University of York

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

This paper focuses on scoping studies, an approach to reviewing the literature which to date has received little attention in the research methods literature. We distinguish between different types of scoping studies and indicate where these stand in relation to full systematic reviews. We outline a framework for conducting a scoping study based on our recent experiences of reviewing the literature on services for carers for people with mental health problems. Where appropriate, our approach to scoping the field is contrasted with the procedures followed in systematic reviews. We emphasize how including a consultation exercise in this sort of study may enhance the results, making them more useful to policy makers, practitioners and service users. Finally, we consider the advantages and limitations of the approach and suggest that a wider debate is called for about the role of the scoping study in relation to other types of literature reviews.

CCP4mg is a project that aims to provide a general-purpose tool for structural biologists, providing tools for X-ray structure solution, structure comparison and analysis, and publication-quality graphics. The map-fitting tools are available as a stand-alone package, distributed as `Coot'.

Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.

Coot is a molecular-graphics application for model building and validation of biological macromolecules. The program displays electron-density maps and atomic models and allows model manipulations such as idealization, real-space refinement, manual rotation/translation, rigid-body fitting, ligand search, solvation, mutations, rotamers and Ramachandran idealization. Furthermore, tools are provided for model validation as well as interfaces to external programs for refinement, validation and graphics. The software is designed to be easy to learn for novice users, which is achieved by ensuring that tools for common tasks are 'discoverable' through familiar user-interface elements (menus and toolbars) or by intuitive behaviour (mouse controls). Recent developments have focused on providing tools for expert users, with customisable key bindings, extensions and an extensive scripting interface. The software is under rapid development, but has already achieved very widespread use within the crystallographic community. The current state of the software is presented, with a description of the facilities available and of some of the underlying methods employed.

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Non-randomised studies of the effects of interventions are critical to many areas of healthcare evaluation, but their results may be biased. It is therefore important to understand and appraise their strengths and weaknesses. We developed ROBINS-I (“Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies - of Interventions”), a new tool for evaluating risk of bias in estimates of the comparative effectiveness (harm or benefit) of interventions from studies that did not use randomisation to allocate units (individuals or clusters of individuals) to comparison groups. The tool will be particularly useful to those undertaking systematic reviews that include non-randomised studies.

This paper reviews the mathematical basis of maximum likelihood. The likelihood function for macromolecular structures is extended to include prior phase information and experimental standard uncertainties. The assumption that different parts of a structure might have different errors is considered. A method for estimating sigma(A) using 'free' reflections is described and its effects analysed. The derived equations have been implemented in the program REFMAC. This has been tested on several proteins at different stages of refinement (bacterial alpha-amylase, cytochrome c', cross-linked insulin and oligopeptide binding protein). The results derived using the maximum-likelihood residual are consistently better than those obtained from least-squares refinement.

Abstract The CASTEP code for first principles electronic structure calculations will be described. A brief, non-technical overview will be given and some of the features and capabilities highlighted. Some features which are unique to CASTEP will be described and near-future development plans outlined.

Sociology for Pharmacists: An Introduction is written specifically for professionals and students in pharmacy who are newcomers to the study of sociology. It introduces the key concepts of sociology and demonstrates their importance and application to pharmacy practice in the 21st century. It is unique in its role as the only text to introduce sociology specifically to pharmacists. Rather than an exhaustive treatment, the book provides a concise introduction to major perspectives in sociology-drawing on research evidence pertaining to health, illness, and professional practice-which will inform and enhance pharmacy practice. It offers an overview of sociology for rather than sociology of pharmacy, and will both inform practitioners and stimulate informed research into the social aspects of pharmacy practice.Key issues covered include:Key sociological concepts and perspectives Contemporary developments in pharmacy practice and pharmacy's professional statusA review of research into the way people react to illness and look after their healthHow and why illness and disease are influenced by gender, ethnicity, and social class Health education and pharmacists' role in promoting health and ensuring appropriate medicine usageSocial research methodsPharmacists are frequently encouraged to broaden their day-to-day practice. This timely book does just that by encouraging pharmacists to become more involved with advising clients, managing medicines, and supporting the promotion of health. In addition to providing an overview of these topics, the book also reviews the relevant research, and directs readers to further information.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols.

The CCP4 (Collaborative Computational Project, Number 4) software suite is a collection of programs and associated data and software libraries which can be used for macromolecular structure determination by X-ray crystallography. The suite is designed to be flexible, allowing users a number of methods of achieving their aims. The programs are from a wide variety of sources but are connected by a common infrastructure provided by standard file formats, data objects and graphical interfaces. Structure solution by macromolecular crystallography is becoming increasingly automated and the CCP4 suite includes several automation pipelines. After giving a brief description of the evolution of CCP4 over the last 30 years, an overview of the current suite is given. While detailed descriptions are given in the accompanying articles, here it is shown how the individual programs contribute to a complete software package.

First-principles simulation, meaning density-functional theory calculations with plane waves and pseudopotentials, has become a prized technique in condensed-matter theory. Here I look at the basics of the suject, give a brief review of the theory, examining the strengths and weaknesses of its implementation, and illustrating some of the ways simulators approach problems through a small case study. I also discuss why and how modern software design methods have been used in writing a completely new modular version of the CASTEP code. 1. Overview The simulator builds a model of a real system and explores its behaviour. The model is a mathematical one and the exploration is done on a computer, and in many ways simulation studies share the same mentality as experimental ones. However, in a simulation there is absolute control and access to detail, the ability to compute almost any observable, and given enough computer muscle, exact answers for the model. These strengths have been exploited for

The VideoToolbox is a free collection of two hundred C subroutines for Macintosh computers that calibrates and controls the computer-display interface to create accurately specified visual stimuli. High-level platform-independent languages like MATLAB are best for creating the numbers that describe the desired images. Low-level, computer-specific VideoToolbox routines control the hardware that transforms those numbers into a movie. Transcending the particular computer and language, we discuss the nature of the computer-display interface, and how to calibrate and control it.

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

Mediation is said to occur when a causal effect of some variable X on an outcome Y is explained by some intervening variable M. The authors recommend that with small to moderate samples, bootstrap methods (B. Efron & R. Tibshirani, 1993) be used to assess mediation. Bootstrap tests are powerful because they detect that the sampling distribution of the mediated effect is skewed away from 0. They argue that R. M. Baron and D. A. Kenny's (1986) recommendation of first testing the X --> Y association for statistical significance should not be a requirement when there is a priori belief that the effect size is small or suppression is a possibility. Empirical examples and computer setups for bootstrap analyses are provided.

The PRISMA 2020 statement includes a checklist of 27 items to guide reporting of systematic reviews In this article we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews We hope that uptake of the PRISMA 2020 statement will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making on 1 September

Collinearity refers to the non independence of predictor variables, usually in a regression‐type analysis. It is a common feature of any descriptive ecological data set and can be a problem for parameter estimation because it inflates the variance of regression parameters and hence potentially leads to the wrong identification of relevant predictors in a statistical model. Collinearity is a severe problem when a model is trained on data from one region or time, and predicted to another with a different or unknown structure of collinearity. To demonstrate the reach of the problem of collinearity in ecology, we show how relationships among predictors differ between biomes, change over spatial scales and through time. Across disciplines, different approaches to addressing collinearity problems have been developed, ranging from clustering of predictors, threshold‐based pre‐selection, through latent variable methods, to shrinkage and regularisation. Using simulated data with five predictor‐response relationships of increasing complexity and eight levels of collinearity we compared ways to address collinearity with standard multiple regression and machine‐learning approaches. We assessed the performance of each approach by testing its impact on prediction to new data. In the extreme, we tested whether the methods were able to identify the true underlying relationship in a training dataset with strong collinearity by evaluating its performance on a test dataset without any collinearity. We found that methods specifically designed for collinearity, such as latent variable methods and tree based models, did not outperform the traditional GLM and threshold‐based pre‐selection. Our results highlight the value of GLM in combination with penalised methods (particularly ridge) and threshold‐based pre‐selection when omitted variables are considered in the final interpretation. However, all approaches tested yielded degraded predictions under change in collinearity structure and the ‘folk lore’‐thresholds of correlation coefficients between predictor variables of |r| >0.7 was an appropriate indicator for when collinearity begins to severely distort model estimation and subsequent prediction. The use of ecological understanding of the system in pre‐analysis variable selection and the choice of the least sensitive statistical approaches reduce the problems of collinearity, but cannot ultimately solve them.