The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Open accessOverview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.”
From The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009)[4–10] is a reporting guideline designed to address poor reporting of systematic reviews.[11]”
From The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The systematic reviews and meta-analyses in this study were performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.10,11”
From Prehospital Administration of Aspirin and Nitroglycerin for Patients With Suspected Acute Coronary Syndrome ― A Systematic Review ― (2022) · cites this paper as [11]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [173] and was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42021229932).”
From Medical cannabinoids: a pharmacology-based systematic review and meta-analysis for all relevant medical indications. (2022) · cites this paper as [173]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the PRISMA guidelines.17”
From Sleep disruption in medicine students and its relationship with impaired academic performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (2020) · cites this paper as [17]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“This review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines [24].”
From Efficacy of acceptance and commitment therapy in reducing suicidal ideation and deliberate self-harm: Systematic review (2018) · cites this paper as [24]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“In all reports, withdrawal reactions appeared within 1-5 days following either abrupt [68,69] or tapered [9,14,13,16,70,71] discontinuation and lasted from 1-2 weeks [13,14,69,70] to 6 weeks [16] or even longer (13-14 weeks) [9,68] .”
From Withdrawal Symptoms after Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor Discontinuation: A Systematic Review (2015) · cites this paper as [14]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“Researchers followed the PRISMA guidelines.”
From Behavioral interventions to enhance adherence to hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors: a systematic literature review (2016) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“As in any systematic literature review, it is not possible to assure that all the behavioral adjuvant hormonal therapy interventions were retrieved due to the limitations of using MeSH terms and publication bias.19, 20”
From Behavioral interventions to enhance adherence to hormone therapy in breast cancer survivors: a systematic literature review (2016) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found.”
From The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [7]
In the citing paper
“Furthermore, the CV stress of pregnancy at advanced maternal age might itself contribute to CVD (26).”
From Cardiovascular Risk Following Fertility Therapy (2017) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, recent data from the Women's Health Initiative suggested that, compared with younger women, women who had a pregnancy at advanced maternal age (defined as older than 40 years), experienced a 50% higher risk of both ischemic and hemorrhagic stroke 12 years following delivery (26);”
From Cardiovascular Risk Following Fertility Therapy (2017) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines”
From Dispositional Mindfulness and Psychological Health: a Systematic Review (2018) · cites this paper as Moher et al. 2009
In the citing paper
“Creating a flow diagram to show the number of references retrieved, duplicates removed, and studies excluded as references move through the screening process is one of several required elements for reporting based on the PRISMA statement (Liberati et al. 2009; Moher et al. 2009) that we have included in this framework.”
From Systematic Review and Evidence Integration for Literature-Based Environmental Health Science Assessments (2014) · cites this paper as Moher et al. 2009
In the citing paper
“It includes all of the recommended elements for conducting and reporting a systematic review [outlined in the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) statement (Moher et al. 2009)].”
From Systematic Review and Evidence Integration for Literature-Based Environmental Health Science Assessments (2014) · cites this paper as Moher et al. 2009
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Self-citationCochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series
(2008) · doi:10.1002/9780470712184 · Cited by 25,048
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Vist, G. E., Kunz, R., Falck-Ytter, Y., Alonso-Coello, P., & Schünemann, H. J. (2008) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.ad · Cited by 23,305
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (1999) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5 · Cited by 4,826
Self-citationThe Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
Altman, D. G., Schulz, K. F., Moher, D., Egger, M., Davidoff, F., Elbourne, D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Lang, T., & for the CONSORT Group (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012 · Cited by 3,835
Self-citationVandenbroucke, J. P., Elm, E. V., Altman, D. G., Gøtzsche, P. C., Mulrow, C. D., Pocock, S. J., Poole, C., Schlesselman, J. J., Egger, M., & initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010-w1 · Cited by 3,543
Self-citationChan, A.-W., Hróbjartsson, A., Haahr, M. T., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Altman, D. G. (2004) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.291.20.2457 · Cited by 1,845
Self-citationReplication validity of genetic association studies
Ioannidis, J. P. A., Ntzani, E., Trikalinos, T. A., & Contopoulos‐Ioannidis, D. G. (2001) · Nature Genetics · doi:10.1038/ng749 · Cited by 1,834
The case of the misleading funnel plot
Lau, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Terrin, N., Schmid, C. H., & Olkin, I. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597 · Cited by 1,766
Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments
Viechtbauer, W. (2007) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/s11336-006-1450-y · Cited by 1,508
Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests
Deeks, J. J. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7305.157 · Cited by 1,345
Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials
Sacks, H. S., Berrier, J., Reitman, D., Ancona-Berk, V. A., & Chalmers, T. C. (1987) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm198702193160806 · Cited by 1,257
The STARD Statement for Reporting Studies of Diagnostic Accuracy: Explanation and Elaboration
Bossuyt, P. M., Reitsma, J. B., Bruns, D. E., Gatsonis, C. A., Glasziou, P. P., Irwig, L. M., Moher, D., Rennie, D., de Vet, H. C. W., & Lijmer, J. G. (2003) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-138-1-200301070-00012-w1 · Cited by 1,124
Whittington, C. J., Kendall, T., Fonagy, P., Cottrell, D., Cotgrove, A., & Boddington, E. (2004) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(04)16043-1 · Cited by 1,006
Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
Moher, D., Tetzlaff, J., Tricco, A. C., Sampson, M., & Altman, D. G. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 · Cited by 891 · cited 2×
“In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias [22], even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence [28] and its impact on the results of systematic reviews [29].”
Self-citationThe Medical Review Article: State of the Science
MULROW, C. D. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-106-3-485 · Cited by 856
Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests
(2001) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 850
Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables
Altman, D. G. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7306.224 · Cited by 756
Self-citationTowards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making
Lavis, J., Davies, H., Oxman, A., Denis, J., Golden-Biddle, K., & Ferlie, E. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research and Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308549 · Cited by 603
Schünemann, H. J., Jaeschke, R., Cook, D. J., Bria, W. F., El-Solh, A. A., Ernst, A., Fahy, B. F., Gould, M. K., Horan, K. L., Krishnan, J. A., et al. (2006) · American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine · doi:10.1164/rccm.200602-197st · Cited by 577
Oxman, A. D. (1994) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.272.17.1367 · Cited by 486
Stewart, L., & Clarke, M. (1995) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.4780141902 · Cited by 465
Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Chan, A.-W. (2004) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041086 · Cited by 444
Publication Bias: Recognizing the Problem, Understanding Its Origins and Scope, and Preventing Harm
Dickersin, K. (2006) · doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch2 · Cited by 333
Moja, L., Telaro, E., D'Amico, R., Moschetti, I., Coe, L., & Liberati, A. (2005) · British medical journal · doi:10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8f · Cited by 226
Self-citationMeta-Analyses in Orthopaedic Surgery: A Systematic Review of Their Methodologies
Bhandari, M., Morrow, F., Kulkarni, A., & Tornetta, P. (2001) · Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery. American volume · doi:10.2106/00004623-200101000-00003 · Cited by 199
Publishing Protocols of Systematic Reviews: Comparing What Was Done to What Was Planned
Silagy, C. A., Middleton, P., & Hopewell, S. (2002) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.287.21.2831 · Cited by 188
Putting clinical trials into context
Young, C., & Horton, R. (2005) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(05)66846-8 · Cited by 186
Biondi-Zoccai, G. G. L., Lotrionte, M., Abbate, A., Testa, L., Remigi, E., Burzotta, F., Valgimigli, M., Romagnoli, E., Crea, F., & Agostoni, P. (2006) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.38693.516782.7c · Cited by 149
A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature
Delaney, A., Bagshaw, S., Ferland, A., Manns, B., Laupland, K., & Doig, C. (2005) · Critical Care · doi:10.1186/cc3803 · Cited by 142
Ladabaum, U., Chopra, C., Huang, G., Scheiman, J., Chernew, M., & Fendrick, A. (2001) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-135-9-200111060-00007 · Cited by 138
Acetylcysteine in the Prevention of Contrast-Induced Nephropathy
Bagshaw, S. M., McAlister, F. A., Manns, B., & Ghali, W. A. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.2.161 · Cited by 132
Sacks, H. S., Reitman, D., Pagano, D., & Kupelnick, B. (1996) · PubMed · Cited by 122
Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis
Swingler, G., Volmink, J., & Ioannidis, J. (2003) · British medical journal · doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1083 · Cited by 120
Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
DeAngelis, C. (2004) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.1041281 · Cited by 118
Systematic reviews: when is an update an update?
Moher, D., & Tsertsvadze, A. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68358-x · Cited by 110
Self-citationEvaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature.
Kelly, K. D., Travers, A., Dorgan, M., Slater, L., & Rowe, B. (2001) · Annals of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1067/mem.2001.115881 · Cited by 86
Evidence Concerning the Consequences of Publication and Related Biases
Sutton, A. (2006) · doi:10.1002/0470870168.ch10 · Cited by 79
Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence.
Strech, D., & Tilburt, J. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.01.001 · Cited by 64
Examining the Evidence in Anesthesia Literature: A Critical Appraisal of Systematic Reviews
Choi, P., Halpern, S., Malik, N., Jadad, A., Tramèr, M., & Walder, B. (2001) · Anesthesia and Analgesia · doi:10.1213/00000539-200103000-00029 · Cited by 58
The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry
Richards, D. (2004) · Evidence-Based Dentistry · doi:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400242 · Cited by 16
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
Self-citationPRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
Self-citationWang, G., Ma, R., Qiao, G., Wada, K., Aizawa, Y., & Satoh, T. (2015) · Integrative Medicine International · doi:10.1159/000368408 · Cited by 18,762
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 · Cited by 13,874
Self-citationShamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · Cited by 13,120
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT)
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Moher, David
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2009-10
- Volume
- 62
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1006-1012
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2468996569
- Semantic Scholar
- c13dd3a682fb14c3e0437d96d73699d52f6dbb82
- Cited by
- 19,575
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 273 · 2025: 390 · 2024: 952 · 2023: 1378 · 2022: 1749 · 2021: 2395 · 2020: 2048 · 2019: 1538 · 2018: 1341 · 2017: 1049 · 2016: 1414 · 2015: 1928 · 2014: 1594 · 2013: 1011 · 2012: 312
- FWCI
- 12.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- GlaxoSmithKline
- Health Services Research and Development
- Johns Hopkins University
- University of Ottawa
- University of Bern
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
- McMaster University
- Cancer Research UK
- University of Ioannina
- Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health
- Medical Research Council
- Care and Public Health Research Institute, Universiteit Maastricht
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- PRISMA statement, reporting guidelines, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, reporting quality, health care research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
