Preparing a Systematic Review for the American Journal of Ophthalmology: Updated Guidance

[...]an NMA has been done on antiglaucoma medications15 and, while all possible between-drug comparisons have not been made in clinical trials, direct evidence from RCTs can be used to derive indirect evidence of effectiveness.16 Updated Guidance for Submitting Systematic Reviews to the Journal Methodological knowledge regarding the preparation of different types of SRs expands continually, making it impossible to update the AJO's Instructions for Authors accordingly.[...]like other major ophthalmic journals, we have adopted a wide range of standards, particularly those of the Cochrane Handbook, to guide the submission of SRs, and briefly summarize our requirements below.17 Ultimately, AJO editors and peer reviewers will be guarantors that existing standards are followed.Given its history and home, the Journal must consider US context, but it also endorses a global view.[...]SRs focusing on worldwide settings and problems are welcome, particularly if they cover issues relevant to or commissioned by international institutions with programs aiming to improve people's health.Clinicians cannot possibly read all primary research that is published, nor should they, as the quality of such may be suboptimal.25 Because SRs aim to identify all relevant research and synthesize a well-designed and well-conducted subset of all that is available, they are the clear basis for translating evidence to policy.[...]systematic reviews are a fundamental step of modern biomedical knowledge production and use, aiming to improve the translation of research into benefits for individuals and societies.26 Funding/Support: No funding or grant support.The authors are grateful to Professor Kay Dickersin (Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD) for providing comments on and helping with editing this guidance. 1 M.J. Page, L. Shamseer, D.G. Altman, Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study, PLoS Med, Vol. 13, Iss. 5, 2016, e1002028 2 J.P. Ioannidis, The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses, Milbank Q, Vol. 94, Iss. 3, 2016, 485-514 3 M. Hvistendahl, Science, Vol. 342, 2013, 1035-1039 4 E. Schuit, K.C. Roes, B.W. Mol, A. Kwee, K.G. Moons, R.H. Groenwold, Meta-analyses triggered by previous (false-)significant findings: problems and solutions, Syst Rev, Vol. 4, 2015, 57 5 J. Tian, J. Zhang, L. Ge, K. Yang, F. Song, The methodological and re