David Moher

Research topics

• Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · 14 papers
• Delphi Technique in Research · 9 papers
• Traumatic Brain Injury Research · 4 papers
• Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · 4 papers
• Health Sciences Research and Education · 3 papers
• Clinical practice guidelines implementation · 2 papers

Frequent co-authors

• Jennifer Tetzlaff · 7 papers
• Lesley A. Stewart · 6 papers
• Cynthia D. Mulrow · 5 papers
• Larissa Shamseer · 5 papers
• Douglas G. Altman · 5 papers
• Isabelle Boutron · 4 papers
• Tammy Hoffmann · 4 papers
• Elie A. Akl · 4 papers

Papers

1. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsBMJ · 2021 · 107,350 citations

   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 review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances…

2. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA StatementPLoS Medicine · 2009 · 65,305 citations

   se ha posicionado como un centro de referencia asistencial y académica, con la proyección de conformar clínicas o centros de excelencia.Para lograr este objetivo, es indispensable que realice y se ciña a sus propias guías de práctica clínica o estándares…

3. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and ExplanationAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2018 · 44,448 citations

   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. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement.…

4. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA StatementAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2009 · 38,227 citations

   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…

5. The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and ElaborationPLoS Medicine · 2009 · 28,091 citations

   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 transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value…

6. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statementSystematic Reviews · 2015 · 27,164 citations

   Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well…

7. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaborationBMJ · 2009 · 18,000 citations

   Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to…

8. CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trialsBMC Medicine · 2010 · 13,623 citations

   The CONSORT statement is used worldwide to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials. Kenneth Schulz and colleagues describe the latest version, CONSORT 2010, which updates the reporting guideline based on new methodological evidence and accumulating experience.To encourage dissemination of…

9. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanationBMJ · 2015 · 13,536 citations

   Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when…

10. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statementInternational Journal of Surgery · 2010 · 12,348 citations

    Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require…

11. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsInternational Journal of Surgery · 2021 · 11,970 citations

    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 review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances…

12. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviewsBMJ · 2021 · 11,889 citations

    The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings.The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate…

13. Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guideBMJ · 2014 · 11,024 citations

    Without a complete published description of interventions, clinicians and patients cannot reliably implement interventions that are shown to be useful, and other researchers cannot replicate or build on research findings. The quality of description of interventions in publications, however, is…

14. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or bothBMJ · 2017 · 10,967 citations

    The number of published systematic reviews of studies of healthcare interventions has increased rapidly and these are used extensively for clinical and policy decisions. Systematic reviews are subject to a range of biases and increasingly include non-randomised studies of interventions.…