ArticleCureus2025
Enhancing Reporting Quality Using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis 2020 in Systematic Reviews of Emergency Medicine Journals: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Compliance of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology with the PRISMA statement: an AI-based assessment and longitudinal comparison with 2017 data.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) with thorough reporting and rigorous methodology lead to less biased outcomes. The Priority Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to enhance SRs and meta-analysis reporting. While it was updated to PRISMA 2020, the impact on emergency medicine remains unexplored. Therefore, we aimed to investigate whether using PRISMA 2020 improves the reporting quality of SRs in the emergency medicine field.
methodsThis study is a cross-sectional meta-epidemiological analysis of SRs published in emergency medicine journals between 2021 and 2023. We selected SRs with pairwise meta-analyses of health interventions included in MEDLINE. We evaluated adherence to PRISMA 2020 items with and without the use of the PRISMA 2020 statement.
resultsA total of 695 articles were analyzed, ultimately including 31 that used PRISMA 2020 and 100 that did not. Adherence rates to PRISMA 2020 items were higher in papers using PRISMA 2020 (925/1270, 72.8%, odds ratio: 1.24, 95% confidence interval: 1.08-1.43) than in papers not using it (2758/4034, 68.4%). No SRs met all of the PRISMA 2020 criteria. Adherence to PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts was slightly higher in the group that used the PRISMA 2020 (182/372, 48.9%, odds ratio: 1.17, 95% confidence interval: 0.92-1.47), compared to those that had not (541/1200, 45.1%). Adherence was highest in the introduction and lowest in the methods section. Agreement between the first author and other reviewers' ratings averaged 89.6% (4815/5371).
conclusionImplementing PRISMA 2020 significantly improved the reporting quality of SRs in emergency medicine-related journals. Declaring the use of PRISMA 2020 is insufficient, and researchers must strictly adhere to each item. REGISTRATION: The study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework on September 22, 2023 (https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/DQ5W6).
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.