About this Health Professions article
The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration by A. Liberati; D. G Altman; J. Tetzlaff; C. Mulrow; P. C Gotzsche; J. P A Ioannidis; M. Clarke; P J Devereaux; J. Kleijnen; D. Moher is a Health Professions article available to read on EtoBox.
research methods & reporting introduction Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential tools for summarising evidence accurately and reliably. They help clinicians keep up to date; provide evidence for policy makers to judge risks, benefits, and harms of healthcare behaviours and interventions; gather together and summarise related research for patients and their carers; provide a starting point for clinical practice guideline developers; provide summaries of previous research for funders wishing to support new research; 1 and help editors judge the merits of publishing reports of new studies. 2 Recent data suggest that at least 2500 new systematic reviews reported in English are indexed in Medline annually. 3Unfortunately, there is considerable evidence that key information is often poorly reported in systematic reviews, thus diminishing their potential usefulness. [3] [5][6] As is true for all research, systematic reviews should be reported fully and transparently to allow readers to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the investigation. 7 That rationale led to the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement; those detailed reporting recom
It is typically read by researchers, students, and practitioners in Health Professions.
- Author
- A. Liberati; D. G Altman; J. Tetzlaff; C. Mulrow; P. C Gotzsche; J. P A Ioannidis; M. Clarke; P J Devereaux; J. Kleijnen; D. Moher
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2009
- Language
- EN
- Field
- Health Professions (Health Sciences)