Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review

By Matthew J. Page, David Moher. Systematic Reviews, 2017

633 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundThe PRISMA Statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve transparency of systematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses. Seven extensions to the PRISMA Statement have been published to address the reporting of different types or aspects of SRs, and another eight are in development. We performed a scoping review to map the research that has been conducted to evaluate the uptake and impact of the PRISMA Statement and extensions. We also synthesised studies evaluating how well SRs published after the PRISMA Statement was disseminated adhere to its recommendations.MethodsWe searched for meta-research studies indexed in MEDLINE® from inception to 31 July 2017, which investigated some component of the PRISMA Statement or extensions (e.g. SR adherence to PRISMA, journal endorsement of PRISMA). One author screened all records and classified the types of evidence available in the studies. We pooled data on SR adherence to individual PRISMA items across all SRs in the included studies and across SRs published after 2009 (the year PRISMA was disseminated).ResultsWe included 100 meta-research studies. The most common type of evidence available was data on SR adherence to the PRISMA Statement, which has been evaluated in 57 studies that have assessed 6487 SRs. The pooled results of these studies suggest that reporting of many items in the PRISMA Statement is suboptimal, even in the 2382 SRs published after 2009 (where nine items were adhered to by fewer than 67% of SRs). Few meta-research studies have evaluated the adherence of SRs to the PRISMA extensions or strategies to increase adherence to the PRISMA Statement and extensions.ConclusionsMany studies have evaluated how well SRs adhere to the PRISMA Statement, and the pooled result of these suggest that reporting of many items is suboptimal. An update of the PRISMA Statement, along with a toolkit of strategies to help journals endorse and implement the updated guideline, may improve the transparency of SRs.

Subfields: History and Philosophy of Science, Small Animals, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/c0532294ce78a405626299e94fb8158c50b0f2fe

How researchers see this paper

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

In History and Philosophy of Science

In Small Animals

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. (2020, methodology): “Collectively, the four previous studies evaluating the reporting of systematic reviews revealed several PRISMA 2009 items not reported in at least a third of the reviews sampled (13, 2123).”
PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews (2021, positive): “Despite wide usage of the PRISMA Statement [9], compliance with its items regarding literature search reporting is low [10–13].”
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews (2021, methodology): “completeness of published systematic reviews,[17, 21, 36, 37] reviewed the items included in other documents providing guidance for systematic reviews,[38] surveyed systematic review methodologists and journal editors for their views on how to revise the original PRISMA statement,[35] discussed the ”
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. (2021, methodology): “Evidence from observational studies suggests that use of the PRISMA 2009 statement is associated with more complete reporting of systematic reviews [17–20] , although more could be done to improve adherence to the guideline [21] .”
PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021, positive): “Despite wide usage of the PRISMA Statement [10], compliance with its items regarding literature search reporting is low [11–14].”
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension (2021, positive): “PRISMA has been widely cited and endorsed by prominent journals, and there is evidence of improved reporting quality in clinical research reviews following its publication (Page & Moher, 2017).”