Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation

By BSc Dorothée Morand-Grondin, BSc Jeanne Berthod, PhD Jennifer Sigouin, PhD Simon Beaulieu-Bonneau, D. Kairy. British medical journal, 2016

1,192 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Sociology and Political Science, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d2134be22cf657bd53d7109f2d32c8639f33626

How researchers see this paper

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

In Sociology and Political Science

1. G. Overbeek

In Statistics and Probability

1. G. Overbeek
2. Femke Beute
3. J. Weeland
4. J. Staaks
5. M. Assink
6. Martine A. Moens

Citations in the corpus

• The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2020, neutral): “Furthermore, PRISMA 2020 is not intended to inform the reporting of systematic review protocols, for which a separate statement is available (PRISMA for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement [47 , 48] ).”
• A dose of nature: Two three-level meta-analyses of the beneficial effects of exposure to nature on children's self-regulation (2019, positive): “This metaanalysis was registered in PROSPERO (registration number CRD42016045316), and the PRISMA-P guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses were followed (Shamseer et al., 2015).”