Scinovex
articleTop 1% cited

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

Annals of Internal Medicine · 2009 · Vol. 151(4) · pp. 264–269
David MoherAlessandro LiberatiJennifer TetzlaffDouglas G. Altmanthe PRISMA Group*

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasinglyimportant in health care. Clinicians readthem to keep up to date with their field (1, 2), and they areoften used as a starting point for developing clinical practiceguidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematicreview to ensure there is justification for further research(3), and some health care journals are moving in this direction(4). As with all research, the value of a systematicreview depends on what was done, what was found, andthe clarity of reporting. As with other publications, thereporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limitingreaders’ ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses ofthose reviews.

MeSH terms

HumansTerminology as TopicPeriodicals as TopicPublishingQuality ControlReview Literature as TopicMeta-Analysis as TopicPublication BiasEvidence-Based Practice
Citations
37,606
FWCI
198.19
field-weighted impact
References
42
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
Citation Network

How this paper connects to the literature. Drag to explore, click any node to open that paper.