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={D. Moher and A. Liberati and J. Tetzlaff and D. 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... 

Paper Mentions

Interventional Clinical Trial
Effect of oral sodium bicarbonate therapy on renal tubular acidosis in epilepsy patients taking topiramate.  
ConditionsEpilepsy, Metabolic Acidosis, Tubular Acidosis; Renal
InterventionDietary Supplement
Observational Clinical Trial
Sepsis is common and is associated with significant mortality, morbidity and health-care costs. Unfortunately, its diagnosis is not straightforward because its signs and symptoms are… Expand
ConditionsSepsis
InterventionOther
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
TLDR
An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented. Expand
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
TLDR
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. Expand
Improving the quality of the evidence – The necessity to lead by example
TLDR
The authors of this paper support the need for greater adherence to PRISMA standards when preparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses for publication and call on researchers who are drawing attention to this problem to lead by example. Expand
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
TLDR
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. Expand
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
TLDR
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. Expand
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration.
TLDR
This Explanation and Elaboration document explains the meaning and rationale for each checklist item and includes an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. Expand
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.
TLDR
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. Expand
Ensuring the rigor in systematic reviews: Part 3, the value of the search.
The third column, in this seven part series, highlights: Systematic reviews must include published sources as well as consider including unpublished sources for data collection. Systematic reviewsExpand
Systematic reviews and meta-analysis of published studies: an overview and best practices.
  • J. Mandrekar, S. Mandrekar
  • Medicine
  • Journal of thoracic oncology : official publication of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer
  • 2011
TLDR
An overview of the minimum set of reporting requirements for systematic reviews and meta-analyses based on the Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines is provided. Expand
Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses in the New Age of Transparency
  • P. Honig
  • Medicine
  • Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics
  • 2010
Systematic reviews and meta‐analyses are useful in integrating large amounts of data to inform medical practice, and it is likely that the already large number of published meta‐analyses willExpand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 100 REFERENCES
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
TLDR
An Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement is presented and updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses are presented. Expand
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).
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
TLDR
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. Expand
Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group.
TLDR
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. Expand
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
TLDR
This report hopes this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement. Expand
Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study
TLDR
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. Expand
Examining the Evidence in Anesthesia Literature: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews
TLDR
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. Expand
A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature
TLDR
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. Expand
Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study
TLDR
Multiple systematic reviews on the same clinical topic varied in quality of reporting and recommendations, mainly because of greater emphasis of the Oxman and Guyatt scores on the appraisal of bias in selection and validity assessment. Expand
The case of the misleading funnel plot
Evidence based medicine insists on rigorous standards to appraise clinical interventions. Failure to apply the same rules to its own tools could be equally damaging
...
1
2
3
4
5
...