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
نویسندگان
چکیده
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.
منابع مشابه
A PRISMA assessment of reporting the quality of published dental systematic reviews in Iran, up to 2017
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure correct interpretation of study results by readers. Systematic reviews (SRs) are of critical importance in evidence-based dentistry. This study assessed the reporting quality of published dental SRs in Iran.METHODS: The PubMed and ISI electronic databases were searched to collect published Iranian dental SRs up to the end of...
متن کاملپریزما؛ موارد ترجیحی در گزارش مقالات مروری منظم و فراتحلیل
Today, understanding of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and their practical use is essential for who concerned with society's health. Most of the medical reports invoked to these reviews and statements and it is necessary for scientific experts to be familiar with their performing rules and the way of their writing. The basic sciences specialists and clinical professionals study them to ...
متن کاملارزیابی کیفیت گزارش مطالعات مرور نظاممند و فراتحلیل در مجلات پرستاری و مامایی ایران
Background & Aim: In the view of the importance of evidence-based clinical practice in recent years, clinical disciplines such as nursing and midwifery have found a special need to systematic review and meta-analysis. However, systematic reviews and meta-analysises like any other studies may be poorly designed and implemented. Therefore, certain guidelines have been considered for reporting of ...
متن کاملEndorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study
OBJECTIVE Systematic reviews (SRs) often poorly report key information, thereby diminishing their usefulness. Previous studies evaluated published SRs and determined that they failed to meet explicit criteria or characteristics. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was recommended as a reporting guideline for SR and meta-analysis (MA), but pr...
متن کاملThe PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration
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 to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting O...
متن کامل