecision)
      • likely could not implement automatically, would be done in the writing process.
    • Provide a general interpretation of the results and important implications
      • to be done in user manuscript
    • Specify the primary source of funding for the review
      • could be done in description
    • Provide the register name and registration number
      • TBD