Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Annals of Internal Medicine · 2009 · 38,227 citations
Abstract
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 to ensure there is justification for further research(3), and some health care journals are moving in this direction(4). As with all research, the value of a systematicreview depends on what was done, what was found, andthe clarity of reporting. As with other publications, thereporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limitingreaders’ ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses ofthose reviews.
Cite this paper
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Group*, the P. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151(4), 264–269. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
Read it with every claim anchored
Add this paper to a project, ask questions of it, and get answers that point to the exact passage.
Start freeRelated papers
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews2021
- The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data1977
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement2009
- Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test1997
- PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation2018
Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0). Citations are generated from the published record.