Methods of Systematic Reviews and Meta-AnalysisPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Introduction
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field [1], [2], and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research [3], and some health care journals are moving in this direction [4]. As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies [5]. In 1987, Sacks and colleagues [6] evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement [7].
In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials [8]. In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
Section snippets
Terminology
The terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration [9]. A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from
Developing the PRISMA Statement
A three-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed.
The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify
The PRISMA Statement
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Text S1 for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use) and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1 for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types
From QUOROM to PRISMA
The new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report.
The flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the
Endorsement
The PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Web site. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA Web address in their Instructions to Authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider
The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper
In addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced [18] following the style used for other reporting guidelines [19], [20], [21]. The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face to
Discussion
The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27]. In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias [22], even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence [28] and its impact on the results of systematic reviews [29]. Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately [30]
Acknowledgments
The following people contributed to the PRISMA Statement: Doug Altman, DSc, Centre for Statistics in Medicine (Oxford, UK); Gerd Antes, PhD, University Hospital Freiburg (Freiburg, Germany); David Atkins, MD, MPH, Health Services Research and Development Service, Veterans Health Administration (Washington, D. C., US); Virginia Barbour, MRCP, DPhil, PLoS Medicine (Cambridge, UK); Nick Barrowman, PhD, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Ottawa, Canada); Jesse A. Berlin, ScD, Johnson & Johnson
References (42)
- et al.
Putting clinical trials into context
Lancet
(2005) - et al.
Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence
J Clin Epidemiol
(2008) - et al.
Systematic reviews: When is an update an update?
Lancet
(2006) - et al.
Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: Systematic review of published versus unpublished data
Lancet
(2004) - et al.
Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature
Ann Emerg Med
(2001) - et al.
Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group
JAMA
(1994) - et al.
Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: Database analysis
BMJ
(2003) - Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2006) Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist...
The medical review article: State of the science
Ann Intern Med
(1987)- et al.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials
New Engl J Med
(1987)
Meta-analysis: An update
Mt Sinai J Med
Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement
Lancet
University of York (2009) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination
The Joanna Briggs Institute (2008) Protocols & work in progress
Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
CMAJ
Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: A case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence
Arch Intern Med
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
BMJ
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration
PLoS Med
The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration
Ann Intern Med
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD explanation and elaboration
Ann Intern Med
Cited by (9220)
Clinical Outcomes of Erector Spinae Plane Block for Midline Sternotomy in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
2024, Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia
Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the PLoS Medicine Web site (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/) and will be also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).
Funding: PRISMA was funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; Universita di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Italy; Cancer Research UK; Clinical Evidence BMJ Knowledge; the Cochrane Collaboration; and GlaxoSmithKline, Canada. AL is funded, in part, through grants of the Italian Ministry of University (COFIN – PRIN 2002 prot. 2002061749 and COFIN - PRIN 2006 prot. 2006062298). DGA is funded by Cancer Research UK. DM is funded by a University of Ottawa Research Chair. None of the sponsors had any involvement in the planning, execution, or write-up of the PRISMA documents. Additionally, no funder played a role in drafting the manuscript.
- ¶
Membership of the PRISMA Group is provided in the Acknowledgments.