ArticlePDF Available

Methods of systematic reviews and meta-analysis preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Authors:
Article

Methods of systematic reviews and meta-analysis preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

METHODS OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSIS
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews
and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
David Moher
1,2,
*, Alessandro Liberati
3,4
, Jennifer Tetzlaff
1
, Douglas G. Altman
5
,
The PRISMA Group
{
1
Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
2
Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
3
Universita
`di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy
4
Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy
5
Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, United Kingdom
Accepted 22 June 2009
1. Introduction
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become in-
creasingly 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 system-
atic 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 pub-
lished 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 57.7;
standard deviation 52.7). 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 OfReporting
OfMeta-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 System-
atic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated
to address several conceptual and practical advances in the
science of systematic reviews (Box 1).
2. 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 re-
view of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic
and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically ap-
praise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data
from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical
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 publishedin the Annals of Internal Medicine,BMJ,Journal of
Clinical Epidemiology,andOpen Medicine. The authors jointly hold the
copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMAWeb 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 Ital-
ian Ministry of University (COFIN - PRIN 2002 prot. 2002061749 and
COFIN - PRIN 2006 prot. 2006062298). DGA is funded by Cancer Re-
search 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 draft-
ing the manuscript.
{
Membership of the PRISMA Group is provided in the Acknowledgments.
* Corresponding author. Dr. David Moher, University of Ottawa,
Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, 501 Smyth Road,
The Ottawa Hospital, General Camp., Ottwa, Ontario, Canada K1H 8L6
E-mail address:dmoher@ohri.ca (D. Moher).
0895-4356/09/$ esee front matter Ó2009 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (2009) 1006e1012
methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to ana-
lyze and summarize the results of the included studies.
Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in
a systematic review to integrate the results of included
studies.
3. 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 ex-
pand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed.
The executive committee completed the following tasks,
prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies exam-
ining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and
a comprehensive literature search to identify methodologi-
cal and other articles that might inform the meeting, espe-
cially in relation to modifying checklist items. An
international survey of review authors, consumers, and
groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and
meta-analyses was completed, including the International
Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment
(INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network
(GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM,
including the merits of the existing checklist items. The
results of these activities were presented during the meeting
and are summarized on the PRISMA Web site (http://
www.prisma-statement.org/).
Only items deemed essential were retained or added to
the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desir-
able, and review authors should include these, if relevant
[10]. For example, it is useful to indicate whether the sys-
tematic review is an update [11] of a previous review,
and to describe any changes in procedures from those
described in the original protocol.
Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA check-
list was circulated to the group, including those invited to
Box 1 Conceptual Issues in the Evolution from
QUOROM to PRISMA
Completing a Systematic Review Is an Itera-
tive Process
The conduct of a systematic review depends heavily on
the scope and quality of included studies: thus system-
atic reviewers may need to modify their original review
protocol during its conduct. Any systematic review re-
porting guideline should recommend that such changes
can be reported and explained without suggesting that
they are inappropriate. The PRISMA Statement (Items
5, 11, 16, and 23) acknowledges this iterative process.
Aside from Cochrane reviews, all of which should have
a protocol, only about 10% of systematic reviewers
report working from a protocol [22]. Without a protocol
that is publicly accessible, it is difficult to judge
between appropriate and inappropriate modifications.
Conduct and Reporting Research Are Distinct
Concepts
This distinction is, however, less straightforward for
systematic reviews than for assessments of the
reporting of an individual study, because the reporting
and conduct of systematic reviews are, by nature,
closely intertwined. For example, the failure of a sys-
tematic review to report the assessment of the risk of
bias in included studies may be seen as a marker of
poor conduct, given the importance of this activity
in the systematic review process [37].
Study-Level Versus Outcome-Level Assess-
ment of Risk of Bias
For studies included in a systematic review, a thorough
assessment of the risk of bias requires both a ‘‘study-
level’’ assessment (e.g., adequacy of allocation con-
cealment) and, for some features, a newer approach
called ‘‘outcome-level’’ assessment. An outcome-
level assessment involves evaluating the reliability
and validity of the data for each important outcome
by determining the methods used to assess them in
each individual study [38]. The quality of evidence
may differ across outcomes, even within a study, such
as between a primary efficacy outcome, which is
likely to be very carefully and systematically mea-
sured, and the assessment of serious harms [39],
which may rely on spontaneous reports by investiga-
tors. This information should be reported to allow an
explicit assessment of the extent to which an estimate
of effect is correct [38].
Continued. Importance of Reporting Biases
Different types of reporting biases may hamper the
conduct and interpretation of systematic reviews.
Selective reporting of complete studies (e.g., publica-
tion bias) [28] as well as the more recently empirically
demonstrated ‘‘outcome reporting bias’’ within indi-
vidual studies [40,41] should be considered by authors
when conducting a systematic review and reporting its
results. Though the implications of these biases on the
conduct and reporting of systematic reviews them-
selves are unclear, some previous research has identi-
fied that selective outcome reporting may occur also in
the context of systematic reviews [42].
1007D. Moher et al. / Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (2009) 1006e1012
Table 1
Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis.
Section/Topic # Checklist Item Reported on Page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
ABSTRACT
Structured summary 2 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; systematic review registration number.
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to
participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
METHODS
Protocol
and registration
5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address),
and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report
characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used
as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with
study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits
used, such that it could be repeated.
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in
systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently,
in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources)
and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Risk of bias in
individual studies
12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies
(including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how
this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done,
including measures of consistency (e.g., I
2
) for each meta-analysis.
Risk of bias
across studies
15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence
(e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-
regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
RESULTS
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review,
with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted
(e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Risk of bias
within studies
19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome-level assessment
(see Item 12).
Results of
individual studies
20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary
data for each intervention group and (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally
with a forest plot.
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals
and measures of consistency.
Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15).
Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses,
meta-regression [see Item 16]).
DISCUSSION
Summary
of evidence
24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main
outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., health care providers, users,
and policy makers).
Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review level
(e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence,
and implications for future research.
FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support
(e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review.
1008 D. Moher et al. / Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (2009) 1006e1012
the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was cre-
ated containing comments and revisions from each respon-
dent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times.
The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this
summary paper.
Although no direct evidence was found to support
retaining or adding some items, evidence from other
domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item
5 asks authors to provide registration information about
the systematic review, including a registration number,
if available. Although systematic review registration is
not yet widely available [12,13], the participating journals
of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors
(ICMJE) [14] now require all clinical trials to be regis-
tered in an effort to increase transparency and account-
ability [15]. Those aspects are also likely to benefit
systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an
excessive number of reviews addressing the same ques-
tion [16,17] and providing greater transparency when
updating systematic reviews.
4. The PRISMA Statement
The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist
(Table 1; see also Text S1 for a downloadable Word tem-
plate 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 ba-
sis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of
research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA
may also be useful for critical appraisal of published
systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is
not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality
of a systematic review.
5. 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 QUOR-
OM 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 includ-
ing studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the
review team must first search the literature. This search re-
sults in records. Once these records have been screened and
eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will
# of records identified
through database
searching
# of additional records
identified through other
sources
# of records after duplicates removed
# of records screened # of records
excluded
# of full-text articles
assessed for eligibility
# of studies included
in qualitative synthesis
# of full-text
articles
excluded, with
reasons
# of studies included
in quantitative
synthesis (meta-analysis)
IdentificationScreeningEligibilityIncluded
Fig. 1. Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review.
1009D. Moher et al. / Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (2009) 1006e1012
remain. The number of included articles might be smaller
(or larger) than the number of studies, because articles
may report on multiple studies and results from a particular
study may be published in several articles. To capture this
information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests infor-
mation on these phases of the review process.
6. 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 transpar-
ent 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 endorsing
PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles.
7. 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
[19e21]. The process of completing this document
included developing a large database of exemplars to high-
light 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 face meet-
ings and numerous iterations among several meeting partic-
ipants, after which it was shared with the whole group for
additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group
formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate
and implement PRISMA.
8. Discussion
The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not
optimal [22e27]. 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 system-
atic reviews [29]. Even when the possibility of publication
bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic re-
viewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately [30]. Al-
though the absence of reporting such an assessment does not
necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assess-
ment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of
the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review.
Several approaches have been developed to conduct sys-
tematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For exam-
ple, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate
cost-effectiveness [31], diagnostic [32] or prognostic ques-
tions [33], genetic associations [34], and policy making
[35]. The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA
are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those
whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms
Table 2
Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist (a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or
PRISMA).
Section/Topic Item QUOROM PRISMA Comment
Abstract OOQUOROM and PRISMA ask authors to report an abstract. However,
PRISMA is not specific about format.
Introduction Objective OThis new item (4) addresses the explicit question the review
addresses using the PICO reporting system (which describes the participants,
interventions, comparisons, and outcome(s) of the systematic review),
together with the specification of the type of study design (PICOS); the item
is linked to Items 6, 11, and 18 of the checklist.
Methods Protocol OThis new item (5) asks authors to report whether the review has
a protocol and if so how it can be accessed.
Methods Search OOAlthough reporting the search is present in both QUOROM and
PRISMA checklists, PRISMA asks authors to provide a full description
of at least one electronic search strategy (Item 8). Without such information
it is impossible to repeat the authors’ search.
Methods Assessment of risk of
bias in included studies
OORenamed from ‘‘quality assessment’’ in QUOROM. This item (12)
is linked with reporting this information in the results (Item 19).
The new concept of ‘‘outcome-level’’ assessment has been introduced.
Methods Assessment of risk
of bias across studies
OThis new item (15) asks authors to describe any assessments of
risk of bias in the review, such as selective reporting within the included studies.
This item is linked with reporting this information in the results (Item 22).
Discussion OOAlthough both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists address the discussion
section, PRISMA devotes three items (24e26) to the discussion. In PRISMA
the main types of limitations are explicitly stated and their discussion required.
Funding OThis new item (27) asks authors to provide information on any sources of funding
for the systematic review.
1010 D. Moher et al. / Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (2009) 1006e1012
of a health care intervention. However, some modifications
of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in
particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of
bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in
a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as
the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease
status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow
diagram will also need adjustments when reporting
individual patient data meta-analysis [36].
We have developed an explanatory document [18] to
increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist
item, this document contains an example of good reporting,
a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence,
including references, whenever possible. We believe this
document will also serve as a useful resource for those
teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage
journals to include reference to the explanatory document
in their Instructions to Authors.
Like any evidence-based endeavor, PRISMA is a living
document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the
revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow
diagram, through the PRISMA Web site. We will use such
information to inform PRISMA’s continued development.
Acknowledgments
The following people contributed to the PRISMA State-
ment: Doug Altman, DSc, Centre for Statistics in Medicine
(Oxford, UK); Gerd Antes, PhD, University Hospital Frei-
burg (Freiburg, Germany); David Atkins, MD, MPH,
Health Services Research and Development Service, Vet-
erans Health Administration (Washington, D. C., US); Vir-
ginia Barbour, MRCP, DPhil, PLoS Medicine (Cambridge,
UK); Nick Barrowman, PhD, Children’s Hospital of East-
ern Ontario (Ottawa, Canada); Jesse A. Berlin, ScD, John-
son & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development
(Titusville, New Jersey, US); Jocalyn Clark, PhD, PLoS
Medicine (at the time of writing, BMJ, London, UK); Mike
Clarke, PhD, UK Cochrane Centre (Oxford, UK) and
School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College (Dublin,
Ireland); Deborah Cook, MD, Departments of Medicine,
Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster Univer-
sity (Hamilton, Canada); Roberto D’Amico, PhD, Universi-
ta
`di Modena e Reggio Emilia (Modena, Italy) and Centro
Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario
Negri (Milan, Italy); Jonathan J. Deeks, PhD, University of
Birmingham (Birmingham, UK); P. J. Devereaux, MD,
PhD, Departments of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology
and Biostatistics, McMaster University (Hamilton, Cana-
da); Kay Dickersin, PhD, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg
School of Public Health (Baltimore, Maryland, US); Mat-
thias Egger, MD, Department of Social and Preventive
Medicine, University of Bern (Bern, Switzerland); Edzard
Ernst, MD, PhD, FRCP, FRCP(Edin), Peninsula Medical
School (Exeter, UK); Peter C. Gøtzsche, MD, MSc, The
Nordic Cochrane Centre (Copenhagen, Denmark); Jeremy
Grimshaw, MBChB, PhD, FRCFP, Ottawa Hospital Re-
search Institute (Ottawa, Canada); Gordon Guyatt, MD,
Departments of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and Bio-
statistics, McMaster University (Hamilton, Canada); Julian
Higgins, PhD, MRC Biostatistics Unit (Cambridge, UK);
John P. A. Ioannidis, MD, University of Ioannina Campus
(Ioannina, Greece); Jos Kleijnen, MD, PhD, Kleijnen Sys-
tematic Reviews Ltd (York, UK) and School for Public
Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), University of Maas-
tricht (Maastricht, Netherlands); Tom Lang, MA, Tom
Lang Communications and Training (Davis, California,
US); Alessandro Liberati, MD, Universita
`di Modena e Re-
ggio Emilia (Modena, Italy) and Centro Cochrane Italiano,
Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri (Milan,
Italy); Nicola Magrini, MD, NHS Centre for the Evaluation
of the Effectiveness of Health Care eCeVEAS (Modena,
Italy); David McNamee, PhD, The Lancet (London, UK);
Lorenzo Moja, MD, MSc, Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istitu-
to Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri (Milan, Italy);
David Moher, PhD, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospi-
tal Research Institute (Ottawa, Canada); Cynthia Mulrow,
MD, MSc, Annals of Internal Medicine (Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, US); Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical
Consumers (New York, New York, US); Andy Oxman,
MD, Norwegian Health Services Research Centre (Oslo,
Norway); Ba’ Pham, MMath, Toronto Health Economics
and Technology Assessment Collaborative (Toronto, Cana-
da) (at the time of the first meeting of the group,
GlaxoSmithKline Canada, Mississauga, Canada); Drum-
mond Rennie, MD, FRCP, FACP, University of California
San Francisco (San Francisco, California, US); Margaret
Sampson, MLIS, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario
(Ottawa, Canada); Kenneth F. Schulz, PhD, MBA, Family
Health International (Durham, North Carolina, US); Paul
G. Shekelle, MD, PhD, Southern California Evidence
Based Practice Center (Santa Monica, California, US); Jen-
nifer Tetzlaff, BSc, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital
Research Institute (Ottawa, Canada); David Tovey, FRCGP,
The Cochrane Library, Cochrane Collaboration (Oxford,
UK) (at the time of the first meeting of the group, BMJ,Lon-
don, UK); Peter Tugwell, MD, MSc, FRCPC, Institute of
Population Health, University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Canada).
Supporting Information
Figure S1 Flow of information through the different
phases of a systematic review (downloadable template doc-
ument for researchers to re-use).
Text S1 Checklist of items to include when reporting
a systematic review or meta-analysis (downloadable tem-
plate document for researchers to re-use).
Supporting data associated with this article can be
found, in the online version, at doi: 10.1016/
j.jclinepi.2009.06.005.
1011D. Moher et al. / Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (2009) 1006e1012
References
[1] Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical lit-
erature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine
Working Group. JAMA 1994;272:1367e71.
[2] Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP. Number of published system-
atic reviews and global burden of disease: Database analysis. BMJ
2003;327:1083e4.
[3] Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2006) Randomized con-
trolled trials registration/application checklist (12/2006). Available:
http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf. Accessed 19
May 2009.
[4] Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet
2005;366:107.
[5] Mulrow CD. The medical review article: State of the science. Ann
Intern Med 1987;106:485e8.
[6] Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC.
Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New Engl J Med
1987;316:450e5.
[7] Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: An
update. Mt Sinai J Med 1996;63:216e24.
[8] Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, et al. for the
QUOROM group. Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analy-
sis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet
1994;354:1896e900.
[9] Green S, Higgins J, editors (2005) Glossary. Cochrane handbook for
systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collabora-
tion. Available: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm. Ac-
cessed 19 May 2009.
[10] Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of
evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:521e4.
[11] Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: When is an update an
update? Lancet 2006;367:881e3.
[12] University of York (2009) Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/. Accessed 19 May 2009.
[13] The Joanna Briggs Institute (2008) Protocols & work in progress.
Available: http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_
prot.php. Accessed 19 May 2009.
[14] De Angelis C, Drazan JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, et al. for the
International Committee Medical Journal Editors. Clinical trial regis-
tration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical
Journal Editors. CMAJ 2004;171:606e7.
[15] Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, et al. Selec-
tive serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: Systematic re-
view of published versus unpublished data. Lancet 2004;363:1341e5.
[16] Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ, Ghali WA. Acetylcysteine in
the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy:A case study of the pit-
falls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med 2006;166:161e6.
[17] Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, et al.
Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping
meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of con-
trast associated nephropathy: Case study. BMJ 2006;332:202e9.
[18] Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche P, et al. the
PRISMA Group. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic re-
views and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interven-
tions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100. doi:
10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
[19] Altman DG, Schulz KR, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, et al. for the
CONSORT group. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting
randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med
2001;134:663e94.
[20] Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, et al.
for the STARD group. Towards complete and accurate reporting of
studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD explanation and elabora-
tion. Ann Intern Med 2003;138:W1eW12.
[21] Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC,
Mulrow CD, et al. for the STROBE initiative. Strengthening the
Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Ex-
planation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:W163e94.
[22] Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemi-
ology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med
2007;4:e78. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078.
[23] Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P. Meta-analyses in
orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review of their methodologies.
JBone Joint Surg Am 83-A 2001;15e24.
[24] Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH. Evaluating the
quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature.
Ann Emerg Med 2001;38:518e26.
[25] Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid
Based Dent 2004;5:17.
[26] Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramer MR, et al. Exam-
ining the evidence in anesthesia literature: A critical appraisal of sys-
tematic reviews. Anesth Analg 2001;92:700e9.
[27] Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB.
A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical
care literature. Crit Care 2005;9:R575e82.
[28] Dickersin K. Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understand-
ing its origins and scope, and preventing harm. In: Rothstein HR,
Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, editors. Publication bias in meta-analy-
sisdPrevention, assessment and adjustments. Chichester (UK): John
Wiley & Sons; 2005. p. 11e33.
[29] Sutton AJ. Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and
related biases. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, editors.
Publication bias in meta-analysisdPrevention, assessment and ad-
justments. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2005. p. 175e92.
[30] Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the
misleading funnel plot. BMJ 2006;333:597e600.
[31] Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, Scheiman JM, Chernew ME, et al.
Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal
cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 2001;135:769 e81.
[32] Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of
evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 2001;323:157e62.
[33] Altman DG. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic vari-
ables. BMJ 2001;323:224e8.
[34] Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Rep-
lication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet 2001;29:306e9.
[35] Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis J, Golden-Biddle K, et al. Towards
systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-
making. J Health Serv Res Policy 2005;10:35e48.
[36] Stewart LA, Clarke MJ. Practical methodology of meta-analyses
(overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working
Group. Stat Med 1995;14:2057e79.
[37] Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, et al. Assessment of
methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: Re-
sults of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 2005;330:1053e5.
[38] Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. for the
GRADE Working Group. GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating
quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:
924e6.
[39] Schunemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, Bria WF, El-Solh AA, et al.
for the ATS Documents Development and Implementation Commit-
tee. An official ATS statement: Grading the quality of evidence and
strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommenda-
tions. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2006;174:605e14.
[40] Chan AW, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG.
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in random-
ized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA
2004;291:2457e65.
[41] Chan AW, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting
bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health
Research. CMAJ 2004;171:735e40.
[42] Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of system-
atic reviews: Comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA
2002;287:2831e4.
1012 D. Moher et al. / Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 62 (2009) 1006e1012
... First phase: classification of evidence and grades of recommendation Level of evidence and grades of recommendation A systematic review of the current evidence regarding exercise prescription in migraine was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) using the harms checklist (Moher et al., 2009). This study was previously registered in PROSPERO, an international register for systematic reviews (PROSPERO, CRD42022316135). ...
Article
Full-text available
Background Migraine is the second leading cause of disability worldwide, engendering a high economic cost in developed countries. The adverse events related to pharmacological treatment use have increased interest in non-pharmacological interventions such as exercise. YouTube offers a public source of information for migraine patients regarding exercise interventions for migraine improvement. However, this information has not been validated to ensure the quality and validity of its content. Objective This qualitative content analysis study aims to review and evaluate YouTube videos regarding exercise for migraine. Methods A systematic review of the current evidence regarding exercise for migraine was performed to establish evidence classification and grades of recommendation with the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network tool. The data sources were PubMed, PEDro, Cochrane, EBSCO, Google Scholar and Web of Science. The quality of YouTube videos on exercise in migraine was reviewed using the Global Quality Scale and DISCERN scale. Finally, the classification in grades of recommendation was used to evaluate the included videos in terms of the various exercise modalities. Results The classification into recommendation grades showed a grade B for aerobic exercise, yoga and changes in lifestyle behavior regarding exercise. A total of 129 videos were included. The healthcare and exercise professional authors produced higher quality videos with a significant statistical difference, although the alternative therapists and patients’ videos had a greater impact and a higher viewership based on correlation analysis. The evaluation of the videos based on the recommendation grades could only include 90 videos. 71% of these videos showed a B grade of recommendation, which corresponded to fewer than half of the total included videos. Conclusions YouTube needs higher quality videos on exercise for migraine, and healthcare and exercise professional authors need to improve their scoping strategies to acquire more views. The authors of YouTube videos should have better access to the best current evidence regarding exercise interventions in migraine.
... This study was conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Statement (PRISMA) [24] guidelines to ensure a structured and transparent review process as adopted elsewhere [25,26]. The PRISMA flow diagram employed in this work is shown in Fig. 1. ...
Article
Full-text available
Metallic glasses (MGs) have been long investigated in material science to understand the origin of their remarkable properties. With the help of computational simulations, researchers have delved into structure-property relationships, leading to a large number of reports. To quantify the available literature, we employed systematic review and bibliometric analysis on studies related to MGs and classical molecular dynamics simulations from 2000 to 2021. It was found that the total number of articles has increased remarkably, with China and the USA producing more than half of the reports. However, high-impact articles were mainly conducted in the latter. Collaboration networks revealed that top contributor authors are strongly connected with other researchers, which emphasizes the relevance of scientific cooperation. In regard to the evolution of research topics, according to article keywords, plastic behavior has been a recurrent subject since the early 2000s. Nevertheless, the traditional approach of studying monolithic MGs at the short-range order evolved to complex composites with characterizations at the medium-range order, including topics such as nanoglasses, amorphous/crystalline nanolaminates, rejuvenation, among others. As a whole, these findings provide researchers with an overview of past and current trends of research areas, as well as some of the leading authors, productivity statistics, and collaboration networks.
... All articles published from the establishment of each search engine up to the search date were searched for. The protocol of this systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42020203202) and conducted following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (Moher et al. 2010). ...
Article
Full-text available
Rationale Though clozapine is recommended for treatment of tardive dyskinesia (TD) relating to the use of antipsychotic medications, studies comprehensively investigating the treatment effect of clozapine on TD are still limited. Objectives This review examines the effectiveness of clozapine as an intervention for tardive dyskinesia and dystonia in patients with all psychiatric conditions. Effectiveness of clozapine, duration to exert the effect and dosage used were also analysed. Methods A search in the PubMed, PsycINFO and clinicaltrials databases was performed, using the search terms “Clozapine” AND “dyskinesia” OR “dystonia”. Full-text articles that reported the use of clozapine to treat abnormal involuntary movements and were written in English were included. Results A total of 48 studies were identified, of which 13 were clinical trials and 35 were case reports. Significant improvement was seen in 86.7% of patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders (average dose of clozapine = 355 mg/day) and 93% of patients with other psychiatric disorders (average dose of clozapine = 152.5 mg/day). Patients with other psychiatric diagnoses had faster improvement than the patients with schizophrenia spectrum disorders. Variation in improvements and dosage were also seen in the clinical trials. Conclusion Results suggested an overall effectiveness of clozapine in the treatment of TD for patients with a range of psychiatric conditions. Different response time and clozapine dosage were seen in patients with different psychiatric conditions, suggesting different treatment protocols are required for different conditions. Most of the studies identified are of inadequate qualities, highlighting the need for high quality studies to provide clearer evidence.
Article
Despite the usefulness of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) in the treatment of lower deep vein thrombosis (DVT), there is no consensus on safety and efficacy. We aim to systematically evaluate the safety and efficacy of TCM combined with Rivaroxaban in the treatment of lower limb DVT. An online search of databases such as Cochrane Library, Embase, Pubmed, and Web of science, as well as CBM, China Science and Technology Journal Database, China Knowledge Network (CNKI) and Wanfang Data (from inception to July, 2021) was performed. All published clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were screened manually, evaluated for quality and considered for meta-analysis using RevMan 5.3. Nine RCTs with a total of 730 cases were included, 368 cases in the trial group were treated with TCM combined with Rivaroxaban, and 362 cases in the control group were treated with Rivaroxaban alone after surgery. Clinical efficiency was significantly higher in the test group [OR = 3.33, 95% CI (2.01, 5.53), P < .00001], the circumference of the affected limb was significantly lower in the thigh and calf, respectively [MD = −1.48, 95% CI (−1.88, −1.09), P < .00001], [MD = −0.54, 95% CI (−0.62, −0.46), P < .00001], pain scores were significantly lower [MD = −0.97, 95% CI (−1.58, −0.36), P = .002], coagulation index plasma fibrinogen (FIB) was significantly lower [MD = −0.85, 95% CI (−1.18, −0.52), P < .00001], coagulation function index D-2 aggregates were significantly reduced [MD = −0.69, 95% CI (−1.13, −0.24), P = .002], serum hypersensitive C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) measurements were significantly reduced [MD = −5.37, 95% CI (−9.20, −1.55), P = .006], complications measurement was significantly lower [OR = 0.60, 95% CI (0.27, 1.30), P = .20], activated partial thrombin time (ATPP) measurement was significantly lower [MD = 5.70, 95% CI (4.28, 7.12), P < .00001] and prothrombin time (PT) measurement was significantly lower [MD = 1.64, 95% CI (0.70, 2.57), P = .0006]. Based on the available evidence, TCM combined with Rivaroxaban for treating lower extremity DVT have better clinical efficacy and safety profile, reducing the risk of bleeding complications and adverse effects. Further improved studies are needed to support this inference.
Article
Thymic epithelial tumors (TETs) originate in the thymic epithelial cell, including thymoma and thymic carcinoma. Surgical resection is the first choice for most patients. However, some studies have shown that the factors affecting the prognosis of these patients are not consistent. To evaluate prognostic factors in patients with surgically resected thymic epithelial tumors, we performed a meta-analysis. We searched the Chinese biomedical literature database, Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and other electronic databases. Studies including postoperative overall survival (OS) and predictors of TETs were included. We made a comprehensive analysis the hazard ratios (HRs) through a single proportional combination. HRs were combined using single proportion combinations. The meta-analysis included 11,695 patients from 26 studies. The pooled OS was 84% at 5 years and 73% at 10 years after TETs operation. The age as continuous-year (HR 1.04, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.02–1.04), incomplete resection (HR 4.41, 95% CI 3.32–5.85), WHO histologic classification (B2/B3 vs A/AB/B1 HR 2.76, 95% CI 1.25–6.21), Masaoka Stage (stage III/IV vs I/II HR 2.74, 95% CI 2.12–3.55,) were the poor prognostic factors. For patients with TETs after surgical resection, advanced age, incomplete resection, WHO classification B2/B3, and higher Masaoka stage are risk factors for poor prognosis.
Article
Chronic heart failure (CHF) is a common cardiovascular disease and results in high rate of morbidity, mortality, hospitalizations, and disability, causing medical concern around the world. Xinbao Pill (XBP) has been widely applied to clinical practice for patients with CHF but lacks studies to verify its efficacy. This study provides a protocol of systematic review, with which we will verify the adjunctive efficacy and safety of XBP on CHF with evidence-based studies. Included studies will be retrieved according to inclusion and exclusion criteria from five English databases (the MEDLINE via PubMed, the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, the Web of Science and Ovid database), and four Chinese databases (China Science and Technology Journal Database [VIP], Chinese Biomedical Literature Database [CBM], Wan-fang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure [CNKI]) from October 1990 to October 2018. The New York Heart Association (NYHA), heart rate and mortality will be marked as major outcomes. We will use RevMan V.5.3 software to calculate the data synthesis and will conduct meta-analysis based on the collected data. Mortality, NYHA function classification, heart rate, the left ventricular ejection fractions (LVEF), 6-minute walk test (6MWT), hospitalization or rehospitalization, NT-proBNP, and adverse effects will be measured and comprehensively assessed to evaluate the adjunctive effect of XBP on CHF from this systematic review and meta-analysis with current clinical evidence. The systematic review and meta-analysis will assess the adjunctive effect of XBP in the treatment of CHF with up-to-date clinical evidence.
Article
Introduction Maternity waiting homes (MWHs) link pregnant women to skilled birth attendance at health facilities. Research suggests that some MWH-facility birth interventions are more success at meeting the needs and expectations of their intended users than others. We aimed to develop theory regarding what resources work to support uptake and scale-up of MHW-facility birth interventions, how, for whom, in what contexts and why. Methods A four-step realist review was conducted which included development of an initial programme theory; searches for evidence; selection, appraisal and extraction of data; and analysis and data synthesis. Results A programme theory was developed from 106 secondary sources and 12 primary interviews with MWH implementers. The theory demonstrated that uptake and scale-up of the MWH-facility birth intervention depends on complex interactions between three adopter groups: health system stakeholders, community gatekeepers and pregnant women and their families. It describes relationships between 19 contexts, 11 mechanisms and 31 outcomes accross nine context-mechanism-outcome configurations (CMOCs) which were grouped into 3 themes: (1) Engaging stakeholders to develop, integrate, and sustain MWH-facility birth interventions, (2) Promoting and enabling MWH-facility birth utilisation and (3) Creating positive and memorable MWH-facility birth user experiences. Belief, trust, empowerment, health literacy and perceptions of safety, comfort and dignity were mechanisms that supported diffusion and adoption of the intervention within communities and health systems. Examples of resources provided by implementers to trigger mechanisms associated with each CMOC were identified. Conclusions Implementers of MWHs cannot merely assume that communities will collectively value an MWH-facility birth experience over delivery at home. We posit that MWH-facility birth interventions become vulnerable to under-utilisation when implementers fail to: (1) remove barriers that hinder women’s access to MWH and (2) ensure that conditions and interactions experienced within the MWH and its affiliated health facility support women to feel treated with compassion, dignity and respect. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020173595.
Article
Full-text available
Please cite this article as: Elgenidy A, Afifi AM, Jalal PK, Gallbladder wall thickness as a non-invasive marker for esophageal varices: A systematic review and meta-Analysis, Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hepatology, https://doi. Abstract Background: The early detection of esophageal varices (EV) is important in patients with chronic liver disease (CLD). Non-invasive diagnostic markers are preferred to avoid the cost and potential complications associated with endoscopy. The gallbladder venous blood is drained
Article
Full-text available
Much medical research is observational. The reporting of observational studies is often of insufficient quality. Poor reporting hampers the assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of a study and the generalisability of its results. Taking into account empirical evidence and theoretical considerations, a group of methodologists, researchers, and editors developed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) recommendations to improve the quality of reporting of observational studies. The STROBE Statement consists of a checklist of 22 items, which relate to the title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of articles. Eighteen items are common to cohort studies, case-control studies and cross-sectional studies and four are specific to each of the three study designs. The STROBE Statement provides guidance to authors about how to improve the reporting of observational studies and facilitates critical appraisal and interpretation of studies by reviewers, journal editors and readers. This explanatory and elaboration document is intended to enhance the use, understanding, and dissemination of the STROBE Statement. The meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented. For each item, one or several published examples and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature are provided. Examples of useful flow diagrams are also included. The STROBE Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.strobe-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of observational research.
Article
Background: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Methods: The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. Findings: The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with "trial flow", study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. Interpretation: We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
Chapter
IntroductionDirect Evidence Concerning the Consequences of Publication and Related BiasesIndirect Empirical Evidence Concerning the Consequences of Publication Bias as Assessed Using Asymmetry Assessments of Meta-AnalysesFurther Indirect Empirical Assessments of Publication and Related Biases Using Meta-AnalysesDiscussionAcknowledgementReferences
Article
A new type of research, termed meta-analysis, attempts to analyze and combine the results of previous reports. We found 86 meta-analyses of reports of randomized controlled trials in the English-language literature. We evaluated the quality of these 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. Only 24 meta-analyses (28 percent) addressed all six areas, 31 (36 percent) addressed five, 25 (29 percent) addressed four, 5 (6 percent) addressed three, and 1 (1 percent) addressed two. Of the 23 individual items, between 1 and 14 were addressed satisfactorily (mean +/- SD, 7.7 +/- 2.7). We conclude that an urgent need exists for improved methods in literature searching, quality evaluation of trials, and synthesizing of the results.
Article
Fifty reviews published during June 1985 to June 1986 in four major medical journals were assessed in a study of the methods of current review articles. Assessments were based on eight explicit criteria adapted from published guidelines for information syntheses. Of the 50 articles, 17 satisfied three of the eight criteria; 32 satisfied four or five criteria; and 1 satisfied six criteria. Most reviews had clearly specified purposes (n = 40) and conclusions (n = 37). Only one had clearly specified methods of identifying, selecting, and validating included information. Qualitative synthesis was often used to integrate information included in the review (n = 43); quantitative synthesis was rarely used (n = 3). Future research directives were mentioned in 21. These results indicate that current medical reviews do not routinely use scientific methods to identify, assess, and synthesize information. The methods used in this systematic assessment of reviews are proposed to improve the quality of future review articles.