Scinovex
review Open AccessTop 1% cited

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

PLoS Medicine · 2009 · Vol. 6(7) · pp. e1000100–e1000100
Alessandro LiberatiDouglas G. AltmanJennifer TetzlaffCynthia D. MulrowPeter C GøtzscheJohn P. A. IoannidisMike ClarkeP.J. DevereauxJos KleijnenDavid Moher

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement--a reporting guideline published in 1999--there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsHemodynamic Monitoring and TherapyHealth Sciences Research and EducationSystematic reviewChecklistPsychological interventionGuidelineMEDLINEHealth careMedicineCLARITYPsychologyManagement science

MeSH terms

HumansTerminology as TopicPublishingQuality ControlReview Literature as TopicMeta-Analysis as TopicEvidence-Based Medicine

Funding

  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • Health Services Research and Development
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Ottawa
  • University of Bern
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • McMaster University
  • Cancer Research UK
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research
  • University of Ioannina
  • Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
  • Medical Research Council
  • Care and Public Health Research Institute, Universiteit Maastricht
Citations
27,702
FWCI
367.76
field-weighted impact
References
251
Percentile
100%
vs. same field & year
Citations per year
References
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 2001 · 3,689 citations
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2007 · 950 citations
Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits
Journal of Psychosomatic Research · 2004 · 3,897 citations
Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
The Lancet Infectious Diseases · 2010 · 3,272 citations
Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · 1992 · 1,355 citations
Citation Network

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