Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19621070›Full record

GuidelinePLoS medicine2009

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

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

Abstract readConsensus StatementGuidelineSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in PLoS medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6,071 papers, 118 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6,071citing papers in PubMed, 118 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6,071 citing papers in PubMed, 118 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. A comprehensive review of European clinical practice guidelines on psychological and cognitive assessment and support for cancer patients and their families.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Combined repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation and mirror therapy for upper limb rehabilitation in stroke survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2026
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Serotonin type 3 receptor (5-HTNeuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2026
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Impact of D-dimer on the outcomes of endovascular thrombectomy for acute ischemic stroke: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Interventional neuroradiology : journal of peritherapeutic neuroradiology, surgical procedures and related neurosciences · 2026
    Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

6,011 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Alessandro LiberatiUniversità di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy. alesslib@mailbase.it
Douglas G Altman
Jennifer Tetzlaff
Cynthia Mulrow
Peter C Gøtzsche
John P A Ioannidis
Mike Clarke
P J Devereaux
Jos Kleijnen
David Moher

Funding

Cancer Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is 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. Realizing 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 Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicReview Literature as TopicEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPublishingQuality ControlTerminology as Topic

Identifiers

PMID19621070
PMCPMC2707010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.