Skip to main content

Table 2 PRISMS and RECURSIVE processes for selection of studies, quality assessment, data extraction, analysis and interpretation

From: Systematic meta-review of supported self-management for asthma: a healthcare perspective

  PRISMS systematic meta-review RECURSIVE systematic review
Title and abstract screening Initial training.
One reviewer selected studies for full-text screening.
Quality check: Random sample of 10% checked independently by second reviewer.
Agreement: 97% for the initial search and 99% for the update.
Uncertainties resolved by discussion.
Initial training.
One reviewer selected studies for full-text screening.
Quality check: Random sample of 40% checked independently by second reviewer.
Agreement: 87% for the initial search and 88% for the update.
Uncertainties resolved by discussion.
Full-text screening Following training, one reviewer selected possibly relevant studies for inclusion.
Quality check: Random sample of 10% checked independently by second reviewer.
Agreement: 83%.
Uncertainties resolved by discussion.
Following training, one reviewer selected possibly relevant studies for inclusion.
Quality check: Random sample of 30% checked independently by second reviewer.
Agreement: 85%.
Uncertainties resolved by discussion.
Quality assessment Duplicate quality assessment using:
R-AMSTAR [17] for systematic reviews (‘high-quality’ defined as ≥31), combined with size of the review (‘large’ defined as ≥1000 participants) to give star rating (1* to 3*).
Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for RCTs [15].
Disagreements resolved by discussion.
Duplicate quality assessment using:
Drummond for economic evaluations [18, 19].
Allocation concealment for RCTs.
Disagreements resolved by discussion.
Data extraction Data extraction by one reviewer.
Quality check: 100% checked for accuracy by a second reviewer.
Disagreements resolved by discussion.
Data extraction by one reviewer.
Quality check: Random sample of 40% extracted independently by second reviewer.
Disagreements resolved by discussion.
Analysis Reviews/RCTs categorised according to the question(s) that they answered:
• Does supported self-management reduce healthcare utilisation and improve control?
• For which target groups does it work?
• Which components contribute to effectiveness?
• In what healthcare contexts does supported self-management work?
Meta-Forest plots for pooled statistics of the primary outcome (healthcare utilisation).
Narrative synthesis within categories.
Meta-analysis: Standardised mean differences (random effects model) to examine the effects of self-management support interventions on hospitalisation rates, A&E attendances, quality of life and total costs.
Permutation plots of the data from trials reporting both utilisation (hospitalisation rates, A&E attendances or total costs) and health outcomes (quality of life).
Interpretation Monthly teleconferences to enable synergies between PRISMS and RECURSIVE.
End-of-project stakeholder conference to discuss findings and implications for commissioning and providing services for people with LTCs.
  1. A&E accident and emergency, LTC long-term condition, R-AMSTAR Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, RCT randomised controlled trial