Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement

@article{Moher2009PreferredRI,
  title={Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement},
  author={David Moher and Alessandro Liberati and Jennifer Marie Tetzlaff and Douglas G. Altman},
  journal={Open Medicine},
  year={2009},
  volume={3},
  pages={e123 - e130}
}
Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Us... 

Figures and Tables from this paper

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

PRISMA 2020, an updated reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, is described, which aims to provide an updated standard for evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the literature.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The PRISMA 2020 Abstracts Checklist is presented, which summarizes the main findings of the review and provides a methodology for evaluating the quality of the Abstracts.

Quality of reporting in systematic reviews published in dermatology journals

Reporting of systematic reviews (SRs) using PRISMA increases transparency and reproducibility; adherence in the dermatology literature has not been assessed.

The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.

The PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISma 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews are presented.

Ensuring the rigor in systematic reviews: Part 3, the value of the search.

Reporting Systematic Review in Accordance With the PRISMA Statement Guidelines: An Emphasis on Methodological Quality

Qualitative issues about the search strategy and quality assessment of included studies are presented and some items have not been well reported.

Systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: A structured analysis of characteristics and methods applied

This work aimed at providing a detailed overview of the characteristics and applied methods in recently published SR‐HEs.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 58 REFERENCES

Improving the quality of reports of meta‐analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement

The Quality of Reporting of Meta‐analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta‐analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

The meaning and rationale for each checklist item is explained, and an example of good reporting is included and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are included.

GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations

The advantages of the GRADE system are explored, which is increasingly being adopted by organisations worldwide and which is often praised for its high level of consistency.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

The updating of the QUOROM Statement is described, to ensure clear presentation of what was planned, done, and found in a systematic review, and the name of the reporting guidance was changed to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses).

Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group.

Meta-analyses using updated individual patient data may provide the most reliable means of combining data from similar randomized controlled trials, and practical advice on initiating and maintaining collaboration and methods of data checking and validation are given.

Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study

Cochrane reviews fared better than systematic reviews published in paper based journals in terms of assessment of methodological quality of primary studies, although they both largely failed to take it into account in the interpretation of results.

Examining the Evidence in Anesthesia Literature: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews

A systematic review of published systematic reviews in perioperative medicine to summarize the areas currently covered by this type of literature, to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews, and to assess some of the methodologic and reporting issues that are unique to systematic reviews.

A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature

The overall quality of the reports of meta-analyses available to critical care physicians is poor and physicians should critically evaluate these studies prior to considering applying the results of these studies in their clinical practice.
...