CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 3,696Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchClinical practice guidelines implementation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 126 of the 128 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PRISMA-S: An Extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews

Open access
Rethlefsen, Melissa L., Kirtley, Shona, Waffenschmidt, Siw, Ayala, Ana Patricia, Moher, David, Page, Matthew James, Koffel, Jonathan·2019·Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.31219/osf.io/sfc38PMC PMC7839230

Preprint — published as 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z · Paper page

Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Despite wide usage of the PRISMA Statement reporting guideline by systematic review authors, compliance with its items regarding literature search reporting is suboptimal. We sought to develop an international standard for literature search reporting aligned with the PRISMA Statement to improve the quality and reproducibility of reported literature searches.METHODOLOGY: We formed an executive committee to lead the PRISMA-S extension development. The study protocol was published prior to study inception. To identify potential items for inclusion, we performed a literature search. Identified items were reviewed for overlap and consolidated. We then used a three-step Delphi survey process to assess the items. The first survey asked 163 international experts to rate each item, and the second and third rounds asked respondents to select the 25 most necessary items for a checklist. Potential items moved to rounds 2 and 3 based on pre-specified criteria. Remaining items were discussed at an in-person consensus conference. After the consensus conference, the remaining items were consolidated into a checklist. Executive committee members developed an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. The checklist and documentation were distributed for pilot testing. RESULTS: We identified 405 potential items from 61 sources located through the literature search process. Sources included both explicit reporting guidelines and studies assessing reproducibility of search strategies. These were consolidated into 123 potential items for the Delphi survey. We received 52 responses (32% response rate) to the first survey, and 35 (67% response rate) to both surveys two and three. The results of the Delphi process were reported at the consensus conference meeting in May 2016. Post-consensus conference, 34 items remained. The checklist was finalized into 13 items and 10 sub-items. Pilot testing is underway. This document is the draft for the Explanation & Elaboration for Draft 1, released for review/testing.CONCLUSIONS: The PRISMA-S extension for the PReferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline will provide a consensus-driven international standard for literature search reporting. Using this new reporting guideline may enable librarians and information specialists to produce higher quality, more reproducible, transparent search strategies for systematic reviews and other literature review-based publications.

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 · 10.31219/osf.io/sfc38

Cites

126 of 126 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Fig. 1 “Figure 1. PRISMA 2009 flow diagram” [132]
Fig. 1 “Figure 1. PRISMA 2009 flow diagram” [132]CC BY · PubMed Central

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

1 retracted

Show all 128 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 701–800 of 1,001

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Florida (US)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (DE)
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • University of Minnesota (US)
Corresponding author
Rethlefsen, Melissa L.
ORCID
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2019-03-20
Volume
10
Issue
1
Pages
39-39
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.31219/osf.io/sfc38
PMC
PMC7839230
OpenAlex
W3123497531
Cited by
3,696
References
128
Citations by year
2026: 1275 · 2025: 695 · 2024: 604 · 2023: 548 · 2022: 399 · 2021: 165 · 2020: 9
FWCI
17.92
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • La Trobe University (cc-by)
Funders
  • Medical Library Association
  • Yale University
  • University of Minnesota (2017-2018)
  • Washington University in St. Louis
  • University of Utah (UL1TR002538)
  • Carnegie Mellon University
  • Dartmouth College
  • University of Ottawa
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • McMaster University
  • Kent State University
  • National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
  • CHEO Research Institute
  • Bond University
  • Cancer Research UK (27294, 16895, C49297/A27294)
  • University of Oxford
  • La Trobe University
  • National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002538)
  • University of Colorado Denver
  • Medical Research Council (MR/J00488X/1)
  • Australian Research Council (DE200101618)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
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
PRISMA-S, reporting checklist, information sources, reporting guidelines
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Publications, Consensus, Checklist, Research Report

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