Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement - PubMed (original) (raw)

Guideline

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

David Moher et al. PLoS Med. 2009.

No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1. Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994;272:1367–1371. - PubMed
    1. Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: Database analysis. BMJ. 2003;327:1083–1084. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist (12/2006). 2006 Available: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2009.
    1. Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005;366:107. - PubMed
    1. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: State of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987;106:485–488. - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources