Cited by 3,374Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration

Open access
Liberati, Alessandro, Altman, Douglas G., Tetzlaff, Jennifer, Mulrow, Cynthia, Gøtzsche, Peter C., Ioannidis, John P. A., Clarke, Mike, Devereaux, P. J. +2 more·2009·Italian Journal of Public Health

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safetyof health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however,is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, andother users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—areporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practicaladvances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews ofpublished systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported.Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologistsdeveloped PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution ofthe original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health careinterventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. Thechecklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In thisExplanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. Foreach item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empiricalstudies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site(http://www. prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematicreviews and meta-analyses.

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 · 10.2427/5768

Cites

202 of 202 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 30

  1. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C. Evaluating metaanalyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg. 2005;241: 450-9. [PMID: 15729067].
  2. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999; 354:1896-900. [PMID: 10584742].
  3. Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al; CONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001;134:663-94. [PMID: 11304107].
  4. Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al; Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003;138:W1-12. [PMID: 12513067].
  5. Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Wong JB, Giovannucci E, Dietrich T, Dawson-Hughes B. Fracture prevention with vitamin D supplementation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA. 2005;293:2257-64. [PMID: 15886381].
  6. Hartley J, Sydes M, Blurton A. Obtaining information accurately and quickly: are structured abstract more efficient? Journal of Information Science. 1996; 22:349-56.
  7. Pocock SJ, Hughes MD, Lee RJ. Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals. N Engl J Med. 1987;317:426. 32) [PMID: 3614286]
  8. Gotzsche PC. Why we need a broad perspective on meta- analysis. It may be crucially important for patients [Editorial]. BMJ. 2000;321:585-6. [PMID: 10977820].
  9. Brunton G, Green S, Higgins JPT, Kjeldstrøm M, Jackson N, Oliver JS. Chapter 2: Preparing a Cochrane review. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; updated February 2008. Accessed at www.cochrane- handbook.org on 26 May 2009.
  10. Ioannidis JP, Rosenberg PS, Goedert JJ, O'Brien TR; International Meta-analysis of HIV Host Genetics. Commentary: meta-analysis of individual participants' data in genetic epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156:204-10. [PMID: 12142254].
  11. Chan AW, Hro bjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Em-pirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291:2457-65. [PMID: 15161896]
  12. Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002;287: 2831-4. [PMID: 12038926]
  13. Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ, Ghali WA. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166:161-6. [PMID: 16432083].
  14. Bergerhoff K, Ebrahim S, Paletta G. Do we need to consider in process citations' for search strategies? [Abstract]. 12th Cochrane Colloquium, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, 2-6 October 2004. Accessed at www.cochrane.org/colloquia /abstracts/ ottawa/P-039.htm on 26 May 2009.
  15. Zhang L, Sampson M, McGowan J. Reporting of the role of expert searcher in Cochrane reviews. Evidence Based Library f r e E P A P E R S and Information Practice. 2006;1:3-16.
  16. Alejandria MM, Lansang MA, Dans LF, Mantaring JB. Intravenous immunoglobulin for treating sepsis and septic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002:CD001090. [PMID: 11869591].
  17. Shah MR, Hasselblad V, Stevenson LW, Binanay C, O'Connor CM, Sopko G, et al. Impact of the pulmonary artery catheter in critically ill patients: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA. 2005;294:1664-70. [PMID: 16204666].
  18. von Elm E, Poglia G, Walder B, Tramer MR. Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews. JAMA. 2004;291: 974-80. [PMID: 14982913].
  19. Guyatt GH, Devereaux PJ. Therapy and validity: the principle of intention-to-treat. In: Guyatt GH, Rennie DR, eds. Users' Guides to the Medical Litera-ture. Chicago: AMA Pr; 2002:267-73. 103) Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group [Letter]. Lancet. 1997;350:185-6. [PMID: 9250191]. 104
  20. Jones M, Schenkel B, Just J, Fallowfield L. Epoetin alfa improves quality of life in patients with cancer: results of metaanalysis. Cancer. 2004;101:1720-32. [PMID: 15386341]. 115
  21. DeCamp LR, Byerley JS, Doshi N, Steiner MJ. Use of antiemetic agents in acute gastroenteritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2008;162:858-65. [PMID: 18762604]. 136
  22. Altman DG, Cates C. The need for individual trial results in reports of systematic reviews [Rapid Response]. BMJ. Published 25 October 2001. Accessed at www.bmj.com/cgi/eletters/ 323/7316/776#17150 on 10 June 2009. 139
  23. Green LW, Glasgow RE. Evaluating the relevance, generalization, and applicability of research: issues in external validation and translation methodology. Eval Health Prof. 2006;29:126-53. [PMID: 16510882]. 154
  24. Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA. 2003;290:921-8. [PMID: 12928469]. 168
  25. Davies P, Boruch R. The Campbell Collaboration. Does for public policy what cochrane does for health [Editorial]. BMJ. 2001;323:294-5. [PMID: 11498472]. 174
  26. O'Connor D, Green S, Higgins JPT. Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.0.0. The Cochrane Collaboration; updated February 2008. Accessed at www .cochrane-handbook.org on 26 May 2009. 187
  27. Fleiss JL. The statistical basis of meta-analysis. Stat Methods Med Res. 1993;2:121-45. [PMID: 8261254]. 196
  28. Dickersin K. Publication bias: recognising the problem, understanding its origin and scope, and preventing harm. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis-Prevention, Assessment and Adjust-ments. West Sussex, UK: J Wiley; 2005:356. 207
  29. Hopewell S, Clarke M. Methodologists and their methods. Do methodologists write up their conference presentations or is it just 15 minutes of fame? Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:601-3. [PMID: 11758303]. 210
  30. Sterne JA, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta- analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2001;54:1046-55. [PMID: 11576817]. 213

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
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.
Affiliations
  • University of Modena and Reggio Emilia (IT)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • Cochrane (DK)
  • University of Ioannina (GR)
  • Trinity College Dublin (IE)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Maastricht University (NL)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Venue
Italian Journal of Public Health
Published
2009-12-31
Volume
6
Issue
4
ISSN
  • 1723-7807 (ISSN-L)
  • 1723-7815
OpenAlex
W4399625654
Cited by
3,374
References
202
Citations by year
2026: 58 · 2025: 93 · 2024: 302 · 2023: 340 · 2022: 504 · 2021: 623 · 2020: 418 · 2019: 269 · 2018: 173 · 2017: 140 · 2016: 110 · 2015: 98 · 2014: 72 · 2013: 71 · 2012: 58
FWCI
2.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-sa
Locations
  • Italian Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Bollettino del CILEA (CILEA) (submittedVersion)
  • Riviste UNIMI (Università degli studi di Milano) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
  • GlaxoSmithKline
  • University of Ottawa
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • McMaster University
  • University of Ioannina
  • Medical Research Council
  • Care and Public Health Research Institute, Universiteit Maastricht
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
PRISMA statement, systematic review reporting, meta-analysis reporting, reporting guidelines, reporting checklist, flowcharts, transparency in research reporting, health interventions, evidence synthesis

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