History & Development of PRISMA
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health
care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field [1,2], and they are often used as a starting point for
developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic
review to ensure there is justification for further research [3], and some health care journals are moving in this direction
[4]. As with all research,
the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the
clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic
reviews varies, limiting readers’ ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses
of those reviews.
Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined
50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and
found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment
of included studies [5].
In 1987, Sacks and colleagues [6]
evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in
six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were
adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this
study found little improvement [7].
In 1999, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international
group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of
Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled
trials [8].
In 2009, the guideline was updated to address several conceptual and practical advances
in the science of systematic reviews, and was renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting
Items of Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). The PRISMA statement was published in multiple journals [9,10,11,12,13,14,15] and accompanied by an Explanation and Elaboration paper [16,17,18,19,20].
To ensure its currency and relevance, in 2017 an international group set out to update the PRISMA 2009 statement by incorporating advances in systematic review methodology and terminology occurring in the last decade. The PRISMA 2020 statement was posted as a preprint on MetaArXiv in September 2020 and published in March 2021. A detailed description of the methods used to update the PRISMA statement is available in Page et al.[21].
References
- Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH (1994) Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI.
How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 272: 1367-1371.
- Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JP (2003) Number of published systematic reviews
and global burden of disease: Database analysis. BMJ 327: 1083-1084.
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (2006) Randomized controlled trials registration/application
checklist (12/2006). Available: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf.
Accessed 19 May 2009
- Young C, Horton R (2005) Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 366: 107.
- Mulrow CD (1987) The medical review article: State of the science. Ann Intern Med
106: 485-488.
- Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC (1987) Meta-analysis
of randomized controlled trials. New Engl J Med 316: 450-455.
- Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B (1996) Meta-analysis: An update. Mt Sinai
J Med 63: 216-224.
- Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, et al. for the QUOROM group (1999)
Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials:
The QUOROM statement. Lancet 354: 1896-1900.
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:264-9, W64. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:1006-12. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg 2010;8:336-41. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the
PRISMA Statement. Open Med 2009;3:e123-30.
- Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Reprint--preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses:the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther 2009;89:873-80. doi:10.1093/ptj/89.9.873
- Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, 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. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
- Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
- Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65-94. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136
- Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol 2009;62:e1-34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
- Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Italian Journal of Public Health. 2009;6(4):354-391.
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2021;134:103-112. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003.
|