PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts

By E. Beller, P. Glasziou, Douglas G. Altman, Sally Hopewell, H. Bastian, I. Chalmers, P. Gøtzsche, T. Lasserson, David Tovey. PLoS Medicine, 2013

611 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Elaine Beller and colleagues from the PRISMA for Abstracts group provide a reporting guidelines for reporting abstracts of systematic reviews in journals and at conferences.

Subfields: General Health Professions, History and Philosophy of Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/5358e30b669c8cd6f36bf5e0b9abe17a20a4e0e0

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In History and Philosophy of Science

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021, background): “It is essential that the summary of the review in the abstract is accurate because this is the only part of the review that some people will read (either by choice or because of restricted access) (Beller et al., 2013).”
Whether Smaller Plates Reduce Consumption Depends on Who’s Serving and Who’s Looking: A Meta-Analysis (2016, positive): “We have followed PRISMA principles (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews andMeta-Analyses) as the basis for reporting our method and our results (Beller et al. 2013).”
Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review (2017, methodology): “PRISMA-Abstracts 2013 Abstracts for all types of systematic reviews, but the emphasis is on systematic reviews of evaluations of interventions where one or more meta-analyses are conducted [27].”
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. (2021, methodology): “∗ This abstract checklist retains the same items as those included in the PRISMA for Abstracts statement published in 2013 [54] , but has been revised to make the wording consistent with the PRISMA 2020 statement and includes a new item recommending authors specify the methods used to present and sy”
Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. (2020, methodology): “We constructed a sampling frame, consisting of all members of the PRISMA 2009 and PRISMA for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Groups (25, 26), corresponding authors of all PRISMA extensions that were published (27-34) or in development at the time of the survey (35-38), editors in chief and associate edito”
ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses: pro forma, flow-diagram and descriptive summary of the plan and conduct of environmental systematic reviews and systematic maps (2018, methodology): “PRISMA reporting guidance has been continuously developing (see [26]) and several extensions have been published so far, including PRISMA-Equity [27] an extension for abstracts [28] and a PRISMA for protocols [29, 30].”
Evaluating Large Language Models on Medical Evidence Summarization (2023, positive): “First, the abstracts of Cochrane Reviews is a stand-alone documents [9] that should not contain any information that is not in the main body of the review, and the overall messages should be consistent with the conclusions of the review.”
Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTA Statement (2018, methodology): “At the consensus meeting, the original PRISMA checklist for abstracts was modified for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies.(38) The total number of items was preserved (n = 12).”