Jennifer Marie TetzlaffShow email address
Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada. | Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada | Ottawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology ...
Is this your profile? Claim your profile Copy URL Embed Link to your profile
Jennifer Marie Tetzlaff:Expert Impact
Concepts for whichJennifer Marie Tetzlaffhas direct influence:Prisma statement,Reporting systematic reviews,Topic terminology,Reporting characteristics,Reporting systematic,Preferred reporting items,Knowledge synthesis,Systematic reviews metaanalyses.
Jennifer Marie Tetzlaff:KOL impact
Concepts related to the work of other authors for whichfor which Jennifer Marie Tetzlaff has influence:Randomized controlled trials,Systematic review metaanalysis,Physical activity,Scoping review,Observational studies,Mental health,Cochrane library.
KOL Resume for Jennifer Marie Tetzlaff
Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada.
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ottawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute.
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Center for Practice Changing Research, 501 Smyth Road, K1H 8 L6 Ottawa, ON, Canada
J.M. Tetzlaff, MSc, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Ottawa Methods Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, University of Ottawa Evidence-based Practice Center, Ottawa, ON, Canada
Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, (Moher) Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom (Altman) Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Centro Cochrane Italiano, Milan, Italy (Liberati) Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada (Tetzlaff)
Department of Epidemiology & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
J. Tetzlaff, BSc, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, Critical Care Wing (Eye Institute), 6th Floor, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada
Chalmers Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada
Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CHEO) Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
|systematic review searches||#1|
|flow bibliographic records||#1|
|typical values precision||#1|
|1 observational study||#1|
|94 systematic reviews||#1|
|global evidence methods||#2|
|23 concepts guideline||#2|
|multistep iterative approach||#2|
|srs statistical metaanalysis||#2|
|moderate minimal risk||#2|
|cochrane reviews metaanalysis||#2|
|guideline protocol content||#2|
|typical precision values||#2|
|renal transplant procedures||#2|
|rct protocol content||#2|
|296 english srs||#2|
|published srs rehabilitation||#2|
|guideline characteristics methods||#2|
|prespecified minimum criteria||#2|
|positive conclusion statements||#2|
|guidelines systematic review||#2|
|items rct protocols||#2|
|positive conclusions cochrane||#2|
|Sign-in to see all concepts, it's free!|
Prominent publications by Jennifer Marie Tetzlaff
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration
[ PUBLICATION ]
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several ...
|Known for Prisma Statement | Reporting Systematic | Health Interventions | Reviews Meta | Topic Terminology|
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
[ PUBLICATION ]
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several ...
|Known for Reporting Systematic Reviews | Prisma Statement | Health Interventions | Topic Terminology | Metaanalyses Studies|
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
[ PUBLICATION ]
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several ...
|Known for Reporting Systematic | Prisma Statement | Healthcare Interventions | Topic Terminology | Metaanalyses Studies|
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study
[ PUBLICATION ]
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) can help decision makers interpret the deluge of published biomedical literature. However, a SR may be of limited use if the methods used to conduct the SR are flawed, and reporting of the SR is incomplete. To our knowledge, since 2004 there has been no cross-sectional study of the prevalence, focus, and completeness of reporting of SRs across different specialties. Therefore, the aim of our study was to investigate the epidemiological and reporting ...
|Known for Reporting Characteristics | Study Risk | Srs Methods | Random Sample | Decision Makers|
BACKGROUND: All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) require a protocol; however, numerous studies have highlighted protocol deficiencies. Reporting guidelines may improve the content of research reports and, if developed using robust methods, may increase the utility of reports to stakeholders. The objective of this study was to systematically identify and review RCT protocol guidelines, to assess their characteristics and methods of development, and to compare recommendations.
|Known for Protocol Content | Clinical Trial | Guideline Development | Randomized Controlled | Topic Design|
High quality protocols facilitate proper conduct, reporting, and external review of clinical trials. However, the completeness of trial protocols is often inadequate. To help improve the content and quality of protocols, an international group of stakeholders developed the SPIRIT 2013 Statement (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials). The SPIRIT Statement provides guidance in the form of a checklist of recommended items to include in a clinical trial ...
|Known for Spirit 2013 | Explanation Elaboration | Clinical Protocols | Interventional Trials | Checklist Recommendations|
BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews (SRs) have become increasingly popular to a wide range of stakeholders. We set out to capture a representative cross-sectional sample of published SRs and examine them in terms of a broad range of epidemiological, descriptive, and reporting characteristics, including emerging aspects not previously examined.
METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched Medline for SRs indexed during November 2004 and written in English. Citations were screened and those meeting our ...
|Known for Reporting Characteristics | Reviews Data | Health Periodicals | Srs Reported | Topic Bias|
The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol.The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials ...
|Known for Standard Protocol Items | Clinical Trial | 2013 Statement | Spirit Recommendations | Key Content|
BACKGROUND: Recent evidence has highlighted deficiencies in clinical trial protocols, having implications for many groups. Existing guidelines for randomized clinical trial (RCT) protocol content vary substantially and most do not describe systematic methodology for their development. As one of three prespecified steps for the systematic development of a guideline for trial protocol content, the objective of this study was to conduct a three-round Delphi consensus survey to develop and ...
|Known for Clinical Trial | Protocol Content | Delphi Consensus | Systematic Development | Key Stakeholders|
PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews
[ PUBLICATION ]
The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the ...
|Known for Reporting Systematic | Prisma 2020 | Reviews Topic | Review Findings | Practice Guidelines|
Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study
[ PUBLICATION ]
OBJECTIVES: To determine which factors predict favorable results and positive conclusions in systematic reviews (SRs) and to assess the level of agreement between SR results and conclusions.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A sample of 296 English SRs indexed in MEDLINE (November, 2004) was obtained. Two investigators independently categorized SR characteristics, results, and conclusions. Descriptive analyses and logistic regression predicting favorable results (nonstatistically significant and ...
|Known for Cochrane Reviews | Positive Conclusions | Analysis Topic | Descriptive Analyses | Crosssectional Study|
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 ...
|Known for Prisma 2020 Statement | Reporting Systematic | Updated Guideline | Topic Terminology | Reviews Meta|
[ PUBLICATION ]
Editor's Note: PTJ's Editorial Board has adopted PRISMA to help PTJ better communicate research to physical therapists. For more, read Chris Maher's editorial starting on page 870.
Membership of the PRISMA Group is provided in the Acknowledgments.
This article has been reprinted with permission from the Annals of Internal Medicine from Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and ...
|Known for Prisma Statement | Preferred Reporting Items | Topic Terminology | Systematic Reviews Metaanalyses | Physical Therapists|
Barriers to Metered‐dose Inhaler/spacer Use in Canadian Pediatric Emergency Departments: A National Survey
[ PUBLICATION ]
BACKGROUND: Metered-dose inhalers and spacers (MDI+S) are at least as effective as nebulizers for treating children with mild to moderate asthma exacerbations. Despite advantages in terms of efficacy, side effects, and ease of use, MDI+S are not used in many North American pediatric emergency departments (PEDs).
OBJECTIVES: To survey emergency physicians, emergency nurses, and respirologists in Canadian pediatric teaching hospitals regarding their practices, beliefs, and barriers to ...
|Known for Pediatric Emergency | Canadian Peds | Metered Dose Inhalers | Nebulizers Mdis | Moderate Asthma Exacerbations|