The DOI matches its Crossref record; 45 of the 45 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
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.
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
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., & Lefebvre, C. (1994) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.309.6964.1286 · Cited by 2,256
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 1,250
Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials
LeLorier, J., Grégoire, G., Benhaddad, A., Lapierre, J., & Derderian, F. (1997) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejm199708213370806 · Cited by 1,171
Research works printed but not linked: 7
- Deeks, 1996, Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness CRD Guidelines for Those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews
- Chalmers, 1995, Systematic Reviews, 86
- Olkin, 1984, A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods, Am J Epidemiol, 140, 287
- Shea, Systematic Reviews
- The Cochrane Library, 1996, [database on disk and CDROM]
- Moher, 1998, Does the language of publication of reports of randomized trials influence the estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?
- Kennedy, 1999, Risperidone versus typical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia (Cochrane Review)
Cited by
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-citationA Meta-Analysis of Cytokines in Major Depression
Dowlati, Y., Herrmann, N., Swardfager, W., Liu, H., Sham, L., Reim, E. K., & Lanctôt, K. L. (2010) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.09.033 · Cited by 4,729
Costelloe, C., Metcalfe, C., Lovering, A., Mant, D., & Hay, A. D. (2010) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.c2096 · Cited by 1,981
McGaghie, W. C., Issenberg, S. B., Cohen, E. R., Barsuk, J. H., & Wayne, D. B. (2011) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/acm.0b013e318217e119 · Cited by 1,866
Marik, P. E., Baram, M., & Vahid, B. (2008) · Chest · doi:10.1378/chest.07-2331 · Cited by 1,516
Metadata
- Authors
- QUOROM Group, Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F.
- Venue
- Journal of British Surgery
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2000-11-01
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1448-1454
- ISSN
- 0007-1323 (ISSN-L)
- 1365-2168
- OpenAlex
- W2005775721
- Cited by
- 416
- References
- 45
- FWCI
- 18.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01610.x
- The paper
- QUOROM Group, Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F. (2000). Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Journal of British Surgery. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01610.x
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.