Blinded by PRISMA: Are Systematic Reviewers Focusing on PRISMA and Ignoring Other Guidelines?

Padhraig S. Fleming · Despina Koletsi · Nikolaos Pandis

116 citations0/0 files storedPLoS ONE

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Clinical practice guidelines implementation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

BACKGROUND: PRISMA guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs). Other reporting guidelines and techniques to assess methodological quality of SRs have been developed. We aimed to assess the frequency of the use of reporting and other guidelines in SRs to assess whether PRISMA is being used inappropriately as a substitute for other relevant guidelines. METHODS: Web of Knowledge was searched to identify articles citing the PRISMA guidelines over a 12-month period. The use of reporting guidelines (including PRISMA and MOOSE) and tools for assessing methodological quality (including QUADAS) was assessed. Factors associated with appropriate use of guidelines including review type, field of publication and involvement of a methodologist were investigated. RESULTS: Over the 12-month period, 701 SRs were identified. MOOSE guidelines were cited in just 17% of epidemiologic reviews; QUADAS or QUADAS-2 was referred to in just 40% of diagnostic SRs. In the multivariable analysis, medical field of publication and methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.83) were significant predictors of appropriate use of guidelines. Inclusion of a meta-analysis resulted in 73% higher odds of appropriate usage of systematic review guidelines (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.35). CONCLUSIONS: Usage of SR reporting guidelines and tools for assessment of methodological quality other than PRISMA may be under-utilized with negative implications both for the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 116 citations exist upstream.

References

2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement 2009Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement 2009Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.2000Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting 2011QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2010CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials 2007Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies 1999Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement

Cited by

2016Reproducibility of Search Strategies Is Poor in Systematic Reviews Published in High-Impact Pediatrics, Cardiology and Surgery Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study 2015Use of guidelines to improve the quality and transparency of reporting oral health research 2015Use of quality assessment tools in systematic reviews was varied and inconsistent 2022Developing Process for Selecting Research Techniques in Urban Planning and Urban Design with a PRISMA-Compliant Review

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.