Cargando…
Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses
INTRODUCTION: PRISMA statement was published in 2009 in order to set standards in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PRISMA endorsement on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873291/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24386151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 |
_version_ | 1782297087321309184 |
---|---|
author | Panic, Nikola Leoncini, Emanuele de Belvis, Giulio Ricciardi, Walter Boccia, Stefania |
author_facet | Panic, Nikola Leoncini, Emanuele de Belvis, Giulio Ricciardi, Walter Boccia, Stefania |
author_sort | Panic, Nikola |
collection | PubMed |
description | INTRODUCTION: PRISMA statement was published in 2009 in order to set standards in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PRISMA endorsement on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in journals in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology (GH). METHODS: Quality of reporting and methodological quality were evaluated by assessing the adherence of papers to PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR quality scale. After identifying the GH journals which endorsed PRISMA in instructions for authors (IA), we appraised: 15 papers published in 2012 explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group A); 15 papers from the same journals published in 2012 not explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group B); 30 papers published the year preceding PRISMA endorsement from the same journals as above (Group C); 30 papers published in 2012 on the 10 highest impact factor journals in GH which not endorsed PRISMA (Group D). RESULTS: PRISMA statement was referred in the IA in 9 out of 70 GH journals (12.9%). We found significant increase in overall adherence to PRISMA checklist (Group A, 90.1%; Group C, 83.1%; p = 0.003) and compliance to AMSTAR scale (Group A, 85.0%; Group C, 74.6%; p = 0.002), following the PRISMA endorsement from the nine GH journals. Explicit referencing of PRISMA in manuscript was not associated with increase in quality of reporting and methodological quality (Group A vs. B, p = 0.651, p = 0.900, respectively). Adherence to PRISMA checklist, and the compliance with AMSTAR were significantly higher in journals endorsing PRISMA compared to those not (Groups A+B vs. D; p = 0.003 and p = 0.016, respectively). CONCLUSION: The endorsement of PRISMA resulted in increase of both quality of reporting and methodological quality. It is advised that an increasing number of medical journals include PRISMA in the instructions for authors. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3873291 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-38732912014-01-02 Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses Panic, Nikola Leoncini, Emanuele de Belvis, Giulio Ricciardi, Walter Boccia, Stefania PLoS One Research Article INTRODUCTION: PRISMA statement was published in 2009 in order to set standards in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PRISMA endorsement on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in journals in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology (GH). METHODS: Quality of reporting and methodological quality were evaluated by assessing the adherence of papers to PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR quality scale. After identifying the GH journals which endorsed PRISMA in instructions for authors (IA), we appraised: 15 papers published in 2012 explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group A); 15 papers from the same journals published in 2012 not explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group B); 30 papers published the year preceding PRISMA endorsement from the same journals as above (Group C); 30 papers published in 2012 on the 10 highest impact factor journals in GH which not endorsed PRISMA (Group D). RESULTS: PRISMA statement was referred in the IA in 9 out of 70 GH journals (12.9%). We found significant increase in overall adherence to PRISMA checklist (Group A, 90.1%; Group C, 83.1%; p = 0.003) and compliance to AMSTAR scale (Group A, 85.0%; Group C, 74.6%; p = 0.002), following the PRISMA endorsement from the nine GH journals. Explicit referencing of PRISMA in manuscript was not associated with increase in quality of reporting and methodological quality (Group A vs. B, p = 0.651, p = 0.900, respectively). Adherence to PRISMA checklist, and the compliance with AMSTAR were significantly higher in journals endorsing PRISMA compared to those not (Groups A+B vs. D; p = 0.003 and p = 0.016, respectively). CONCLUSION: The endorsement of PRISMA resulted in increase of both quality of reporting and methodological quality. It is advised that an increasing number of medical journals include PRISMA in the instructions for authors. Public Library of Science 2013-12-26 /pmc/articles/PMC3873291/ /pubmed/24386151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 Text en © 2013 Panic et al http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are properly credited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Panic, Nikola Leoncini, Emanuele de Belvis, Giulio Ricciardi, Walter Boccia, Stefania Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses |
title | Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses |
title_full | Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses |
title_fullStr | Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses |
title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses |
title_short | Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses |
title_sort | evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (prisma) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3873291/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24386151 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT panicnikola evaluationoftheendorsementofthepreferredreportingitemsforsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysisprismastatementonthequalityofpublishedsystematicreviewandmetaanalyses AT leonciniemanuele evaluationoftheendorsementofthepreferredreportingitemsforsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysisprismastatementonthequalityofpublishedsystematicreviewandmetaanalyses AT debelvisgiulio evaluationoftheendorsementofthepreferredreportingitemsforsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysisprismastatementonthequalityofpublishedsystematicreviewandmetaanalyses AT ricciardiwalter evaluationoftheendorsementofthepreferredreportingitemsforsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysisprismastatementonthequalityofpublishedsystematicreviewandmetaanalyses AT bocciastefania evaluationoftheendorsementofthepreferredreportingitemsforsystematicreviewsandmetaanalysisprismastatementonthequalityofpublishedsystematicreviewandmetaanalyses |