Evaluation of the Endorsement of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) Statement on the Quality of Published Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses

Introduction PRISMA statement was published in 2009 in order to set standards in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PRISMA endorsement on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in journals in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology (GH). Methods Quality of reporting and methodological quality were evaluated by assessing the adherence of papers to PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR quality scale. After identifying the GH journals which endorsed PRISMA in instructions for authors (IA), we appraised: 15 papers published in 2012 explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group A); 15 papers from the same journals published in 2012 not explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group B); 30 papers published the year preceding PRISMA endorsement from the same journals as above (Group C); 30 papers published in 2012 on the 10 highest impact factor journals in GH which not endorsed PRISMA (Group D). Results PRISMA statement was referred in the IA in 9 out of 70 GH journals (12.9%). We found significant increase in overall adherence to PRISMA checklist (Group A, 90.1%; Group C, 83.1%; p = 0.003) and compliance to AMSTAR scale (Group A, 85.0%; Group C, 74.6%; p = 0.002), following the PRISMA endorsement from the nine GH journals. Explicit referencing of PRISMA in manuscript was not associated with increase in quality of reporting and methodological quality (Group A vs. B, p = 0.651, p = 0.900, respectively). Adherence to PRISMA checklist, and the compliance with AMSTAR were significantly higher in journals endorsing PRISMA compared to those not (Groups A+B vs. D; p = 0.003 and p = 0.016, respectively). Conclusion The endorsement of PRISMA resulted in increase of both quality of reporting and methodological quality. It is advised that an increasing number of medical journals include PRISMA in the instructions for authors.

[1]  David Moher,et al.  An international registry of systematic-review protocols , 2011, The Lancet.

[2]  David Moher,et al.  From QUOROM to PRISMA: A Survey of High-Impact Medical Journals' Instructions to Authors and a Review of Systematic Reviews in Anesthesia Literature , 2011, PloS one.

[3]  D. Altman,et al.  Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  J. Poorolajal,et al.  Quality of Cohort Studies Reporting Post the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement , 2011, Epidemiology and health.

[5]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta‐analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 2000, Revista espanola de salud publica.

[6]  H S Sacks,et al.  Meta-analysis: an update. , 1996, The Mount Sinai journal of medicine, New York.

[7]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[8]  P. Tugwell,et al.  A Comparison of the Quality of Cochrane Reviews and Systematic Reviews Published in Paper-Based Journals , 2002, Evaluation & the health professions.

[9]  I. Olkin,et al.  Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement , 1999, The Lancet.

[10]  S. Pocock,et al.  Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[11]  Jeremy Grimshaw,et al.  AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  Robert L Kane,et al.  Reporting in randomized clinical trials improved after adoption of the CONSORT statement. , 2007, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  P. Masand,et al.  The impact of the CONSORT statement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry. , 2009, Contemporary clinical trials.

[14]  C. Mulrow The medical review article: state of the science. , 1987, Annals of internal medicine.

[15]  E. Romagnoli,et al.  Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study , 2006, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[16]  C. Paul,et al.  CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals , 2009, The British journal of dermatology.

[17]  Richard Horton,et al.  Putting clinical trials into context , 2005, The Lancet.

[18]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration , 2009, Annals of Internal Medicine [serial online].

[19]  D. Rennie,et al.  How to report randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. , 1996, JAMA.

[20]  Sharon E. Straus,et al.  Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[21]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.