Scribd
Upload
62 views

Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is a checklist and flow diagram that provides guidance for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses to help ensure transparent and complete reporting. It aims to improve upon the QUOROM guideline it superseded. PRISMA consists of a 27-item checklist covering title, abstract, methods, results, discussion and funding, as well as a flow diagram mapping the review process. Widespread adoption of PRISMA guidelines by journals is increasing and it seeks to enhance the reliability of reporting in medical research literature.

Uploaded by

Abhiram Banerjee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
62 views

Preferred Reporting Items For Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is a checklist and flow diagram that provides guidance for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses to help ensure transparent and complete reporting. It aims to improve upon the QUOROM guideline it superseded. PRISMA consists of a 27-item checklist covering title, abstract, methods, results, discussion and funding, as well as a flow diagram mapping the review process. Widespread adoption of PRISMA guidelines by journals is increasing and it seeks to enhance the reliability of reporting in medical research literature.

Uploaded by

Abhiram Banerjee
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic

Reviews and Meta-Analyses


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is an


evidence-based minimum set of items aimed at helping authors to report a wide array
of systematic reviews and meta-analyses that assess the benefits and harms of a health care
intervention. PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure a transparent and complete
reporting of this type of research.[1] The PRISMA standard supersedes the QUOROM standard.

Contents

 1The PRISMA statement


 2History
 3PRISMA components
o 3.1The PRISMA checklist
o 3.2The PRISMA flow diagram
 4Impact of PRISMA
 5See also
 6References
 7External links

The PRISMA statement[edit]


The aim of the PRISMA statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic
reviews and meta-analyses.[2] PRISMA has mainly focused on systematic reviews and meta-
analysis of randomized trials, but it can also be used as a basis for reporting reviews of other
types of research (e.g., diagnostic studies, observational studies). PRISMA is not a quality
assessment instrument for systematic reviews but it may be useful for critical appraisal purposes.

History[edit]
In 1987, Cynthia Mulrow examined for the first time the methodological quality of a sample of 50
review articles published in four leading medical journals between 1985 and 1986 She found that
none met a set of eight explicit scientific criteria, and that the lack of quality assessment of
primary studies was a major pitfall in these reviews.[3] In 1987, Sacks and colleagues [4] evaluated
the quality of 83 meta-analyses, using a scoring method that considered 23 items in six major
areas: study design, combinability, control of bias, statistical analysis, sensitivity analysis, and
application of results. Results of this research showed that reporting was generally poor; and
pointed out an urgent need for improved methods in literature searching, quality evaluation of
trials, and synthesizing of the results.
In 1996, an international group of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and
researchers convened The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference to
address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomized
controlled trials (RCTs) [5]
The conference resulted in the QUOROM, a checklist, and a flow diagram that described the
preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of
a report of a systematic review or a meta-analysis. Eight of the original 18 items formed the basis
of the QUOROM reporting. Evaluation of reporting was organized into headings and
subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study
characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis.
In 2009, the QUOROM was updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the
science of systematic reviews, and was renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items of
Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses).[6]

PRISMA components[edit]
The PRISMA checklist[edit]
The checklist includes 27 items pertaining to the content of a systematic review and meta-
analysis, which include the title, abstract, methods, results, discussion and funding.

The PRISMA flow diagram[edit]


The flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic
review. It maps out information about the number of records identified in the literature searches,
the number of studies included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions.
Impact of PRISMA[edit]
The use of checklists like PRISMA is likely to improve the reporting quality of a systematic review
and provides substantial transparency in the selection process of papers in a systematic review.
The PRISMA Statement has been published in several journals [7][8][9][10][11][12]
Many journal's publishing health research refer to PRISMA in their Instructions to Authors and
some require authors to adhere to them. The PRISMA Group advised that PRISMA should
replace QUOROM for those journals that endorsed QUOROM in the past.
Recent surveys of leading medical journals evaluated the extent to which the PRISMA Statement
has been incorporated into their Instructions to Authors. In a sample of 146 journals publishing
systematic reviews, the PRISMA Statement was referred to in the instructions to authors for 27%
of journals; more often in general and internal medicine journals (50%) than in specialty medicine
journals (25%).[13] These results showed that the uptake of PRISMA guidelines by journals is still
inadequate although there has been some improvement over time.
Approximately 174 journals in the health sciences endorse the PRISMA Statement for the
reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analysis published in their collections. [14]PRISMA has
been also included as one of the tools for assessing the reporting of research within
the EQUATOR Network (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Care Research), an
international initiative that seeks to enhance reliability and value of medical research literature by
promoting transparent and accurate reporting of research studies.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy