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

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

David Moher et al. Open Med. 2009.

No abstract available

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Box 1

Box 1

Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

Figure 1

Figure 1

Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review

Table 1

Table 1

Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic review or meta-analysis

Table 2

Table 2

Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist (a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or PRISMA)

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. doi: 10.1136/bmj.327.7423.1083. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist (12/2006) 2006. [accessed 19 May 2009]. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf.
    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

LinkOut - more resources