Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

Matthew J Page et al. Syst Rev. 2017.

Abstract

Background: The PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations.

Methods: We searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated).

Results: We included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions.

Conclusions: Many studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.

Keywords: Methodology; Quality; Reporting; Systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

Competing interests

We have read the journal’s policy, and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: DM is co-Editor in Chief, and MJP is an Associate Editor for Systematic Reviews, but neither had involvement in the peer review process or decision for publication. DM led the development of the PRISMA Statement. MJP and DM are leading the update of the PRISMA Statement. DM is an unpaid advisor to StatReviewer.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1

Fig. 1

Cumulative number of citations of the PRISMA Statement. Data obtained from Scopus® on 31 July 2017. E&E explanation and elaboration

Fig. 2

Fig. 2

Cumulative number of citations of PRISMA extensions published before 2017. Data obtained from Scopus® on 31 July 2017. E&E explanation and elaboration, IPD individual participant data, NMA network meta-analysis

Fig. 3

Fig. 3

Flow diagram of identification, screening and inclusion of studies

Fig. 4

Fig. 4

Summary percentage across reports of SRs adhering to the PRISMA Statement

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Agoritsas T, Vandvik PO, Neumann I, Rochwerg B, Jaeschke R, Hayward R, et al. Chapter 5: finding current best evidence. In: Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ, et al., editors. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 3. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2015. pp. 29–50.
    1. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267–276. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Page MJ, Moher D. Mass production of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: an exercise in mega-silliness? Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):515–519. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12211. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485–514. doi: 10.1111/1468-0009.12210. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources