CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 4,826Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 47 of the 50 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement

Moher, David, Cook, Deborah J, Eastwood, Susan, Olkin, Ingram, Rennie, Drummond, Stroup, Donna F·1999·The Lancet
DOI 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background 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).Methods 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.Findings 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.Interpretation 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.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5

Cites

47 of 47 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Olkin, 1984, A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods, Am J Epidemiol, 140, 287
  2. Shea B, Dubé C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of meta-analyses: a systematic review of scales and checklists. In: Egger M, Davey Smith G, Altman DG. Systematic reviews, 2nd edn. London: BMJ Publishing Group (in press).
  3. Moher, 1998, Does the quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?, Lancet, 352, 609, 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 4,826

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of California, San Francisco (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
Corresponding author
Moher, David
ORCID
Venue
The Lancet
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1999-11
Volume
354
Issue
9193
Pages
1896-1900
ISSN
  • 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
  • 0140-6736
DOI
10.1016/s0140-6736(99)04149-5
OpenAlex
W2000442546
Cited by
4,826
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 24 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 64 · 2023: 75 · 2022: 81 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 100 · 2019: 91 · 2018: 104 · 2017: 136 · 2016: 139 · 2015: 181 · 2014: 232 · 2013: 253 · 2012: 256
FWCI
131.65
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • The Lancet (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Abbott Laboratories
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
Keywords
reporting quality, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trials, reporting guidelines, checklists, flowcharts, trial selection, data synthesis, research documentation
MeSH terms
Authorship, Humans, Software Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Guidelines as Topic

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