For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
981
views
23
references
 Top references
cited by
4,878
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    18
    shares
      1,622
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

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

      Author(s): , , , , for the PRISMA Group
      Publication date Created:
      Publication date (Electronic):
      Journal: BMJ
      Publisher: BMJ

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisher
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

          Related collections

          Most cited references23

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses.

          D Moher, D J Cook, S. Eastwood … (1999)
          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 QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope 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.
          Article 0 comments Cited 416 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests.

            J J Deeks (2001)
            Article 0 comments Cited 203 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.

              H Sacks, J Berrier, D. Reitman … (1987)
              A new type of research, termed meta-analysis, attempts to analyze and combine the results of previous reports. We found 86 meta-analyses of reports of randomized controlled trials in the English-language literature. We evaluated the quality of these meta-analyses, using a scoring method that considered 23 items in six major areas--study design, combinability, control of bias, statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and application of results. Only 24 meta-analyses (28 percent) addressed all six areas, 31 (36 percent) addressed five, 25 (29 percent) addressed four, 5 (6 percent) addressed three, and 1 (1 percent) addressed two. Of the 23 individual items, between 1 and 14 were addressed satisfactorily (mean +/- SD, 7.7 +/- 2.7). We conclude that an urgent need exists for improved methods in literature searching, quality evaluation of trials, and synthesizing of the results.
              Article 0 comments Cited 177 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Title: BMJ
                Abbreviated Title: BMJ
                Publisher: BMJ
                ISSN (Print): 0959-8138
                ISSN (Electronic): 1468-5833
                Publication date Created: July 21 2009
                Publication date Created: July 21 2009
                Publication date (Electronic): July 21 2009
                Publication date (Print): July 21 2009
                Volume: 339
                Issue: jul21 1
                Page: b2535
                Article
                DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2535
                SO-VID: 25f4ba85-6123-4530-b1a2-788891e93f81
                Copyright © © 2009
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content1,622

                See all similar

                Cited by7,706

                See all cited by