Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 416

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

QUOROM Group, Moher, David, Cook, Deborah J, Eastwood, Susan, Olkin, Ingram, Rennie, Drummond, Stroup, Donna F·2000·Journal of British Surgery

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01610.x

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 45 references

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Deeks, 1996, Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness CRD Guidelines for Those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews
  2. Chalmers, 1995, Systematic Reviews, 86
  3. Olkin, 1984, A critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods, Am J Epidemiol, 140, 287
  4. Shea, Systematic Reviews
  5. The Cochrane Library, 1996, [database on disk and CDROM]
  6. Moher, 1998, Does the language of publication of reports of randomized trials influence the estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?
  7. Kennedy, 1999, Risperidone versus typical antipsychotic medication for schizophrenia (Cochrane Review)

Cited by

See all 416

Metadata

Authors
QUOROM Group, Moher, D., Cook, D. J., Eastwood, S., Olkin, I., Rennie, D., & Stroup, D. F.
Venue
Journal of British Surgery
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.