The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

Abstract

Alessandro Liberati and colleagues present an Explanation and Elaboration of the PRISMA Statement, updated guidelines for the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Meta-analysis of the impact of neoadjuvant therapy on patterns of recurrence in pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma

“…The decision was made to follow the PRISMA guidelines10 as they can be used for observational studies and are widely accepted to increase the quality of systematic reviews11, 12, 13. Moreover, each included study was screened for 34 STROBE items14, and percentages from 0 (indicating the worst study design) to 100 (expressing a perfectly designed study) were calculated.…”

Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews?

“…This stance reflects the raison d’être of the Cochrane Collaboration, whose use of explicit and auditable quality criteria for undertaking systematic reviews has inspired a weighty methodological handbook,3 numerous tools and checklists4, 5 and structured reporting criteria 6. There is strong emphasis on methodological reproducibility, with the implication that a different review team, using the same search criteria, quality checklists and synthesis tools, should obtain the same result 3…”

Context-Aware Systems for Chronic Disease Patients: Scoping Review (Preprint)

“…Our study design follows the guidelines for a scoping review proposed by Arksey & O'Malley (2005), and follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [10], where applicable.…”