Abstract：
Despite clearly established guidelines, recent audits have found the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) within neurosurgery to be relatively lackluster in methodological rigor and compliance. Protocols of SRMAs allow for planning and documentation of review methods, guard against arbitrary decision-making during the review process, and enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting. To aid transparency, authors should provide sufficient detail in their protocol so that the readers could reproduce the study themselves. Development of our guideline drew heavily from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P) initiative. The objective of this article is not to enumerate every detail of this checklist, but to provide guidance to authors preparing their protocol, with examples, for a systematic review in neurosurgery. Particularly, we emphasize on the PICO framework - population (P), interventions (I), comparators (C), outcomes (O) - which is central to constructing a clinical question, defining the scope of the systematic review, defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, to specifying the eligibility criteria, designing the search strategy, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We encourage our readers to make use of this guideline alongside the PRISMA-P 2015 statement, when drafting and appraising systematic review protocols.
摘要：
尽管有明确的指导方针，最近的审计发现,神经外科系统评价和荟萃分析(SRMA)的实施和报告在方法学的严谨性和依从性方面相对不足.SRMA的协议允许规划和记录审查方法，在审查过程中防止任意决策，并使读者能够评估选择性报告的存在。为了提高透明度，作者应该在他们的协议中提供足够的细节，以便读者可以自己复制研究。我们指南的制定在很大程度上借鉴了系统审查和荟萃分析方案（PRISMA-P）计划的首选报告项目。本文的目的不是列举此清单的每个细节，而是为准备方案的作者提供指导，例如，神经外科的系统评价。特别是,我们强调PICO框架-人口(P)，干预措施（I），比较器(C)，结果(O)-这是构建临床问题的核心，定义系统审查的范围，定义和确定主要结果的优先级，为了指定资格标准，设计搜索策略，并确定异质性的潜在来源。我们鼓励读者在PRISMA-P2015声明的同时使用本指南，在起草和评估系统审查协议时。
