Online citations, reference lists, and bibliographies.
Please confirm you are human
(Sign Up for free to never see this)
← Back to Search

The PRISMA Statement For Reporting Systematic Reviews And Meta-Analyses Of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation And Elaboration

A. Liberati, D. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, Peter C. Gtzsche, J. Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, D. Moher
Published 2009 · Medicine

Save to my Library
Download PDF
Analyze on Scholarcy
Share
Editor's Note: In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA explanatory paper, this article is freely accessible on the Annals of Internal Medicine, PLoS Medicine, and BMJ Web sites. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA Web site (www.prisma-statement.org). Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools for summarizing evidence accurately and reliably. They help clinicians keep up-to-date; provide evidence for policy makers to judge risks, benefits, and harms of health care behaviors and interventions; gather together and summarize related research for patients and their carers; provide a starting point for clinical practice guideline developers; provide summaries of previous research for funders wishing to support new research (1); and help editors judge the merits of publishing reports of new studies (2). Recent data suggest that at least 2,500 new systematic reviews reported in English are indexed in MEDLINE annually (3). Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that key information is often poorly reported in systematic reviews, thus diminishing their potential usefulness (36). As is true for all research, systematic reviews should be reported fully and transparently to allow readers to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation (7). That rationale led to the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement; those detailed reporting recommendations were published in 1999 (8). In this paper we describe the updating of that guidance. Our aim is to ensure clear presentation of what was planned, done, and found in a systematic review. Terminology used to describe systematic reviews and meta-analyses has evolved over time and varies across different groups of researchers and authors (see Box 1). In this document we adopt the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration (9). A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected to minimize bias, thus providing reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made. Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize and combine the results of independent studies. Many systematic reviews contain meta-analyses, but not all. Box 1. Terminology. The QUOROM Statement and Its Evolution Into PRISMA The QUOROM Statement, developed in 1996 and published in 1999 (8), was conceived as a reporting guidance for authors reporting a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Since then, much has happened. First, knowledge about the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews has expanded considerably. For example, The Cochrane Library's Methodology Register (which includes reports of studies relevant to the methods for systematic reviews) now contains more than 11,000 entries (March 2009). Second, there have been many conceptual advances, such as outcome-level assessments of the risk of bias (10, 11), that apply to systematic reviews. Third, authors have increasingly used systematic reviews to summarize evidence other than that provided by randomized trials. However, despite advances, the quality of the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews remains well short of ideal (36). All of these issues prompted the need for an update and expansion of the QUOROM Statement. Of note, recognizing that the updated statement now addresses the above conceptual and methodological issues and may also have broader applicability than the original QUOROM Statement, we changed the name of the reporting guidance to PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). Development of PRISMA The PRISMA Statement was developed by a group of 29 review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and consumers (12). They attended a three-day meeting in 2005 and participated in extensive post-meeting electronic correspondence. A consensus process that was informed by evidence, whenever possible, was used to develop a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Table S1, for a downloadable template checklist for researchers to re-use) and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1, for a downloadable template document for researchers to re-use). Items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review were included in the checklist. The flow diagram originally proposed by QUOROM was also modified to show numbers of identified records, excluded articles, and included studies. After 11 revisions the group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this explanatory paper. Table S1. Template checklist Figure S1. Template document Table 1. Checklist of Items to Include When Reporting a Systematic Review (With or Without Meta-Analysis) Figure 1. Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. The PRISMA Statement itself provides further details regarding its background and development (12). This accompanying Explanation and Elaboration document explains the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. A few PRISMA Group participants volunteered to help draft specific items for this document, and four of these (DGA, AL, DM, and JT) met on several occasions to further refine the document, which was circulated and ultimately approved by the larger PRISMA Group. Scope of PRISMA PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure the transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It does not address directly or in a detailed manner the conduct of systematic reviews, for which other guides are available (1316). We developed the PRISMA Statement and this explanatory document to help authors report a wide array of systematic reviews to assess the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. We consider most of the checklist items relevant when reporting systematic reviews of non-randomized studies assessing the benefits and harms of interventions. However, we recognize that authors who address questions relating to etiology, diagnosis, or prognosis, for example, and who review epidemiological or diagnostic accuracy studies may need to modify or incorporate additional items for their systematic reviews. How To Use This Paper We modeled this Explanation and Elaboration document after those prepared for other reporting guidelines (1719). To maximize the benefit of this document, we encourage people to read it in conjunction with the PRISMA Statement (11). We present each checklist item and follow it with a published exemplar of good reporting for that item. (We edited some examples by removing citations or Web addresses, or by spelling out abbreviations.) We then explain the pertinent issue, the rationale for including the item, and relevant evidence from the literature, whenever possible. No systematic search was carried out to identify exemplars and evidence. We also include seven Boxes that provide a more comprehensive explanation of certain thematic aspects of the methodology and conduct of systematic reviews. Although we focus on a minimal list of items to consider when reporting a systematic review, we indicate places where additional information is desirable to improve transparency of the review process. We present the items numerically from 1 to 27; however, authors need not address items in this particular order in their reports. Rather, what is important is that the information for each item is given somewhere within the report. The PRISMA Checklist Title and Abstract Item 1: Title Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. Examples Recurrence rates of video-assisted thoracoscopic versus open surgery in the prevention of recurrent pneumothoraces: a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised trials (20). Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis (21). Explanation Authors should identify their report as a systematic review or meta-analysis. Terms such as review or overview do not describe for readers whether the review was systematic or whether a meta-analysis was performed. A recent survey found that 50% of 300 authors did not mention the terms systematic review or meta-analysis in the title or abstract of their systematic review (3). Although sensitive search strategies have been developed to identify systematic reviews (22), inclusion of the terms systematic review or meta-analysis in the title may improve indexing and identification. We advise authors to use informative titles that make key information easily accessible to readers. Ideally, a title reflecting the PICOS approach (participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes, and study design) (see Item 11 and Box 2) may help readers as it provides key information about the scope of the review. Specifying the design(s) of the studies included, as shown in the examples, may also help some readers and those searching databases. Box 2. Helping To Develop the Research Question(s): The PICOS Approach. Some journals recommend indicative titles that indicate the topic matter of the review, while others require declarative titles that give the review's main conclusion. Busy practitioners may prefer to see the conclusion of the review in the title, but declarative titles can oversimplify or exaggerate findings. Thus, many journals and methodologists prefer indicative titles as used in the examples above. Item 2: Structured Summary Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; funding for the systematic review; and systematic review registration number. Example Context: The role and dose of oral vitamin D supplementation in nonvert
This paper references
10.1016/S0022-3999(03)00573-7
Mindfulness-based stress reduction and health benefits: A meta-analysis
P. Grossman (2004)
10.1016/S0093-3619(08)71006-2
Dressings for venous leg ulcers: systematic review and meta-analysis
B. Thiers (2008)
10.1177/096228029300200202
Review papers : The statistical basis of meta-analysis
Jl Fleiss (1993)
10.1093/IJE/DYI195
Haemoglobin colour scale for anaemia diagnosis where there is no laboratory: a systematic review.
J. Critchley (2005)
10.1093/IJE/DYM087
Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from meta-analyses of randomized trials.
J. Pildal (2007)
10.1136/bmj.38414.515938.8F
Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study
L. Moja (2005)
10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1171
Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications
H. Melander (2003)
10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review
J. Lexchin (2003)
10.1136/bmj.315.7109.635
Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: a case study
M. Tramèr (1997)
10.1136/bmj.316.7140.1275
Effectiveness of antibiotic prophylaxis in critically ill adult patients: systematic review of randomised controlled trials
R. D'Amico (1998)
: results of metaanalysis
DR Elbourne (2004)
10.1016/S0084-3954(08)79002-X
How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis
J. Stockman (2009)
Principles for developing guidance: AHRQ and the effective health care program
M. Helfand (2009)
10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD
GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations
G. Guyatt (2008)
10.5694/j.1326-5377.2006.tb00557.x
Does the CONSORT checklist improve the quality of reports of randomised controlled trials? A systematic review
A. Plint (2006)
10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00008
Meta-analysis: Duration of First-Line Proton-Pump InhibitorBased Triple Therapy for Helicobacter pylori Eradication
L. Fuccio (2007)
10.3310/HTA4100
Publication and related biases.
F. Song (2000)
10.1016/S0084-3873(08)79043-6
The Use of Aspirin for Primary Prevention of Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review Prepared for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force
J. Barkin (2008)
10.1373/49.1.7
The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration.
P. Bossuyt (2003)
10.3310/HTA3120
Assessing the quality of reports of randomised trials: implications for the conduct of meta-analyses.
D. Moher (1999)
10.1001/archpedi.162.9.858
Use of antiemetic agents in acute gastroenteritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Lisa R DeCamp (2008)
10.1590/S1135-57272008000400008
A DICTIONARY OF EPIDEMIOLOGY
M. Porta (2008)
10.1111/j.1447-0756.2001.tb01222.x
WORLD MEDICAL ASSOCIATION DECLARATION OF HELSINKI: Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects
Christiane (2002)
10.1503/cmaj.1041086
Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research
A. Chan (2004)
10.1136/bmj.321.7253.73
Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
H. Bucher (2000)
10.1016/0895-4356(94)00098-B
Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias?
G. Grégoire (1995)
10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews
D. Moher (2007)
10.1038/sj.ebd.6400504
Benchmarking of reported search and selection methods of systematic reviews by dental speciality
Michael P. Major (2007)
10.1002/0470870168
Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments
H. Rothstein (2006)
Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts.
P. Froom (1993)
10.14219/JADA.ARCHIVE.2006.0382
An evaluation of search and selection methods used in dental systematic reviews published in English.
Michael P. Major (2006)
10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61163-5
Recurrence rates of video-assisted thoracoscopic versus open surgery in the prevention of recurrent pneumothoraces: a systematic review of randomised and non-randomised trials
A. Barker (2007)
10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2003.12.001
Meta-regression detected associations between heterogeneous treatment effects and study-level, but not patient-level, factors.
C. Schmid (2004)
10.1016/0197-2456(94)00031-W
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials: an annotated bibliography of scales and checklists.
D. Moher (1995)
10.1016/S0025-7753(05)72203-X
Elaboración de directrices para la publicación de investigación biomédica: proceso y fundamento científico
D. Altman (2005)
10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2005.01.006
In an empirical evaluation of the funnel plot, researchers could not visually identify publication bias.
N. Terrin (2005)
10.1136/bmj.333.7568.597
The case of the misleading funnel plot
J. Lau (2006)
10.1016/0895-4356(92)90054-Q
Variance imputation for overviews of clinical trials with continuous response.
D. Follmann (1992)
10.1177/096228020101000602
Multilevel models for meta-analysis, and their application to absolute risk differences
S. Thompson (2001)
10.1002/1097-0258(20001230)19:24<3325::AID-SIM827>3.0.CO;2-D
Assessing the potential for bias in meta-analysis due to selective reporting of subgroup analyses within studies.
S. Hahn (2000)
10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2004.03.017
An observational study found that authors of randomized controlled trials frequently use concealment of randomization and blinding, despite the failure to report these methods.
P. Devereaux (2004)
The statistical basis of meta-analysis.
J. Fleiss (1993)
10.1136/bmj.38693.516782.7C
Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study
G. Biondi-Zoccai (2006)
10.1002/SIM.4780141902
Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group.
L. Stewart (1995)
Does for public policy what cochrane does for health [Editorial
P Davies (2001)
10.1017/S0266462305050154
Meta-analysis when only the median survival times are known: a comparison with individual patient data results.
S. Michiels (2005)
10.1093/IJE/31.1.140
Meta-analyses involving cross-over trials: methodological issues.
D. Elbourne (2002)
10.7326/0003-4819-145-12-200612190-00143
Effectiveness of Management Strategies for Renal Artery Stenosis: A Systematic Review
E. Balk (2006)
10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2005.08.017
A systematic review identifies a lack of standardization in methods for handling missing variance data.
N. Wiebe (2006)
10.1001/ARCHINTE.166.2.161
Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence.
S. Bagshaw (2006)
10.1002/SIM.1190
Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records.
P. Edwards (2002)
10.1111/J.1749-6632.1993.TB26342.X
The Science of Reviewing Research a
A. Oxman (1993)
10.1136/bmj.323.7303.42
Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials
P. Jüni (2001)
10.1001/JAMA.293.18.2257
Fracture prevention with vitamin D supplementation: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
H. Bischoff-Ferrari (2005)
10.1096/fj.04-3140lfe
From conference abstract to full paper: differences between data presented in conferences and journals
E. S. Rosmarakis (2005)
10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2
Meta-analysis in clinical trials.
R. Dersimonian (1986)
Issues in the design, conduct and reporting of clinical trials that impact on the quality of decision making
D. Ghersi (2006)
10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67756-2
Safety and efficacy of zinc supplementation for children with HIV-1 infection in South Africa: a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled trial
R. Bobat (2005)
10.1016/S0084-3873(09)79529-X
Meta-analysis: Combination Endoscopic and Drug Therapy to Prevent Variceal Rebleeding in Cirrhosis
D. Harnois (2009)
10.1016/S0140-6736(89)91859-X
STRESS ULCER PROPHYLAXIS IN CRITICALLY ILL PATIENTS
(1989)
10.1056/NEJM198702193160806
Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.
H. Sacks (1987)
10.1093/BIOSTATISTICS/2.4.463
On the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions.
S. Greenland (2001)
10.1097/EDE.0b013e3181577511
Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration
J. Vandenbroucke (2007)
Therapy and validity: the principle of intentionto-treat
GH Guyatt (2002)
10.1002/SIM.1186
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis.
J. Higgins (2002)
10.1136/bmj.38336.804167.47
Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey
V. Montori (2004)
10.1001/JAMA.290.4.495
Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting.
M. Krzyzanowska (2003)
Quality of nonstructured and structured abstracts of original research articles in the British Medical Journal, the Canadian Medical Association Journal and the Journal of the American Medical Association.
A. Taddio (1994)
10.1177/0163278705284445
Evaluating the Relevance, Generalization, and Applicability of Research
L. Green (2006)
10.1002/SIM.1752
Controlling the risk of spurious findings from meta-regression.
J. Higgins (2004)
10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629
Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test
M. Egger (1997)
10.5124/jkma.2014.57.11.899
World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki. Ethical principles for medical research involving human subjects.
WMADo Helsinki (2002)
10.1001/JAMA.294.13.1664
Impact of the pulmonary artery catheter in critically ill patients: meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.
M. Shah (2005)
10.1136/bmj.38503.623646.8F
How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative β blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
P. Devereaux (2005)
10.1002/SIM.2025
Identification and impact of outcome selection bias in meta-analysis.
P. Williamson (2005)
10.1177/0962280207080643
Evaluation of networks of randomized trials
G. Salanti (2008)
10.1136/bmj.39590.732037.47
What is missing from descriptions of treatment in trials and reviews?
P. Glasziou (2008)
10.1007/BF00558064
Multiple publication of reports of drug trials
P. Gøtzsche (2004)
Bias in location and selection of studies.
M. Egger (1998)
10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement.
D. Moher (2010)
10.3310/HTA2190
Systematic reviews of trials and other studies.
A. Sutton (1998)
10.18438/B85K52
Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews
L. Zhang (2006)
A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews.
A. Jadad (1997)
10.7326/0003-4819-148-8-200804150-00004
Meta-analysis: Antibiotics for Prophylaxis against Hemodialysis CatheterRelated Infections
Matthew T. James (2008)
10.1016/J.SOCSCIMED.2004.12.001
Storylines of research in diffusion of innovation: a meta-narrative approach to systematic review.
T. Greenhalgh (2005)
A Systematic Review of Public Water Fluoridation
M. McDonagh (2000)
10.1371/journal.pone.0003081
Systematic Review of the Empirical Evidence of Study Publication Bias and Outcome Reporting Bias
K. Dwan (2008)
10.1097/00132586-199612000-00009
Stress ulcer prophylaxis in critically ill patients. Resolving discordant meta-analyses.
D. Cook (1996)
10.1001/JAMA.291.8.974
Different patterns of duplicate publication: an analysis of articles used in systematic reviews.
E. von Elm (2004)
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.012
An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies.
M. Sampson (2009)
10.1503/cmaj.060410
The appropriateness of asymmetry tests for publication bias in meta-analyses: a large survey
J. Ioannidis (2007)
Alberta Kidney Disease Network. Meta-analysis: antibiotics for prophylaxis against hemodialysis catheter-related infections
MT James (2008)
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.005
Reporting of adverse events in systematic reviews can be improved: survey results.
S. Hopewell (2008)
10.1210/JC.2006-0036
Testosterone use in men and its effects on bone health. A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials.
M. Tracz (2006)
10.1056/NEJM197912273012602
Controversy in counting and attributing events in clinical trials.
D. Sackett (1979)
10.1001/JAMA.287.22.2973
Correlation of quality measures with estimates of treatment effect in meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.
E. Balk (2002)
10.3736/jcim20080301
[CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration].
Sally Hopewel (2008)
10.1136/bmj.38895.410451.79
Believability of relative risks and odds ratios in abstracts: cross sectional study
P. Gøtzsche (2006)
Systematic reviews in health care : meta-analysis in context
M. Egger (2001)
10.1136/bmj.b2535
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
D. Moher (2009)
10.1016/S0140-6736(07)61835-2
CONSORT for reporting randomised trials in journal and conference abstracts
S. Hopewell (2008)
10.1038/sj.bjc.6602103
Psychosocial interventions for patients with advanced cancer – a systematic review of the literature
R. Uitterhoeve (2004)
10.1056/NEJM198708133170706
Statistical problems in the reporting of clinical trials. A survey of three medical journals.
S. Pocock (1987)
10.1002/SIM.1096
Meta-analyses in systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials in perinatal medicine: comparison of fixed and random effects models.
J. Villar (2001)
10.1136/bmj.320.7249.1574
Empirical assessment of effect of publication bias on meta-analyses
A. Sutton (2000)
10.1016/J.AMJMED.2004.04.022
Effects of statins on stroke prevention in patients with and without coronary heart disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
M. Briel (2004)
10.1093/OXFORDJOURNALS.AJE.A117248
Invited commentary: a critical look at some popular meta-analytic methods.
S. Greenland (1994)
10.1136/bmj.39497.500903.25
Treatment of human brucellosis: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Keren Skalsky (2008)
10.1016/S0895-4356(01)00377-8
Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis.
J. Sterne (2001)
10.1002/9780470712184.CH5
Chapter 5: Defining the review question and developing criteria for including studies
D. O'Connor (2008)
10.1037/1082-989X.11.2.193
Assessing heterogeneity in meta-analysis: Q statistic or I2 index?
T. Huedo-Medina (2006)
10.1001/JAMA.295.11.1281
Transition from meeting abstract to full-length journal article for randomized controlled trials.
M. Toma (2006)
10.1093/AJE/KWF031
Commentary: meta-analysis of individual participants' data in genetic epidemiology.
J. Ioannidis (2002)
10.1002/14651858.cd003774.pub2
Antiviral medications for preventing cytomegalovirus disease in solid organ transplant recipients.
E. Hodson (2005)
10.1136/bmj.38356.424606.8F
Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors
A. Chan (2005)
Pharmacological and surgical treatment of obesity.
P. Shekelle (2004)
10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5
Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
D. Moher (1999)
10.1002/SIM.1188
Issues in the selection of a summary statistic for meta-analysis of clinical trials with binary outcomes.
J. Deeks (2002)
10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61
meta-analysis bias in location and selection of studies
M. Egger (1998)
Do we need to consider ‘in process citations’ for search strategies? [Abstract
K Bergerhoff (2004)
10.1016/J.JCLINEPI.2004.11.024
High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews.
A. Jones (2005)
10.1002/14651858.CD004002.PUB3
Compression stockings for preventing deep vein thrombosis in airline passengers.
M. Clarke (2006)
10.1002/14651858.CD005471.pub2
Interventions to improve outpatient referrals from primary care to secondary care.
A. Akbari (2008)
Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies
J. P. Higgins (2008)
10.1191/0269216304pm914ra
Systematic review of bisphosphonates for hypercalcaemia of malignancy
Y. Saunders (2004)
10.1016/S0140-6736(05)17790-3
Can meta-analysis help target interventions at individuals most likely to benefit?
S. Thompson (2005)
10.1002/14651858.CD006162.PUB2
Rimonabant for overweight or obesity.
C. Curioni (2006)
10.1002/9780470693926.CH16
Effect Measures for Meta‒Analysis of Trials with Binary Outcomes
J. Deeks (2008)
10.1177/016555159602200503
Obtaining information accurately and quickly: are structured abstracts more efficient?
J. Hartley (1996)
10.1002/14651858.CD004510.PUB3
Telephone follow-up, initiated by a hospital-based health professional, for postdischarge problems in patients discharged from hospital to home.
P. Mistiaen (2006)
10.7326/0003-4819-108-4-613
A proposal for more informative abstracts of review articles.
C. Mulrow (1988)
10.1002/0470870168.CH2
Publication Bias: Recognizing the Problem, Understanding Its Origins and Scope, and Preventing Harm
K. Dickersin (2006)
10.1136/bmj.328.7430.22
Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology Group
H. Soares (2004)
10.7326/0003-4819-142-12_Part_2-200506211-00002
Better Information for Better Health Care: The Evidence-based Practice Center Program and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
D. Atkins (2005)
10.1093/IJE/DYM018
Tools for assessing quality and susceptibility to bias in observational studies in epidemiology: a systematic review and annotated bibliography.
S. Sanderson (2007)
10.1056/NEJMsa065779
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy.
E. Turner (2008)
10.1002/cncr.22528
Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials
J. Peppercorn (2007)
10.1258/1355819054308530
Realist review - a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions
R. Pawson (2005)
10.1185/030079904125003197
Quality assessment of meta-analyses of RCTs of pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder
M. Hemels (2004)
10.1016/S0140-6736(97)02419-7
Language bias in randomised controlled trials published in English and German
M. Egger (1997)
10.1017/S0266462300009570
Assessing the quality of randomized controlled trials. Current issues and future directions.
D. Moher (1996)
10.1001/JAMA.295.6.676
Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis.
J. Peters (2006)
10.1016/0197-2456(95)00134-4
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary?
A. Jadad (1996)
10.1002/14651858.cd003974.pub2
Placebo interventions for all clinical conditions.
A. Hrõbjartsson (2004)
10.1111/1468-2389.00156
Fixed Effects vs. Random Effects Meta‐Analysis Models: Implications for Cumulative Research Knowledge
J. Hunter (2000)
10.1191/0962280205sm415oa
Outcome selection bias in meta-analysis
P. Williamson (2005)
10.1136/bmj.321.7261.585
Why we need a broad perspective on meta-analysis
P. Gøtzsche (2000)
10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE
Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study
V. Yank (2007)
[Developing guidelines for reporting healthcare research: scientific rationale and procedures].
D. Altman (2005)
10.1016/j.cardfail.2007.11.008
Safety and tolerability of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor versus the combination of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
R. Lakhdar (2008)
10.1002/14651858.cd004753.pub2
Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for pain in women with endometriosis.
Christopher M Allen (2005)
10.1136/bmj.323.7308.294
The Campbell Collaboration
P. Davies (2001)
10.1016/S0140-6736(05)62352-5
Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group.
Berlin Ja (1997)
10.1001/JAMA.290.7.921
Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?
B. Als-Nielsen (2003)
10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019
Ghost Authorship in Industry-Initiated Randomised Trials
P. Gøtzsche (2007)
10.1136/bmj.317.7167.1185
The unpredictability paradox: review of empirical comparisons of randomised and non-randomised clinical trials
R. Kunz (1998)
10.1016/S0084-3873(08)79120-X
Meta-analysis: Chondroitin for Osteoarthritis of the Knee or Hip
S. Berney (2008)
10.1177/107554708901000301
Influences on the Outcome of Literature Searches for Integrative Research Reviews
H. Cooper (1989)
10.1002/9780470693926.CH15
Statistical Methods for Examining Heterogeneity and Combining Results from Several Studies in Meta‐Analysis
J. Deeks (2008)
10.1001/JAMA.1992.03490020088036
A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction.
E. Antman (1992)
10.1136/bmj.305.6844.15
Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome.
U. Ravnskov (1992)
10.1186/1741-7015-6-13
Helping editors, peer reviewers and authors improve the clarity, completeness and transparency of reporting health research
D. Moher (2008)
10.1001/JAMA.297.8.842
Mortality in randomized trials of antioxidant supplements for primary and secondary prevention: systematic review and meta-analysis.
G. Bjelakovic (2007)
10.1001/ARCHINTE.164.18.2005
Insulin therapy for critically ill hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
A. Pittas (2004)
10.1016/J.AMJMED.2004.04.026
Availability of large-scale evidence on specific harms from systematic reviews of randomized trials.
Panagiotis N. Papanikolaou (2004)
10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
J. Higgins (2003)
10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00188-8
What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?
D. Moher (2000)
10.1186/cc3803
A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature
A. Delaney (2005)
Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews.
J. Hartley (2000)
10.2106/00004623-200204000-00017
An Observational Study of Orthopaedic Abstracts and Subsequent Full-Text Publications
M. Bhandari (2002)
10.1002/cncr.20569
Epoetin alfa improves quality of life in patients with cancer
M. Jones (2004)
10.1200/JCO.1986.4.6.942
A quality assessment of randomized control trials of primary treatment of breast cancer.
A. Liberati (1986)
10.1001/JAMA.294.17.2203
Randomized trials stopped early for benefit: a systematic review.
V. Montori (2005)
10.1503/cmaj.080966
Effect of school-based physical activity interventions on body mass index in children: a meta-analysis
K. C. Harris (2009)
10.1002/1097-0258(20000715)19:13<1707::AID-SIM491>3.0.CO;2-P
Heterogeneity and statistical significance in meta-analysis: an empirical study of 125 meta-analyses.
E. Engels (2000)
10.1002/9781119536604
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
Michele Tarsilla (2010)
10.1017/S0266462301107142
Methodologists and their methods. Do methodologists write up their conference presentations or is it just 15 minutes of fame?
S. Hopewell (2001)
10.1002/14651858.CD003775.PUB2
Hepatitis B vaccination for patients with chronic renal failure.
R. Schroth (2004)
10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80
Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses
J. Ioannidis (2007)
10.1002/14651858.MR000005.PUB3
Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts.
R. Scherer (2007)
10.1002/9780470712184.CH8
Assessing Risk of Bias in Included Studies
J. P. Higgins (2008)
10.1186/cc5944
Surfactant therapy for acute respiratory failure in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis
M. Duffett (2007)
10.1002/14651858.MR000010.PUB3
Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions.
S. Hopewell (2007)
10.7326/0003-4819-113-1-69
More informative abstracts revisited.
R. Haynes (1996)
10.1177/1740774507079441
An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings
J. Ioannidis (2007)
10.1016/J.AJODO.2006.02.028
Search and selection methodology of systematic reviews in orthodontics (2000-2004).
C. Flores-Mir (2006)
10.1001/JAMA.282.11.1054
The hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis.
P. Jüni (1999)
10.1371/journal.pmed.0050045
Initial Severity and Antidepressant Benefits: A Meta-Analysis of Data Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration
I. Kirsch (2008)
10.1002/SIM.2380
A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints.
R. Harbord (2006)
10.1186/1745-6215-8-16
Practical methods for incorporating summary time-to-event data into meta-analysis
J. Tierney (2007)
10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B
Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review
Anders Jørgensen (2006)
10.1016/J.IJROBP.2003.11.015
Radiotherapy vs. nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for the prevention of heterotopic ossification after major hip procedures: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.
E. Pakos (2004)
Intravenous immunoglobulin for treating sepsis and septic shock.
M. Alejandria (2000)
10.1002/SIM.1201
Network meta-analysis for indirect treatment comparisons.
T. Lumley (2002)
10.1097/01.sla.0000154258.30305.df
Evaluating Meta-analyses in the General Surgical Literature: A Critical Appraisal
E. Dixon (2005)
10.1093/ije/25.5.1098
Making the Dictionary of Epidemiology.
J. Last (1996)
10.1001/JAMA.298.4.430
Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences.
P. Gøtzsche (2007)
10.1093/AJCN/84.6.1308
Effects of n-3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids on depressed mood: systematic review of published trials.
K. Appleton (2006)
10.1001/JAMA.295.17.2046
Effects of early treatment with statins on short-term clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
M. Briel (2006)
10.1371/journal.pmed.0020334
Local Literature Bias in Genetic Epidemiology: An Empirical Evaluation of the Chinese Literature
Zhenglun Pan (2005)
Chapter 1: What is a systematic review? In: Higgins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.0.0
S Green (2009)
10.1001/jama.1993.03510170086037
Users' guides to the medical literature.
G. Guyatt (1993)
10.1002/SIM.1187
How should meta-regression analyses be undertaken and interpreted?
S. Thompson (2002)
10.1016/S0140-6736(97)08468-7
Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough
J. Lau (1998)
10.7892/BORIS.27773
Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee.
E. von Elm (2008)
10.1186/1471-2288-7-49
Do health technology assessments comply with QUOROM diagram guidance? An empirical study
D. Hind (2007)
10.1136/bmj.322.7300.1479
Forest plots: trying to see the wood and the trees
S. Lewis (2001)
10.1002/SIM.2115
Bayesian random effects meta-analysis of trials with binary outcomes: methods for the absolute risk difference and relative risk scales.
K. O'rourke (2005)
10.1136/bmj.323.7317.829
Quality of Cochrane reviews: assessment of sample from 1998
O. Olsen (2001)
Preventive Services Task Force. The use of aspirin for primary prevention of colorectal cancer: a systematic review prepared for the U.S
C Dubé (2007)
10.1371/journal.pmed.0050139
Guidelines for Reporting Health Research: The EQUATOR Network's Survey of Guideline Authors
I. Simera (2008)
10.1093/AJE/KWJ069
Bias in clinical intervention research.
L. Gluud (2006)
10.1016/S0140-6736(08)60505-X
EQUATOR: reporting guidelines for health research.
D. Altman (2008)
Chapter 2: Preparing a Cochrane review
G Brunton (2009)
10.1002/14651858.CD000022.pub3
Antibiotic prophylaxis to reduce respiratory tract infections and mortality in adults receiving intensive care.
A. Liberati (2009)
10.1093/IJE/31.1.115
Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study.
P. Jüni (2002)
10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66846-8
Putting clinical trials into context
Charles Young (2005)
10.1016/0895-4356(93)90029-Z
Presentation Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts
P. Froom (1993)
10.1258/135581907780279648
How useful are Cochrane reviews in identifying research needs?
L. Clarke (2007)
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.008
The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study.
Jin Wen (2008)
10.1258/JRSM.100.4.187
Reports of clinical trials should begin and end with up-to-date systematic reviews of other relevant evidence: a status report.
M. Clarke (2007)
10.1001/JAMA.287.21.2831
Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned.
C. Silagy (2002)
10.7326/0003-4819-127-5-199709010-00008
Formulating Questions and Locating Primary Studies for Inclusion in Systematic Reviews
C. Counsell (1997)
10.2746/042516405775314916
Double blind, you are the weakest link--good-bye!
P. Devereaux (2002)
10.1001/JAMA.291.20.2457
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
A. Chan (2004)
10.1111/J.1471-1842.2006.00634.X
Developing efficient search strategies to identify reports of adverse effects in MEDLINE and EMBASE.
S. Golder (2006)
10.7326/0003-4819-134-8-200104170-00012
The Revised CONSORT Statement for Reporting Randomized Trials: Explanation and Elaboration
D. Altman (2001)
10.1001/JAMA.286.3.335
Relationship between methodological trial quality and the effects of selective digestive decontamination on pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients.
C. V. van Nieuwenhoven (2001)



This paper is referenced by
10.1007/s00251-010-0435-2
Design and utilization of epitope-based databases and predictive tools
N. Salimi (2010)
Long-Term Care for Older Adults: A Review of Home and Community-Based Services Versus Institutional Care
A. Wysocki (2012)
10.1007/s00228-015-1943-7
Drug interaction databases in medical literature: transparency of ownership, funding, classification algorithms, level of documentation, and staff qualifications. A systematic review
Gertrud Gansmo Kongsholm (2015)
10.1371/journal.pone.0120706
Association between Body Mass Index and Prognosis of Colorectal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Prospective Cohort Studies
J. Lee (2015)
10.1016/j.resuscitation.2017.09.014
Prognostic significance of spontaneous shockable rhythm conversion in adult out-of-hospital cardiac arrest patients with initial non-shockable heart rhythms: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Shengyuan Luo (2017)
10.1111/nep.13549
Effects of probiotic supplements on the progression of chronic kidney disease: A meta‐analysis
Sibei Tao (2018)
10.1007/s40258-018-0402-x
The Economic Burden of Abuse of Prescription Opioids: A Systematic Literature Review from 2012 to 2017
M. Reinhart (2018)
10.1016/j.jcrc.2016.08.010
The effect of vasoactive drugs on mortality in patients with severe sepsis and septic shock. A network meta‐analysis of randomized trials
A. Belletti (2017)
10.1186/2046-4053-2-79
The evolution of assessing bias in Cochrane systematic reviews of interventions: celebrating methodological contributions of the Cochrane Collaboration
L. Turner (2013)
10.1371/journal.pone.0070679
Chewing Betel Quid and the Risk of Metabolic Disease, Cardiovascular Disease, and All-Cause Mortality: A Meta-Analysis
T. Yamada (2013)
10.1016/j.jns.2016.03.016
Stroke survivors in low- and middle-income countries: A meta-analysis of prevalence and secular trends
Martinsixtus C. Ezejimofor (2016)
10.1016/j.semarthrit.2012.12.002
The epidemiology of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease among patients with SLE: a systematic review.
Sara R. Schoenfeld (2013)
10.1371/journal.pone.0150367
The Efficacy of Acupuncture in Post-Operative Pain Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
M. Wu (2016)
10.1186/1741-7015-9-74
Efficacy of aerobic exercise and a prudent diet for improving selected lipids and lipoproteins in adults: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
G. Kelley (2011)
10.1016/j.amjmed.2011.01.018
Effect of aspirin on mortality in the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
Nina C Raju (2011)
10.1371/journal.pone.0058711
Treatment Success in Cancer: Industry Compared to Publicly Sponsored Randomized Controlled Trials
B. Djulbegovic (2013)
10.1111/acps.12969
The relationship between childhood adversities and dissociation in severe mental illness: a meta‐analytic review
S. Rafiq (2018)
10.7448/IAS.20.1.21930
Multicentre analysis of second-line antiretroviral treatment in HIV-infected children: adolescents at high risk of failure
R. Boerma (2017)
10.1111/jgs.14828
Impact of Transitional Care Services for Chronically Ill Older Patients: A Systematic Evidence Review
Mélanie Le Berre (2017)
10.1016/j.pnpbp.2017.05.011
Somatization in Parkinson's Disease: A systematic review
D. Carrozzino (2017)
10.3349/ymj.2017.58.4.848
Efficacy of Palonosetron vs. Ramosetron for the Prevention of Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
M. Kim (2017)
10.1016/j.apergo.2016.07.018
Job rotation designed to prevent musculoskeletal disorders and control risk in manufacturing industries: A systematic review.
R. Padula (2017)
10.1017/S1368980016002883
Relationship between the home environment and fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged 6-12 years: a systematic review.
Jia Xin Ong (2017)
10.1136/bmj.k1310
Artificial pancreas treatment for outpatients with type 1 diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis
E. Bekiari (2018)
10.1371/journal.pone.0167476
Efficacy of Noninvasive Stellate Ganglion Blockade Performed Using Physical Agent Modalities in Patients with Sympathetic Hyperactivity-Associated Disorders: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Chun-De Liao (2016)
10.2174/1573399814666180711114859
Type 2 Diabetes and Asthma: Systematic Review of the Bidirectional Relationship.
L. Rayner (2019)
10.1017/S1478951517000931
The effects of psychological meaning-centered therapies on quality of life and psychological stress: A metaanalysis.
Joël Vos (2018)
10.1016/j.burn.2017.06.003
Examining the relationship between burnout and empathy in healthcare professionals: A systematic review
H. Wilkinson (2017)
10.1016/j.msksp.2017.04.005
Effectiveness of Physiotherapy interventions plus Extrinsic Feedback for neck disorders: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
F. Araújo (2017)
10.1097/SLA.0000000000002074
Perioperative Pharmacological Thromboprophylaxis in Patients With Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Qiang Guo (2017)
10.1002/14651858.CD011619.PUB2
The effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of inpatient specialist palliative care in acute hospitals for adults with advanced illness and their caregivers
B. Daveson (2016)
10.1016/j.jpsychores.2016.09.003
Identifying psychosocial predictors of medication non-adherence following acute coronary syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
J. Crawshaw (2016)
See more
Semantic Scholar Logo Some data provided by SemanticScholar