Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses : The PRISMA Statement

Verifica disponibilità: Testo completo (sito dell'editore)

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasinglyimportant in health care. Clinicians readthem to keep up to date with their field (1, 2), and they areoften used as a starting point for developing clinical practiceguidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematicreview 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 systematicreview depends on what was done, what was found, andthe clarity of reporting. As with other publications, thereporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limitingreaders’ ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses ofthose reviews.

Salvato in:
Autori: David Moher iD (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia; University of Ottawa; Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research; University of Oxford; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Cochrane); Alessandro Liberati (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia; University of Ottawa; Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research; University of Oxford; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Cochrane); Jennifer Tetzlaff (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia; University of Ottawa; Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research; University of Oxford; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Cochrane); Douglas G. Altman iD (University of Modena and Reggio Emilia; University of Ottawa; Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research; University of Oxford; Ottawa Hospital Research Institute; Cochrane); the PRISMA Group*
Pubblicato in: Annals of Internal Medicine, vol. 151, n. 4, pp. 264-269
Data di pubblicazione:18/08/2009
Editore:American College of Physicians
Tipo di documento:Rassegna della letteratura
Lingua:inglese
DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
ISSN:0003-4819, 1539-3704
Accesso aperto: Nessuna copia ad accesso aperto nota: per le risorse in abbonamento usare Verifica disponibilità.
Citazioni ricevute:37.548
Soggetti:
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews (Social Sciences > Decision Sciences > Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty)
Clinical practice guidelines implementation (Health Sciences > Medicine > Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health)
Delphi Technique in Research (Social Sciences > Social Sciences > Sociology and Political Science)
PRISMA statement, reporting quality, systematic reviews, meta-analysis, reporting guidelines, research transparency
Identificativi: OpenAlex W2005501262 · PMID 19622511

Dati dell'indice centrale: OpenAlex (licenza CC0).

Riassunto:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasinglyimportant in health care. Clinicians readthem to keep up to date with their field (1, 2), and they areoften used as a starting point for developing clinical practiceguidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematicreview 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 systematicreview depends on what was done, what was found, andthe clarity of reporting. As with other publications, thereporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limitingreaders’ ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses ofthose reviews.
ISSN:0003-4819
1539-3704
DOI:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135