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={The BMJ},
  year={2009},
  volume={339}
}
David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses 

Paper Mentions

Observational Clinical Trial
Peanuts and tree nuts (almonds, pistachios, walnuts, pecans, pine nuts, Brazil nuts, cashews, hazelnuts, macadamia nuts) (herein referred to as "nuts") are a good source of unsaturated… Expand
ConditionsAdiposity, Body Weight, Obesity, (+2 more)
InterventionOther
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
Addressing Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis
Abstract. Meta-analyses are an indispensable research synthesis tool for characterizing bodies of literature and advancing theories. One important open question concerns the inclusion of unpublishe...
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
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
TLDR
The latest version of the CONSORT statement, CONSORT 2010, is described, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. Expand
The role of systematic reviews and meta-analysis in dermatology.
Systematic reviews of the medical literature are key tools in comprehensively summarizing data and helping clinicians and policy makers to make informed, evidence-based decisions regarding patientExpand
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects ofExpand
Serving Evidence Syntheses: Improving literature retrieval in systematic reviews
TLDR
A new method allows medical information specialists to perform literature research for systematic reviews in a shorter time with better results. Expand
CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomized Trials
TLDR
The latest version of the CONSORT statement, CONSORT 2010, is described, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience. Expand
Importance of reporting quality: An assessment of the COVID-19 meta-analysis laboratory hematology literature
  • J. Frater
  • Medicine
  • World Journal of Meta-Analysis
  • 2020
TLDR
An assessment of the COVID-19 meta-analysis laboratory hematology literature finds the importance of reporting quality in determining the quality of the data reported in this study. 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
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 63 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
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
TLDR
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. 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
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
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
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
...
1
2
3
4
5
...