Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and publication bias
Abstract
Publication bias is a major problem in evidence based medicine. As well as positive outcome studies being preferentially published or followed by full text publication authors are also more likely to publish positive results in English-language journals. This unequal distribution of trials leads to a selection bias in evidence l level studies, like systematic reviews, meta-analysis or health technology assessments followed by a systematic failure of interpretation and in clinical decisions. Publication bias in a systematic review occurs mostly during the selection process and a transparent selection process is necessary to avoid such bias. For systematic reviews/meta-analysis the PRISMA-statement (formerly known as QUOROM) is recommended, as it gives the reader for a better understanding of the selection process. In the future the use of trial registration for minimizing publication bias, mechanisms to allow easier access to the scientific literature and improvement in the peer review process are recommended to overcome publication bias. The use of checklists like PRISMA is likely to improve the reporting quality of a systematic review and provides substantial transparency in the selection process of papers in a systematic review.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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 systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines.
“After formulating the study questions, a systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines [16].”
From Association between maternal sleep duration and quality, and the risk of preterm birth: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies (2020) · cites this paper as [16]
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sousa, W. G. D., Melo, E. R. P. D., Bermejo, P. H. D. S., Farias, R. A. S., & Gomes, A. O. (2019) · Government Information Quarterly · doi:10.1016/j.giq.2019.07.004 · Cited by 501 · see citing works
Riebl, S. K., Estabrooks, P. A., Dunsmore, J. C., Savla, J., Frisard, M. I., Dietrich, A. M., Peng, Y., Zhang, X., & Davy, B. M. (2015) · Eating Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2015.05.016 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
Correlates of mobile screen media use among children aged 0–8: a systematic review
Paudel, S., Jancey, J., Subedi, N., & Leavy, J. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014585 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Hopkinson, M. D., Reavell, J., Lane, D. A., & Mallikarjun, P. (2019) · The Gerontologist · doi:10.1093/geront/gnx217 · Cited by 142 · see citing works
The Replication Crisis Has Led to Positive Structural, Procedural, and Community Changes
Korbmacher, M., Azevedo, F., Pennington, C. R., Hartmann, H., Pownall, M., Schmidt, K., Elsherif, M., Breznau, N., Robertson, O., Kalandadze, T., et al. (2023) · Communications Psychology · doi:10.1038/s44271-023-00003-2 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Zhou, Y.-Y., Zhou, X.-D., Wu, S.-J., Hu, X.-Q., Tang, B., Poucke, S. V., Pan, X.-Y., Wu, W.-J., Gu, X.-M., Fu, S.-W., et al. (2018) · European Journal of Gastroenterology & Hepatology · doi:10.1097/meg.0000000000001075 · Cited by 125 · see citing works
Borrego, M., Foster, M. J., & Froyd, J. E. (2015) · Journal of Engineering Education · doi:10.1002/jee.20069 · Cited by 124 · see citing works
Lazarus, S., Whittaker, J. M., McGuire, M. R., & Platt, L. (2023) · Journal of Economic Criminology · doi:10.1016/j.jeconc.2023.100013 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Zhou, Y., Huang, Y., Ji, X., Wang, X., Shen, L., & Wang, Y. (2020) · The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism · doi:10.1210/clinem/dgz252 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Lin, K., Sun, X., Wang, X., Wang, H., & Chen, X. (2021) · Frontiers in Endocrinology · doi:10.3389/fendo.2020.537809 · Cited by 81 · see citing works
Wang, L., & Jin, F. (2020) · BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth · doi:10.1186/s12884-020-2814-5 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
Resistance Training in Post-Metabolic and Bariatric Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review
Morales-Marroquin, E., Kohl, H. W., Knell, G., de la Cruz-Muñoz, N., & Messiah, S. E. (2020) · Obesity Surgery · doi:10.1007/s11695-020-04837-1 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
Li, L., Liu, H., & Zhang, P. (2022) · Aquaculture Nutrition · doi:10.1155/2022/8517733 · Cited by 40 · see citing works
Kong, Q.-X., Ruan, Q., Fan, C., Liu, B.-L., Reng, L.-P., & Xu, W. (2021) · Endokrynologia Polska · doi:10.5603/ep.a2021.0031 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
- Authors
- Knobloch, K., Yoon, U., & Vogt, P. M.
- Affiliations
- Medizinische Hochschule Hannover (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Knobloch, Karsten
- Venue
- Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-03
- Volume
- 39
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 91-92
- ISSN
- 1010-5182 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1978157711
- Cited by
- 802
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 41 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 71 · 2023: 67 · 2022: 79 · 2021: 98 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 107 · 2018: 80 · 2017: 46 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
- Keywords
- publication bias, PRISMA statement, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, reporting quality, selection bias, clinical trial registration, reporting checklist, evidence-based medicine, peer review
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Periodicals as Topic, Publishing, Quality Control, Review Literature as Topic, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Selection Bias, Guidelines as Topic, Publication Bias, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence
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
