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.

Objective: Funnel plots (plots of effect estimates against sample size) may be useful to detect bias in meta-analyses that were later contradicted by large trials. We examined whether a simple test of asymmetry of funnel plots predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared to large trials, and we assessed the prevalence of bias in published meta-analyses. Design: Medline search to identify pairs consisting of a meta-analysis and a single large trial (concordance of results was assumed if effects were in the same direction and the meta-analytic estimate was within 30% of the trial); analysis of funnel plots from 37 meta-analyses identified from a hand search of four leading general medicine journals 1993-6 and 38 meta-analyses from the second 1996 issue of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews . Main outcome measure: Degree of funnel plot asymmetry as measured by the intercept from regression of standard normal deviates against precision. Results: In the eight pairs of meta-analysis and large trial that were identified (five from cardiovascular medicine, one from diabetic medicine, one from geriatric medicine, one from perinatal medicine) there were four concordant and four discordant pairs. In all cases discordance was due to meta-analyses showing larger effects. Funnel plot asymmetry was present in three out of four discordant pairs but in none of concordant pairs. In 14 (38%) journal meta-analyses and 5 (13%) Cochrane reviews, funnel plot asymmetry indicated that there was bias. Conclusions: A simple analysis of funnel plots provides a useful test for the likely presence of bias in meta-analyses, but as the capacity to detect bias will be limited when meta-analyses are based on a limited number of small trials the results from such analyses should be treated with considerable caution. Key messages Systematic reviews of randomised trials are the best strategy for appraising evidence; however, the findings of some meta-analyses were later contradicted by large trials Funnel plots, plots of the trials9 effect estimates against sample size, are skewed and asymmetrical in the presence of publication bias and other biases Funnel plot asymmetry, measured by regression analysis, predicts discordance of results when meta-analyses are compared with single large trials Funnel plot asymmetry was found in 38% of meta-analyses published in leading general medicine journals and in 13% of reviews from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Critical examination of systematic reviews for publication and related biases should be considered a routine procedure

/pdf/bias-in-meta-analysis-detected-by-a-simple-graphical-test-5erh428s5c.pdf

Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test

Systematic review and meta-analysis

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

What do we know about the safety of the HPV vaccines

EDITOR—As Manaszewicz writes, the language and the framing of information items can influence the way a message is perceived (see also our box of examples).1 Regarding our use of the term harms, we are of course not “the only researchers of note to resort to such language.” For example, this term is …

/pdf/websites-on-screening-for-breast-cancer-authors-reply-4wdsiq6vgx.pdf

Websites on screening for breast cancer:Authors' reply

Clinical trials were missing from regulatory documents of extended-release methylphenidate for ADHD in adults: A case study of public documents.

Abstract We assessed the records for 30 consecutive petitions for mental health commitment in which an involuntary medication order was requested from Anchorage, Alaska. In 29 cases, the commitment petition was granted. One patient requested a jury trial and the jury found in her favor. The forced medication order was granted in 27 of the 30 cases. In 26 cases, in violation of previous Supreme Court rulings, the patients’ desires, fears, wishes and experiences were totally ignored even when the patients were afraid that the drugs used for psychosis might kill them or when they had experienced serious harms such as tardive dyskinesia. The ethical and legal imperative of offering a less intrusive treatment was ignored. Benzodiazepines were not offered. Psychotherapy was not offered or mentioned in fifteen of the 30 cases. The providers claimed it does not work, even though that statement is blatantly false. The legal procedures can best be characterized as a sham where the patients are defenseless. The power imbalance and abuse were extreme and several of the psychiatrists who argued for forced treatment obtained court orders for administering drugs and dosages that were dangerous. Forced medication should be abandoned. 

/pdf/systematic-violations-of-patients-rights-and-safety-forced-3bubkd45.pdf

Systematic violations of patients’ rights and safety: Forced medication of a cohort of 30 patients in Alaska

http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/2048-4623-1-S3-PC145.pdf

Peter C Gøtzsche

Papers

What do we know about the safety of the HPV vaccines

Websites on screening for breast cancer:Authors' reply

Clinical trials were missing from regulatory documents of extended-release methylphenidate for ADHD in adults: A case study of public documents.

Systematic violations of patients’ rights and safety: Forced medication of a cohort of 30 patients in Alaska

A review of randomised trials published in general high impact journals, specialist high impact journals, or specialist low impact journals