ArticleSystematic reviews2023
The PRISMATIC project: protocol for a research programme on novel methods to improve reporting and peer review of systematic reviews of health evidence.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- There is no reliable evidence that providing authors with customized article templates including items from reporting guidelines improves completeness of reporting: the GoodReports randomized trial (GRReaT).BMC medical research methodology · 2025Trial
- Person-environment transactions of impulsive traits and day-level alcohol use: A narrative review.Alcohol, clinical & experimental research · 2025Review
- Seeing the unseen: The low treatment rate of eye emergencies in Africa.World journal of methodology · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- Improving the reports of systematic reviews in sexual medicine.The journal of sexual medicine · 2025Article
- Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Improving Hospital Efficiency and Cost Management: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Cureus · 2024Review
- Comparative Analysis of Intralesional Immunotherapy and Conventional Treatments for Non-Genital Warts: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Dermatology practical & conceptual · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIncomplete reporting about what systematic reviewers did and what they found prevents users of the report from being able to fully interpret the findings and understand the limitations of the underlying evidence. Reporting guidelines such as the PRISMA statement and its extensions are designed to improve reporting. However, there are important inconsistencies across the various PRISMA reporting guidelines, which causes confusion and misinterpretation. Coupled with this, users might need to consult multiple guidelines to gain a full understanding of the guidance. Furthermore, the current passive strategy of implementing PRISMA has not fully brought about needed improvements in the completeness of systematic review reporting.
methodsThe PRISMATIC ('PRISMA, Technology, and Implementation to enhance reporting Completeness') project aims to use novel methods to enable more efficient and effective translation of PRISMA reporting guidelines into practice. We will establish a working group who will develop a unified PRISMA statement that harmonises content across the main PRISMA guideline and several of its extensions. We will then develop a web application that generates a reporting template and checklist customised to the characteristics and methods of a systematic review ('PRISMA-Web app') and conduct a randomised trial to evaluate its impact on authors' reporting. We will also develop a web application that helps peer reviewers appraise systematic review manuscripts ('PRISMA-Peer app') and conduct a diagnostic accuracy study to evaluate its impact on peer reviewers' detection of incomplete reporting. DISCUSSION: We anticipate the novel guidance and web-based apps developed throughout the project will substantively enhance the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of health evidence, ultimately benefiting users who rely on systematic reviews to inform health care decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.