On 2017 Feb 07, Michelle Fiander commented:

Systematic Reviews (SRs) are a common publication format, but manuscripts frequently do not follow national or international guidance in the conduct or reporting of these reviews. This is not entirely surprising considering the time it takes to become fully (or moderately?!) conversant SR methodologies. With that said, journal editors and authors should engage methodologists to assess SR manuscripts in light of conduct standards (e.g. Cochrane, AHRQ or other) and reporting standards (PRISMA) to ensure systematic reviews fulfill their role of providing reliable, synthesized evidence to inform practice, policy and further research in health care.

This manuscript addresses an interesting and important topic--the impact of state regulations on nurse practitioners' contribution to health care in the US. Unfortunately, it is not clear what systematic review methodology was followed for the conduct or reporting of the review. Conduct standards include Cochrane Handbook; Finding What Works in Health Care (National Academy of Science, etc), among others. Reporting standards include PRISMA, and Cochrane MECIR. Below are 4 areas where this manuscript does not seem to adhere to standards.

1. Risk of Bias: Tool not described or referenced; data of RoB assessment for each study is not provided; seven (7) studies were excluded from the review based on risk of bias--which is not common practice.

Examples of RoB Tools: Cochrane RoB tool-- https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/ ROBINS (RoB for non-randomized studies)-- https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/

About RoB: http://methods.cochrane.org/bias/assessing-risk-bias-included-studies. Reporting RoB: http://prisma-statement.org

1. Search Methods: incomplete; not reproducible. A search strategy is described, but is not presented; thus there is no way for readers or methodologists to verify how the evidence base was identified, or if the searches identified the included studies. PRISMA and Cochrane MECIR Standards suggest including at least 1 search strategy "as run", e.g. showing number of results per line as well as total results of the combined concepts within the strategy.

2. No evidence of an a priori protocol.

3. Inclusion criteria are folded into a paragraph on search methods. While inclusion criteria can impact a search strategy--e.g. study design (an inclusion criteria) will determine the type of methodological filter or hedge employed--they are distinct from methods used to identify the evidence base.

On 2017 Feb 07, Michelle Fiander commented:

Systematic Reviews (SRs) are a common publication format, but manuscripts frequently do not follow national or international guidance in the conduct or reporting of these reviews. This is not entirely surprising considering the time it takes to become fully (or moderately?!) conversant SR methodologies. With that said, journal editors and authors should engage methodologists to assess SR manuscripts in light of conduct standards (e.g. Cochrane, AHRQ or other) and reporting standards (PRISMA) to ensure systematic reviews fulfill their role of providing reliable, synthesized evidence to inform practice, policy and further research in health care.

This manuscript addresses an interesting and important topic--the impact of state regulations on nurse practitioners' contribution to health care in the US. Unfortunately, it is not clear what systematic review methodology was followed for the conduct or reporting of the review. Conduct standards include Cochrane Handbook; Finding What Works in Health Care (National Academy of Science, etc), among others. Reporting standards include PRISMA, and Cochrane MECIR. Below are 4 areas where this manuscript does not seem to adhere to standards.

1. Risk of Bias: Tool not described or referenced; data of RoB assessment for each study is not provided; seven (7) studies were excluded from the review based on risk of bias--which is not common practice.

Examples of RoB Tools: Cochrane RoB tool-- https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/ ROBINS (RoB for non-randomized studies)-- https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/

About RoB: http://methods.cochrane.org/bias/assessing-risk-bias-included-studies. Reporting RoB: http://prisma-statement.org

1. Search Methods: incomplete; not reproducible. A search strategy is described, but is not presented; thus there is no way for readers or methodologists to verify how the evidence base was identified, or if the searches identified the included studies. PRISMA and Cochrane MECIR Standards suggest including at least 1 search strategy "as run", e.g. showing number of results per line as well as total results of the combined concepts within the strategy.

2. No evidence of an a priori protocol.

3. Inclusion criteria are folded into a paragraph on search methods. While inclusion criteria can impact a search strategy--e.g. study design (an inclusion criteria) will determine the type of methodological filter or hedge employed--they are distinct from methods used to identify the evidence base.