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.
Keywords
MedicineLibrary scienceSystematic reviewHumanitiesMEDLINEArtPolitical science
Affiliated Institutions
Related Publications
The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and tr...
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and tra...
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Althou...
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why ...
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why ...
Publication Info
- Year
- 2009
- Type
- article
- Volume
- 151
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 264-269
- Citations
- 36952
- Access
- Closed
External Links
Social Impact
Altmetric
PlumX Metrics
Social media, news, blog, policy document mentions
Citation Metrics
36952
OpenAlex
Cite This
David Moher
(2009).
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.
Annals of Internal Medicine
, 151
(4)
, 264-269.
https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
Identifiers
- DOI
- 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135