Published 21 July 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;339:b2700

Research Methods & Reporting

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

¹ Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy, ² Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy, ³ Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, ⁴ Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, ⁵ Annals of Internal Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, ⁶ Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark, ⁷ Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine, Ioannina, Greece, ⁸ UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, ⁹ School of Nursing and Midwifery, Trinity College, Dublin, Republic of Ireland, ¹⁰ Departments of Medicine, Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, ¹¹ Kleijnen Systematic Reviews, York, ¹² School for Public Health and Primary Care (CAPHRI), University of Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands, ¹³ Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.

Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.

The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

© Liberati et al 2009
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-commercial License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    StumbleUpon    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G, for the PRISMA Group, (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339: b2535-b2535 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

CONSORT in China

Ke-hu Yang, et al.
bmj.com, 15 Aug 2009 [Full text]