Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19622552›Full record

GuidelineBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2009

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare 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

Registry-linked trialAbstract readConsensus StatementGuidelineSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT01446510 (Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Models in Hospitalized Medical Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 7,745 papers, 115 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7,745citing papers in PubMed, 115 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.

NCT01446510 withdrawnnot on this mapstarted 2011, after this paper: background citation

Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Venous Thromboembolism Risk Assessment Models in Hospitalized Medical Patients

TypeobservationalSponsorIntermountain Health Care, Inc.Ran2011 to 2013Enrolled0ConditionsVenous ThromboembolismArmsApplication of VTE Risk Assessment
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7,745 citing papers in PubMed, 115 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Isolated clival Langerhans cell histiocytosis in a pediatric patient: systematic review and illustrative case report.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. 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. Pooled it
  20. Successful pre-operative endovascular intraventricular meningioma embolization: a systematic review and pediatric case analysis.Child's nervous system : ChNS : official journal of the International Society for Pediatric Neurosurgery · 2026
    Pooled it

7,685 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.
Douglas G Altman
Jennifer Tetzlaff
Cynthia Mulrow
Peter C Gøtzsche
John P A Ioannidis
Mike Clarke
P J Devereaux
Jos Kleijnen
David Moher

Funding

Medical Research Council G0800808Medical Research Council MC_U105285807
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are 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. Realising 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 website (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

PMID19622552
PMCPMC2714672

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.