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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“Similar initiatives have followed for other research areas—e.g., for the reporting of meta-analyses of randomised trials [16] or diagnostic studies [17].”
From The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies (2007) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“Meta-analysis was performed according to the QUORUM guidelines (quality of reporting meta-analyses).”
From Comparative Efficacy and Harms of Duloxetine, Milnacipran, and Pregabalin in Fibromyalgia Syndrome (2010) · cites this paper as [47]
In the citing paper
“Mobile technology is also increasingly used to promote health and prevent disease (11, 13–17).”
From Text messaging as a tool for behavior change in disease prevention and management (2010) · cites this paper as [17]
In the citing paper
“Reporting guidelines have been demonstrated to improve reporting of research, thereby allowing for consumers of the research to be aware of the strengths, limitations, and accuracy of conclusions [12,82–84].”
From The Reporting of Studies Conducted Using Observational Routinely-Collected Health Data (RECORD) statement. (2015) · cites this paper as [83]
In the citing paper
“Similar initiatives have followed for other research areas d e.g., for the reporting of meta-analyses of randomised trials [16] or diagnostic studies [17].”
From The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for reporting observational studies (2014) · cites this paper as [16]
In the citing paper
“Examination of changes in reporting quality of MAs published in Medline, Embase and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, suggested that quality had improved after the release of the QUORUM reporting guidelines [18], [19].”
From Epidemiology, Quality and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Published in Chinese Journals (2011) · cites this paper as [18]
In the citing paper
“The QUOROM Statement, developed in 1996 and published in 1999 [8], was conceived as a reporting guidance for authors reporting a meta-analysis of randomized trials.”
From The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009) · cites this paper as [8]
In the citing paper
“In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [8].”
From Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009) · cites this paper as [8]
Citations
Cites
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?
Jadad, A. R., Moore, R. A., Carroll, D., Jenkinson, C., Reynolds, D. J. M., Gavaghan, D. J., & McQuay, H. J. (1996) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4 · Cited by 17,582
Schulz (1995) · doi:10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030 · Cited by 5,634
Moher, D., Pham, B., Jones, A., Cook, D. J., Jadad, A. R., Moher, M., Tugwell, P., & Klassen, T. P. (1998) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(98)01085-x · Cited by 3,560
Self-citationImproving the Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials: The CONSORT Statement
Begg, C. (1996) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1996.03540080059030 · Cited by 3,127
Publication bias in clinical research
Easterbrook, P. J., Gopalan, R., Berlin, J. A., & Matthews, D. R. (1991) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/0140-6736(91)90201-y · Cited by 3,109
Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews
Dickersin, K., Scherer, R. W., & Lefebvre, C. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286 · Cited by 2,255
Systematic Reviews: Synthesis of Best Evidence for Clinical Decisions
Cook, D. J., Mulrow, C. D., & Haynes, R. B. (1997) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-126-5-199703010-00006 · Cited by 2,184
Self-citationMeta-Analysis in Clinical Research
L'ABBÉ, K. A., DETSKY, A. S., & O'ROURKE, K. (1987) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-107-2-224 · Cited by 1,267
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
Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials
LeLorier, J., Grégoire, G., Benhaddad, A. A., Lapierre, J., & Derderian, F. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199708213370806 · Cited by 1,164
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Olkin, 1984, A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods, Am J Epidemiol, 140, 287
- 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).
- 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
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
Self-citationPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Self-citationPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Self-citationTong, A., Sainsbury, P., & Craig, J. (2007) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzm042 · Cited by 42,509
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Self-citation
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
- Venue
- The Lancet
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1999-11
- Volume
- 354
- Issue
- 9193
- Pages
- 1896-1900
- ISSN
- 0099-5355 (ISSN-L)
- 0140-6736
- 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
- 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
