GRADEpro software has been developed by the GRADE working group to support the creation of Summary of Findings Tables for Cochrane Reviews and Evidence Profiles. More information about the GRADE approach to assessing the quality of evidence can be found in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the GRADE working group website: www.gradeworkinggroup.org/.
To download and install GRADEpro, visit: ims.cochrane.org/revman/other-resources/gradepro/download
RevMan (aka Review Manager)
Software developed for The Cochrane Collaboration to assist reviewers in preparing Cochrane Reviews. Reviewers enter their Protocols and reviews into RevMan, from which they are exported and sent to a Managing Editor to be considered for inclusion in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
Cochrane’s main link for RevMan
RevMan software download:
Citing PRISMA from the website (for authors)
When referring to the PRISMA, we recommend using journal article citations rather than referring to the PRISMA Statement website. If you are not already using a journal article citation, we recommend that you cite one of the above original publications of the PRISMA Statement 2009.
Usage of the PRISMA Statement and Explanatory Document
The PRISMA Statement and the PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration document are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. It is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews, although it is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review.
PRISMA 2009 Checklist item #21 wording has been changed per note on PRISMA's website http://www.prisma-statement.org/statement.htm
“Please note that the published PRISMA checklists contain an error in the wording for Item 21. The item should read: 'Present the main results of the review. If meta-analyses are done, include for each, confidence intervals and measures of consistency' in accordance with the text in the Explanation and Elaboration document.”
This chart will help you organize your inclusion and exclusion criteria for others to replicate your search.