The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 36 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A guide to prospective meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
In a prospective meta-analysis (PMA), study selection criteria, hypotheses, and analyses are specified before the results of the studies related to the PMA research question are known, reducing many of the problems associated with a traditional (retrospective) meta-analysis. PMAs have many advantages: they can help reduce research waste and bias, and they are adaptive, efficient, and collaborative. Despite an increase in the number of health research articles labelled as PMAs, the methodology remains rare, novel, and often misunderstood. This paper provides detailed guidance on how to address the key elements for conducting a high quality PMA with a case study to illustrate each step.
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.
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
“Furthermore, planning a prospective meta-analysis can in some situations help achieve sufficient power by pooling the results from multiple trials.414”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [414]
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
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
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) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
Self-citationROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Causality: Models, Reasoning, and Inference
Pearl, J. (2009) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511803161 · Cited by 11,653
GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables
Guyatt, G., Oxman, A. D., Akl, E. A., Kunz, R., Vist, G., Brozek, J., Norris, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., Glasziou, P., & deBeer, H. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026 · Cited by 10,681
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration
Higgins, J., Green, S. R., & Higgins, J. (2008) · Cited by 5,544
GRADE guidelines 6. Rating the quality of evidence—imprecision
Guyatt, G. H., Oxman, A. D., Kunz, R., Brozek, J., Alonso-Coello, P., Rind, D., Devereaux, P. J., Montori, V. M., Freyschuss, B., Vist, G., et al. (2011) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.01.012 · Cited by 2,693
Stewart, L. A., Clarke, M., Rovers, M., Riley, R. D., Simmonds, M., Stewart, G., & Tierney, J. F. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3656 · Cited by 2,134
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- National Health and Medical Research Council, 2009, NHMRC additional levels of evidence and grades for recommendations for developers of guidelines.
- Berlin, 2006, Preventing Publication Bias: Registries and Prospective Meta-Analysis. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis., 35
- Seidler, 2018, Lessons learned from a prospective meta-analysis (PMA) of childhood obesity prevention – quantifying the advantages of a PMA and future recommendations., Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 9
- Higgins, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Lister, N. B., Baur, L. A., Felix, J. F., Hill, A. J., Marcus, C., Reinehr, T., Summerbell, C., & Wabitsch, M. (2023) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-023-00435-4 · Cited by 596
Vale, C. L., Fisher, D. J., Kneebone, A. B., Parker, C. C., Pearse, M., Richaud, P. M., Sargos, P., Sydes, M. R., Brawley, C., Brihoum, M., et al. (2020) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(20)31952-8 · Cited by 413
Page, M. J., Sterne, J. A. C., Higgins, J. P. T., & Egger, M. (2021) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1002/jrsm.1468 · Cited by 294
Churuangsuk, C., Hall, J., Reynolds, A., Griffin, S. J., Combet, E., & Lean, M. E. J. (2022) · Diabetologia · doi:10.1007/s00125-021-05577-2 · Cited by 204
SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials
Hróbjartsson, A., Boutron, I., Hopewell, S., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Collins, G. S., Tunn, R., Aggarwal, R., Berkwits, M., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081660 · Cited by 171
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Seidler, A. L., Hunter, K. E., Cheyne, S., Ghersi, D., Berlin, J. A., & Askie, L.
- Affiliations
- The University of Sydney (AU)
- Johnson & Johnson (United States) (US)
- Corresponding author
- Seidler, Anna Lene
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2019-10-09
- Volume
- 367
- Pages
- l5342
- ISSN
- 1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- OpenAlex
- W2979464746
- Cited by
- 125
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 20
- FWCI
- 10.36
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- www.bmj.com/company/legal-information/terms-conditions/legal-information/tdm-licencepolicy (tdm)
- Locations
- BMJ (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
- Keywords
- study selection criteria, hypothesis specification, research bias, research waste, research collaboration, health research methodology
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Humans, Prospective Studies, Meta-Analysis 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
