Skip to content
Anchorcite

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Alessandro Liberati, Doug G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Peter Christian Gøtzsche, John P. A. Ioannidis, Mike J Clarke, Philip James Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, David Moher

BMJ · 2009 · 18,000 citationsOpen access

doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700Free full text

Abstract

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 clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Cite this paper

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C. D., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M. J., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ, 339(jul21 1), b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700

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 free

Related papers

  1. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews2021
  2. The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data1977
  3. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement2009
  4. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test1997
  5. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation2018

Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0). Citations are generated from the published record.