Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses - PubMed (original) (raw)
Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses
Nikola Panic et al. PLoS One. 2013.
Abstract
Introduction: PRISMA statement was published in 2009 in order to set standards in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PRISMA endorsement on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in journals in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology (GH).
Methods: Quality of reporting and methodological quality were evaluated by assessing the adherence of papers to PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR quality scale. After identifying the GH journals which endorsed PRISMA in instructions for authors (IA), we appraised: 15 papers published in 2012 explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group A); 15 papers from the same journals published in 2012 not explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group B); 30 papers published the year preceding PRISMA endorsement from the same journals as above (Group C); 30 papers published in 2012 on the 10 highest impact factor journals in GH which not endorsed PRISMA (Group D).
Results: PRISMA statement was referred in the IA in 9 out of 70 GH journals (12.9%). We found significant increase in overall adherence to PRISMA checklist (Group A, 90.1%; Group C, 83.1%; p = 0.003) and compliance to AMSTAR scale (Group A, 85.0%; Group C, 74.6%; p = 0.002), following the PRISMA endorsement from the nine GH journals. Explicit referencing of PRISMA in manuscript was not associated with increase in quality of reporting and methodological quality (Group A vs. B, p = 0.651, p = 0.900, respectively). Adherence to PRISMA checklist, and the compliance with AMSTAR were significantly higher in journals endorsing PRISMA compared to those not (Groups A+B vs. D; p = 0.003 and p = 0.016, respectively).
Conclusion: The endorsement of PRISMA resulted in increase of both quality of reporting and methodological quality. It is advised that an increasing number of medical journals include PRISMA in the instructions for authors.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Figures
Similar articles
- Evaluation of the Endorsement of the STrengthening the REporting of Genetic Association Studies (STREGA) Statement on the Reporting Quality of Published Genetic Association Studies.
Nedovic D, Panic N, Pastorino R, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Nedovic D, et al. J Epidemiol. 2016 Aug 5;26(8):399-404. doi: 10.2188/jea.JE20150173. Epub 2016 Jun 25. J Epidemiol. 2016. PMID: 27349199 Free PMC article. Review. - Consolidated standards of reporting trials (CONSORT) and the completeness of reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in medical journals.
Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Weeks L, Peters J, Kober T, Dias S, Schulz KF, Plint AC, Moher D. Turner L, et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012 Nov 14;11(11):MR000030. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000030.pub2. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012. PMID: 23152285 Free PMC article. Review. - Quality Assessment of Studies Published in Open Access and Subscription Journals: Results of a Systematic Evaluation.
Pastorino R, Milovanovic S, Stojanovic J, Efremov L, Amore R, Boccia S. Pastorino R, et al. PLoS One. 2016 May 11;11(5):e0154217. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0154217. eCollection 2016. PLoS One. 2016. PMID: 27167982 Free PMC article. - Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study.
Tam WW, Lo KK, Khalechelvam P. Tam WW, et al. BMJ Open. 2017 Feb 7;7(2):e013905. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013905. BMJ Open. 2017. PMID: 28174224 Free PMC article.
Cited by
- Food Insecurity among Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Askari E, Raeesi Dehkordi F, Mokhayeri Y, Amraei M, Behzadifar M, Imani-Nasab MH. Askari E, et al. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2024 Jul 24;29(4):403-410. doi: 10.4103/ijnmr.ijnmr_191_23. eCollection 2024 Jul-Aug. Iran J Nurs Midwifery Res. 2024. PMID: 39205839 Free PMC article. Review. - Intranasal midazolam for procedural distress in children in the emergency department: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Wang JY, Speechley K, Anderson KK, Gainham G, Ali S, Trottier ED, Sabhaney V, Heath A, Sich C, Forbes A, Poonai N. Wang JY, et al. CJEM. 2024 Sep;26(9):658-670. doi: 10.1007/s43678-024-00731-2. Epub 2024 Aug 28. CJEM. 2024. PMID: 39198327 - Evolution of Research Reporting Standards: Adapting to the Influence of Artificial Intelligence, Statistics Software, and Writing Tools.
Alnaimat F, Al-Halaseh S, AlSamhori ARF. Alnaimat F, et al. J Korean Med Sci. 2024 Aug 19;39(32):e231. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e231. J Korean Med Sci. 2024. PMID: 39164055 Free PMC article. Review. - Integrated maternity care: A concept analysis.
Cellissen E, van Zelm R, Hendrix M, Wildschut HIJ, Nieuwenhuijze M. Cellissen E, et al. PLoS One. 2024 Aug 1;19(8):e0306979. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0306979. eCollection 2024. PLoS One. 2024. PMID: 39088517 Free PMC article. - The prevalence of adolescent pregnancy and its associated consequences in the Eastern Mediterranean region: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Varmaghani M, Pourtaheri A, Ahangari H, Tehrani H. Varmaghani M, et al. Reprod Health. 2024 Jul 31;21(1):113. doi: 10.1186/s12978-024-01856-4. Reprod Health. 2024. PMID: 39085959 Free PMC article. Review.
References
- Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. (2011) An international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 377: 108–9. - PubMed
- Murthy L, Shepperd S, Clarke MJ, Garner SE, Lavis JN, et al. (2012) Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9: CD009401 doi:10.1002/14651858.CD009401.pub2 - DOI - PubMed
- Young C, Horton R (2005) Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 366: 107–108. - PubMed
- Mulrow CD The medical review article: State of the science. (1987) Ann Intern Med 106:485–488. - PubMed
- Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B (1996) Meta-analysis: An update. Mt Sinai J Med 63: 216–224. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Grants and funding
The work of Nikola Panic was supported by the ERAWEB project, funded with support of the European Community. The work of Dr Emanuele Leoncini was supported by Fondazione Veronesi. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources