Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users.

Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions.

The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-3j53e5oe33.pdf

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

The Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions is the official document that describes in detail the process of preparing and maintaining Cochrane systematic reviews on the effects of healthcare interventions.

/pdf/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-reviews-of-interventions-1xbdy6uvru.pdf

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

During the past 30 years, meta-analysis has been an indispensable tool for revealing the hidden meaning of our research literatures. The four articles in this special section on meta-analysis illus...

Meta-Analysis: A Constantly Evolving Research Integration Tool

ObjectiveBecause of the pressure for timely, informed decisions in public health
and clinical practice and the explosion of information in the scientific literature,
research results must be synthesized. Meta-analyses are increasingly used
to address this problem, and they often evaluate observational studies. A
workshop was held in Atlanta, Ga, in April 1997, to examine the reporting
of meta-analyses of observational studies and to make recommendations to aid
authors, reviewers, editors, and readers.ParticipantsTwenty-seven participants were selected by a steering committee, based
on expertise in clinical practice, trials, statistics, epidemiology, social
sciences, and biomedical editing. Deliberations of the workshop were open
to other interested scientists. Funding for this activity was provided by
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.EvidenceWe conducted a systematic review of the published literature on the
conduct and reporting of meta-analyses in observational studies using MEDLINE,
Educational Research Information Center (ERIC), PsycLIT, and the Current Index
to Statistics. We also examined reference lists of the 32 studies retrieved
and contacted experts in the field. Participants were assigned to small-group
discussions on the subjects of bias, searching and abstracting, heterogeneity,
study categorization, and statistical methods.Consensus ProcessFrom the material presented at the workshop, the authors developed a
checklist summarizing recommendations for reporting meta-analyses of observational
studies. The checklist and supporting evidence were circulated to all conference
attendees and additional experts. All suggestions for revisions were addressed.ConclusionsThe proposed checklist contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses
of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy,
methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. Use of the checklist should
improve the usefulness of meta-analyses for authors, reviewers, editors, readers,
and decision makers. An evaluation plan is suggested and research areas are
explored.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/articlepdf/192614/JST00003.pdf

Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology - A proposal for reporting

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarise evidence relating to efficacy and safety of healthcare interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, are not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (quality of reporting of meta-analysis) statement—a reporting guideline published in 1999—there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realising these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA (preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this explanation and elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA statement, this document, and the associated website (www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

/pdf/the-prisma-statement-for-reporting-systematic-reviews-and-48ibbzju0k.pdf

The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration

For any given research area, one cannot tell how many studies have been conducted but never reported. The extreme view of the "file drawer problem" is that journals are filled with the 5% of the studies that show Type I errors, while the file drawers are filled with the 95% of the studies that show nonsignificant results. Quantitative procedures for computing the tolerance for filed and future null results are reported and illustrated, and the implications are discussed. (15 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)

/pdf/the-file-drawer-problem-and-tolerance-for-null-results-145qxz92x1.pdf

The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results

Introduction Defining Research Results Retrieving and Assessing Research Results Comparing and Combining Research Results Combining Probabilities Illustrations of Meta-Analytic Procedures The Evaluation of Meta-Analytic Procedures and Meta-Analytic Results

Meta-analytic procedures for social research

PART I: EMPIRICAL INQUIRY AND DECISION CRITERIACHAPTER 1: The Nature of Behavioral ResearchCHAPTER 2: Development and Testing of Research IdeasCHAPTER 3: Standards of Reliability and ValidityPART II: NATURE AND LIMITATIONS OF CONTROL PROCEDURESCHAPTER 4: Structure and Logic of Experimental DesignsCHAPTER 5: Models of Quasi-Experimental DesignsCHAPTER 6: Subject-Experimenter Artifacts and Their ControlPART III: DATA COLLECTION AND MEASUREMENT PROCEDURESCHAPTER 7: Further Strategies for Gathering DataCHAPTER 8: Systematic Observation, Unobtrusive Measures, and Rating FormatsCHAPTER 9: Interviews, Questionnaires, and Self-Recorded DiariesPART IV: BASIC ISSUES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF RESEARCHCHAPTER 10: Considerations in the Selection of Subjects and StimuliCHAPTER 11: Ethics and Values in Human Subject ResearchCHAPTER 12: Systematic Pluralism and Statistical Data AnalysisPART V: FUNDAMENTALS OF DATA ANALYSISCHAPTER 13: Describing and Displaying DataCHAPTER 14: CorrelationCHAPTER 15: Comparing MeansPART VI: MORE ON ANALYSIS OF VARIANCECHAPTER 16: Factorial Design of ExperimentsCHAPTER 17: Interaction EffectsCHAPTER 18: Repeated-Measures DesignsPART VII: POWER AND FOCUSED ANALYSESCHAPTER 19: Assessing and Increasing PowerCHAPTER 20: Blocking and the Increase of PowerCHAPTER 21: Contrast Analysis: An IntroductionPART VIII: ADDITIONAL TOPICS IN DATA ANALYSISCHAPTER 22: Meta-Analysis: Comparing and Combining ResultsCHAPTER 23: Chi-Square and the Analysis of TablesCHAPTER 24: Multivariate Procedures

Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis

The purpose of this article is to provide simple but accurate methods for comparing correlation coefficients between a dependent variable and a set of independent variables. The methods are simple extensions of Dunn & Clark's (1969) work using the Fisher z transformation and include a test and confidence interval for comparing two correlated correlations, a test for heterogeneity, and a test and confidence interval for a contrast among k (>2) correlated correlations. Also briefly discussed is why the traditional Hotelling's t test for comparing correlated correlations is generally not appropriate in practice

Comparing correlated correlation coefficients

Background Evidence-based medicine is valuable to the extent that the evidence base is complete and unbiased. Selective publication of clinical trials — and the outcomes within those trials — can lead to unrealistic estimates of drug effectiveness and alter the apparent risk–benefit ratio. Methods We obtained reviews from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for studies of 12 antidepressant agents involving 12,564 patients. We conducted a systematic literature search to identify matching publications. For trials that were reported in the literature, we compared the published outcomes with the FDA outcomes. We also compared the effect size derived from the published reports with the effect size derived from the entire FDA data set. Results Among 74 FDA-registered studies, 31%, accounting for 3449 study participants, were not published. Whether and how the studies were published were associated with the study outcome. A total of 37 studies viewed by the FDA as having positive results were published; 1 stu...

/pdf/selective-publication-of-antidepressant-trials-and-its-4boaktmt53.pdf

Robert Rosenthal

Papers

The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results

Meta-analytic procedures for social research

Essentials of Behavioral Research: Methods and Data Analysis

Comparing correlated correlation coefficients

Selective Publication of Antidepressant Trials and Its Influence on Apparent Efficacy