Abstract
Reporting is the final step of the systematic review process. An accurate and reliable reporting of systematic reviews assists the end-users (clinicians, policymakers, funding agencies, guideline developers) in making informed and evidence-based decisions. Poor quality of reporting of systematic reviews was recognised as an issue as far back as the late’80s. An international group hence drafted the QUOROM statement (Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses) in 1996 to provide guidelines for improving the quality of reporting. These guidelines were updated after addressing the conceptual and methodological issues and renamed as PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) by a group of authors. PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). However, it can also be used for reporting systematic reviews of non-RCTs. PRISMA guidelines help to convey the information transparently. This chapter is focussed on PRSMA checklist and its 27 items under seven domains.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG et al. PRISMA for Abstracts Group. PRISMA for abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013; 9: e1001419.
Berhe K, Gebrearegay F, Gebremariam H. Prevalence and associated factors of zinc deficiency among pregnant women and children in Ethiopia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health. 2019;19:1663. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7979-3.
Bes-Rastrollo M, Schulze MB, Ruiz-Canela M, Martinez-Gonzalez MA. Financial conflicts of interest and reporting bias regarding the association between sugar-sweetened beverages and weight gain: A systematic review of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2013;10: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001578.
Bhangu A, Nepogodiev D, Gupta A, Torrance A, Singh P, West Midlands Research Collaborative. Systematic review and meta‐analysis of outcomes following emergency surgery for Clostridium difficile colitis. Br J Surg. 2012; 99:1501–13.
Chow CHT, Rizwan A, Xu R, et al. Association of temperament with preoperative anxiety in pediatric patients undergoing surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.5614.
Data Collection Process. Supplementary file. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/7/6/e015626/DC1/embed/inline-supplementary-material-1.pdf?download=true. Accessed 25 Aug 2020.
Deshpande G, Rao S, Patole S. Probiotics for prevention of necrotising enterocolitis in preterm neonates with very low birthweight: a systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2007;369:1614–20.
Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE. 2008;3:e3081.
Elwenspoek MMC, Sheppard AL, McInnes MDF, et al. Comparison of multiparametric magnetic resonance imaging and targeted biopsy with systematic biopsy alone for the diagnosis of prostate cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.8427.
Gallucci GO, Hamilton A, Zhou W, Buser D, Chen S. Implant placement and loading protocols in partially edentulous patients: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2018;29(Suppl 16):106–34.
International clinical trials registry Platform ICTRP Search Portal. Apps.who.int. 2020. http://apps.who.int/trialsearch. Accessed 25 Aug 2020.
Jacques TS, Sebire NJ. The impact of article titles on citation hits: an analysis of general and specialist medical journals. JRSM Short Rep. 2010;1:1–5.
Lai NM, Teng CL, Lee ML. Interpreting systematic reviews: are we ready to make our own conclusions? a cross-sectional study. BMC Med. 2011;9:30. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-30.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
LILACS. Lilacs.bvsalud.org. 2020. http://lilacs.bvsalud.org/en. Accessed 25 Aug 2020.
McCrae N, Blackstock M, Purssell E. Eligibility criteria in systematic reviews: a methodological review. Int J Nurs Stud. 2015;52:1269–76.
McHugh ML. Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic. Biochemia Med. 2012;22:276–82.
Moher D, Cook DJ. Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement: quality of reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999; 354:1896–900.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 21;6 (7):e1000097.
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M. et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015; 4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007a;27:e78.
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007b;4:e78.
Moher D, Coo DJ, Eastwood S, Olin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM Statement. Br J Surg. 2000;87:1448–54.
Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;1(106):485–8.
Mulrow CD. Systematic reviews: rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:597–9.
Nelson LF, Yocum VK, Patel KD, Qeadan F, Hsi A, Weitzen S. Cognitive outcomes of young children after prenatal exposure to medications for opioid use disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.1195.
Oberoi S, Yang J, Woodgate RL, et al. Association of mindfulness-based interventions with anxiety severity in adults with cancer: A systematic preview and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.12598.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 (Published 29 March 2021)
Park CU, Kim HJ. Measurement of inter-rater reliability in systematic review. Hanyang Med Rev. 2015;35:44–9.
PRISMA statement. http://www.prisma-statement.org/. Accessed 25 Aug 2020.
PROSPERO. Crd.york.ac.uk. 2020. https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO. Accessed 25 Aug 2020.
PubMed® Online Training. Learn.nlm.nih.gov. 2020. https://learn.nlm.nih.gov/documentation/training-packets.T0042010P/Accessed 25 Aug 2020.
Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987;316:450–5.
Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002.
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
Strait A, Castillo F, Choden S, et al. Demographic characteristics of participants in rheumatoid arthritis randomized clinical trials: a systematic review. JAMA Netw Open. 2019;2: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.14745.
Straus S, Moher D. Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ. 2010;182:13–4.
Tripepi G, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Wanner C, Zoccali C. Measures of effect: relative risks, odds ratios, risk difference, and ‘number needed to treat’. Kidney Int. 2007;72:789–91.
van Enst WA, Ochodo E, Scholten RJ et al. Investigation of publication bias in meta-analyses of diagnostic test accuracy: a meta-epidemiological study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014; 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-14-70.
Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, et al. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions 2002. In: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews [Internet]. Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91433/.
Zhang T, Sidorchuk A, Sevilla-Cermeño L et al. Association of cesarean delivery with risk of neurodevelopmental and psychiatric disorders in the offspring: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Netw Open. 2019; 2:e1910236.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Athikarisamy, S., Patole, S. (2021). Reporting of Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). In: Patole, S. (eds) Principles and Practice of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71921-0_11
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-71921-0_11
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-71920-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-71921-0
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)