David Moher and colleagues introduce PRISMA, an update of the QUOROM guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses

/pdf/preferred-reporting-items-for-systematic-reviews-and-meta-3k0wa2mp7o.pdf

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field,1,2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some health care journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.

Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in 4 leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all 8 explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987, Sacks and colleagues6 evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in 6 domains. Reporting was generally poor; between 1 and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7

In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).



Box 1

Conceptual issues in the evolution from QUOROM to PRISMA

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.

Cochrane Reviews have recently started including the quantity I 2 to help readers assess the consistency of the results of studies in meta-analyses. What does this new quantity mean, and why is assessment of heterogeneity so important to clinical practice? 

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can provide convincing and reliable evidence relevant to many aspects of medicine and health care.1 Their value is especially clear when the results of the studies they include show clinically important effects of similar magnitude. However, the conclusions are less clear when the included studies have differing results. In an attempt to establish whether studies are consistent, reports of meta-analyses commonly present a statistical test of heterogeneity. The test seeks to determine whether there are genuine differences underlying the results of the studies (heterogeneity), or whether the variation in findings is compatible with chance alone (homogeneity). However, the test is susceptible to the number of trials included in the meta-analysis. We have developed a new quantity, I 2, which we believe gives a better measure of the consistency between trials in a meta-analysis.

Assessment of the consistency of effects across studies is an essential part of meta-analysis. Unless we know how consistent the results of studies are, we cannot determine the generalisability of the findings of the meta-analysis. Indeed, several hierarchical systems for grading evidence state that the results of studies must be consistent or homogeneous to obtain the highest grading.2–4

Tests for heterogeneity are commonly used to decide on methods for combining studies and for concluding consistency or inconsistency of findings.5 6 But what does the test achieve in practice, and how should the resulting P values be interpreted?

A test for heterogeneity examines the null hypothesis that all studies are evaluating the same effect. The usual test statistic …

/pdf/measuring-inconsistency-in-meta-analyses-4iysmttp08.pdf

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Systematic review and meta-analysis

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement

Psychological outcomes in women with early breast cancer.

Press coverage of hormone replacement therapy and menopause

A shared effort toward better quality of care. The Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer Follow-up

Mammographic screening for breast cancer is controversial, as reflected in greatly varying national policies. The objective was to assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. MEDLINE (16 May 2000), The Cochrane Breast Cancer Group’s trial register (24 Jan 2000) and reference lists. Letters, abstracts and unpublished trials. Authors were contacted. Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening. Data were extracted by both authors independently. Seven completed and eligible trials involving half a million women were identified. The two best trials provided medium-quality data and, when combined, yield a relative risk for overall mortality of 1.00 (95% CI 0.96–1.05) after 13 years. However, the trials are underpowered for all-cause mortality, and confidence intervals include a possible worthwhile effect as well as a possible detrimental effect. If data from all eligible trials (excluding flawed studies) are considered then the relative risk for overall mortality after 13 years is 1.01 (95% CI 0.99–1.03). The best trials failed to show a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with a relative risk of 0.97 (95% CI 0.82–1.14). If data from all eligible trials (excluding flawed studies) are considered then the relative risk for breast cancer mortality after 13 years is 0.80 (95% CI 0.71–0.89). However, breast cancer mortality is considered to be an unreliable outcome and biased in favour of screening. Flaws are due to differential exclusion of women with breast cancer from analysis and differential misclassification of cause of death. The currently available reliable evidence does not show a survival benefit of mass screening for breast cancer (and the evidence is inconclusive for breast cancer mortality). Women, clinicians and policy makers should consider these findings carefully when they decide whether or not to attend or support screening programs.

/pdf/understanding-systematic-reviews-the-meta-analysis-graph-55u8nsopvj.pdf

Alessandro Liberati

Papers

Psychological outcomes in women with early breast cancer.

Press coverage of hormone replacement therapy and menopause

A shared effort toward better quality of care. The Consensus Conference on Breast Cancer Follow-up

Understanding systematic reviews: the meta-analysis graph (also called 'forest plot').

Influence of methodological quality on study conclusions.