Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Guideline
. 2009 Jul 21:339:b2700.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.b2700.

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Alessandro Liberati  1 , Douglas G Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia Mulrow, Peter C Gøtzsche, John P A Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, P J Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, David Moher
Affiliations
Guideline

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

Alessandro Liberati et al. BMJ. .

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are 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 of meta-analysis) statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

None
Fig 1 Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review.
None
Fig 2 Example flow diagram of study selection. DDW = Digestive Disease Week; UEGW = United European Gastroenterology Week. Adapted from Fuccio et al
None
Fig 3 Example of summary results: Overall failure (defined as failure of assigned regimen or relapse) with tetracycline-rifampicin versus tetracycline-streptomycin. Adapted from Skalsky et al
None
Fig 4 Example of a funnel plot showing evidence of considerable asymmetry. SE = standard error. Adapted from Appleton et al
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. 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 26 May 2009.
    1. Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 2005;366:107-108. - PubMed
    1. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4:e78. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, Cook DJ, Doig C. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg 2005;241:450-459. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hemels ME, Vicente C, Sadri H, Masson MJ, Einarson TR. Quality assessment of meta-analyses of RCTs of pharmacotherapy in major depressive disorder. Curr Med Res Opin 2004;20:477-484. - PubMed