Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement.
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.14306/renhyd.18.3.114Keywords:
PRISMA Statement, Systematic Review, Meta-analysisAbstract
Original citation: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.
The original authors have not revised and verified the Spanish translation, and not necessary endorse it.
Los autores originales no han revisado ni verificado la traducción del manuscrito al español, y no necesariamente están de acuerdo con su contenido.
Original article published: July 21, 2009
Copyright: © 2009 Moher et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Provenance: Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed. In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the PLoS Medicine Web site (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/) and will be also published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).
Spanish translation: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto, Johana Prieto, Maria Manera, Eduard Baladia, Rodrigo Martínez-Rodríguez y Julio Basulto.
Corresponding author of the spanish translation: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto (merchesotosprieto@gmail.com)
References
Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1994; 272: 1367–71.
Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JPA. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ. 2003; 327: 1083–4.
Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist (12/2006) [portal en internet]. 2006 [citado 19 de mayo de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf
Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005; 366: 107–8.
Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106: 485–8.
Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987; 316: 450–5.
Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Metaanalysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med N Y. 1996; 63: 216–24.
Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999; 354: 1896–900.
Green S, Higgins J. Glossary. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collaboration [portal en internet]. 2005 [citado 19 de mayo de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm
Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 521–4.
Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? Lancet. 2006; 367: 881–3.
University of York. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [portal en internet]. 2009 [citado 19 de mayo de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/.
The Joanna Briggs Institute. Protocols & work in progress [portal en internet]. 2008 [citado 19 de mayo de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_prot.php.
De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can. 2004; 171: 606–7.
Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, Boddington E. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet. 2004; 363:1341–5.
Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ, Ghali WA. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166: 161–6.
Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006; 332: 202–9.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.
Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 663–94.
Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: W1–12.
Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: W163–194.
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e78.
Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P. Metaanalyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83-A: 15–24.
Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 38: 518–26.
Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent. 2004; 5: 17.
Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramèr MR, Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg. 2001; 92: 700–9.
Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2005; 9: R575–582.
Dickersin K. Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. En: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. 1 edition. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005. p. 11-33.
Utton AJ. Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases. En: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. 1 edition. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005. p. 175-92.
Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006; 333: 597–600.
Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, Scheiman JM, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135:769–81.
Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001; 323: 157–62.
Altman DG. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ. 2001; 323: 224–8.
Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet. 2001; 29: 306–9.
Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis J-L, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 Suppl 1: 35–48.
Stewart LA, Clarke MJ. Practical methodology of metaanalyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med. 1995; 14: 2057–79.
Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005; 330: 1053.
Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336: 924–6.
Schünemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, Bria WF, El-Solh AA, Ernst A, et al. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006; 174: 605–14.
Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2004; 291: 2457–65.
Chan A-W, Krleza-Jerić K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can. 2004; 171: 735–40.
Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2002; 287:2831–4.
This journal 