An explanation of PROSPECT methodology and Working Group processes can be found at the following link: http://esraeurope.org/prospect-methodology
For the open inguinal hernia repair review, the Subgroup members were:
* S Coppens and J Gidts equally share first authorship
† Corresponding author
Open inguinal hernia repair literature search
Literature search history
Assessments of the quality of study methodology and reporting
All included studies were assessed for quality according to PROSPECT methodology (Joshi 2019, http://esraeurope.org/prospect-methodology). The study quality assessments for open inguinal hernia repair are summarised here: Quality assessments and level of evidence assigned to included trials.
The majority of the studies included in this systematic review were determined to be of high quality.
Recommendations were made according to PROSPECT methodology (Joshi 2019, http://esraeurope.org/prospect-methodology). This involved a grading of A–D according to the overall level of evidence, as determined by the quality of studies included, consistency of evidence and study design: Relationship between quality of the study and levels of evidence (LoE) and grades of recommendation.
The proposed recommendations were sent to the PROSPECT Working Group for review and comments and a modified Delphi approach was used. Once a consensus was achieved the lead authors drafted the final document, which was ultimately approved by the working group.
The limitations of this review are related to those of the included studies:
The AGREE II instrument (Brouwers 2010) is used internationally to assess the methodological rigour and transparency of practice guidelines. As far as possible, the methodology of the PROSPECT Open Inguinal Hernia Repair review meets the requirements of ‘Domain 3: Rigour of development’ of the AGREE II instrument: