19
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

      , 1 , 2 , 3

      Systematic Reviews

      BioMed Central

      Reporting, Systematic reviews, Methodology, Quality

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          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

          Background

          The PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations.

          Methods

          We searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated).

          Results

          We included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions.

          Conclusions

          Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.

          Electronic supplementary material

          The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

          Related collections

          Most cited references 157

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

          Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

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

            David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: not found
              • Article: not found

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

                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                +61 3 9903 0248 , matthew.page@monash.edu
                dmoher@ohri.ca
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                19 December 2017
                19 December 2017
                2017
                : 6
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 7857, GRID grid.1002.3, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, , Monash University, ; 553 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC 3004 Australia
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0000 9606 5108, GRID grid.412687.e, Centre for Journalology and Canadian EQUATOR Centre, Clinical Epidemiology Program, , Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, ; Ottawa, K1H 8L6 Canada
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2182 2255, GRID grid.28046.38, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, , University of Ottawa, ; Ottawa, K1H 8M5 Canada
                Article
                663
                10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8
                5738221
                29258593
                © The Author(s). 2017

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                Categories
                Methodology
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2017

                Public health

                reporting, quality, methodology, systematic reviews

                Comments

                Comment on this article