Report Guidelines for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: A Systematic Review_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

YIN Senlin ¹ ,  LIU Xuemei ¹ , HE Lin ² , LI Youping ³

1. West China Periodicals Press of West China Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China; 2. Library of West China Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China;3. Chinese Evidence-Based Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Chengdu 610041, China;

Corresponding author：

LIU Xuemei, Email: l_xm20@263.net

Keywords：

Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Report guideline

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.20110162

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Objective 　To collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, so as to provide support for the standardized publish and spread of those guidelines.
Methods 　Such databases as Ovid MEDLINE (1996-2010) and EMbase (till April, 2010) were searched with the terms of “guideline”, “report”, “systematic review” and “meta-analysis” to collect the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The irrelevant literatures (e.g. systematic review of a specific disease, clinical guideline for a certain disease, and other literatures focusing on the methodology of systematic review without mentioning reporting guideline) were excluded by reading the abstracts and titles, and then the further verification was done after the full-texts had been read. The contents about how to report a systematic review or meta-analyses were extracted from the included studies which were classified by its form of the original research (e.g. randomized controlled trial, observational study, diagnostic trial, etc.).
Results 　Primary search ended up with 285 literatures, and 26 literatures of which were included. Among the included literatures about the report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, eight were about RCTs, two about non-RCTs, two about observational study, no literature about diagnostic trial, one about animal experiment, two about report searching strategy, five about quality assessment, six about the influence on quality, and the other two about the update of guidelines.
Conclusion 　The report guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analyses are considerable in number, among which the QUOROM and its updated version PRISMA are relatively mature and widely applied. Report guidelines are beneficial to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and the report guideline focusing on specific field is needs to be formulate.

Citation： YIN Senlin,LIU Xuemei,HE Lin,LI Youping. Report Guidelines for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: A Systematic Review. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2011, 11(8): 971-977. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.20110162 Copy

1.	1 Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al . Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg , 2005, 241(3): 450-459.
2.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ , 1997, 156(10): 1411-1416.
3.	Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet , 1999, 354(9193): 1896-1900.
4.	Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med , 2009, 6(7): e1000097.
5.	Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, et al . The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol , 2008, 61(8): 770-775.
6.	Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al . A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical careliterature. Crit Care , 2005, 9(5): R575-582.
7.	Mrkobrada M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Brian HR, et al . Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol , 2008, 3(4): 1102-1114.
8.	李廷谦, 刘雪梅, 张鸣明, 等. 中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价/ Meta分析现状调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(3): 180-188.
9.	刘雪梅. 提高随机对照试验Meta分析的质量: QUOROM 报告项目列表. 中国循证医学, 2002, 2(1): 65-66.
10.	Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med , 2009, 6(7): e1000100.
11.	Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [cited 2010 May 2010 3] Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
12.	Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, et al . 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine , 2009, 34(18): 1929-1941.
13.	Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA , 2000, 283(15): 2008-2012.
14.	Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, et al . Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Pain Physician , 2009, 12(5): 819-850.
15.	Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P. Does animal experimentation inform human health care? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ , 2002, 324(7335): 474-476.
16.	Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al . A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B , 2006, 41(7): 1245-1258.
17.	Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP. Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. how did the authors find the studies and assess their quality?. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med , 1998, 152(8): 812-817.
18.	Booth A. Brimful of STARLITE: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc , 2006, 94(4): 421.
19.	Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, et al . No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol , 2008, 61(8): 748-754.
20.	Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care [cited 2010 June 16]. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/systematic_reviews_book.htm.
21.	Gerber S, Tallon D, Trelle S, et al . Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993-2002. J Clin Epidemiol , 2007, 60(8): 773-780.
22.	Juni P, Egger M. PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet , 2009, 374(9697): 1221-1223.
23.	Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al . Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses:a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA , 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
24.	Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, et al . A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof , 2002, 25(1): 116-129.
25.	Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, et al . Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol , 2009, 62(10): 1021-1030.
26.	PRISMA Endorsers List [cited 2010 Jun 16]. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/endorsers.htm.
27.	Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al . Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med , 1994, 120(8): 667-676.
28.	Kriston L, Harter M, Holzel L, et al . Challenges in reporting meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med , 2009, 150(6): 430.
29.	Eisenberg JM, Graham R. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence, AHRQ, 2002.

1. 1 Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al . Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: A critical appraisal. Ann Surg , 2005, 241(3): 450-459.
2. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ , 1997, 156(10): 1411-1416.
3. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, et al . Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: The QUOROM statement, Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet , 1999, 354(9193): 1896-1900.
4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al . Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med , 2009, 6(7): e1000097.
5. Wen J, Ren Y, Wang L, et al . The reporting quality of meta-analyses improves: a random sampling study. J Clin Epidemiol , 2008, 61(8): 770-775.
6. Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, et al . A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical careliterature. Crit Care , 2005, 9(5): R575-582.
7. Mrkobrada M, Thiessen-Philbrook H, Brian HR, et al . Need for quality improvement in renal systematic reviews. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol , 2008, 3(4): 1102-1114.
8. 李廷谦, 刘雪梅, 张鸣明, 等. 中文期刊发表的中医药系统评价/ Meta分析现状调查. 中国循证医学杂志, 2007, 7(3): 180-188.
9. 刘雪梅. 提高随机对照试验Meta分析的质量: QUOROM 报告项目列表. 中国循证医学, 2002, 2(1): 65-66.
10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al . The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med , 2009, 6(7): e1000100.
11. Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.2 [cited 2010 May 2010 3] Available from: www.cochrane-handbook.org.
12. Furlan AD, Pennick V, Bombardier C, et al . 2009 updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the Cochrane Back Review Group. Spine , 2009, 34(18): 1929-1941.
13. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al . Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. JAMA , 2000, 283(15): 2008-2012.
14. Manchikanti L, Datta S, Smith HS, et al . Evidence-based medicine, systematic reviews, and guidelines in interventional pain management: Part 6. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies. Pain Physician , 2009, 12(5): 819-850.
15. Roberts I, Kwan I, Evans P. Does animal experimentation inform human health care? Observations from a systematic review of international animal experiments on fluid resuscitation. BMJ , 2002, 324(7335): 474-476.
16. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, et al . A systematic review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal experiments with guidelines for reporting. J Environ Sci Health B , 2006, 41(7): 1245-1258.
17. Jadad AR, Moher D, Klassen TP. Guides for reading and interpreting systematic reviews: II. how did the authors find the studies and assess their quality?. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med , 1998, 152(8): 812-817.
18. Booth A. Brimful of STARLITE: toward standards for reporting literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc , 2006, 94(4): 421.
19. Sampson M, McGowan J, Tetzlaff J, et al . No consensus exists on search reporting methods for systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol , 2008, 61(8): 748-754.
20. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care [cited 2010 June 16]. Available from: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/systematic_reviews_book.htm.
21. Gerber S, Tallon D, Trelle S, et al . Bibliographic study showed improving methodology of meta-analyses published in leading journals 1993-2002. J Clin Epidemiol , 2007, 60(8): 773-780.
22. Juni P, Egger M. PRISMAtic reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet , 2009, 374(9697): 1221-1223.
23. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Jones A, et al . Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses:a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA , 1998, 280(3): 278-280.
24. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, et al . A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof , 2002, 25(1): 116-129.
25. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, et al . Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol , 2009, 62(10): 1021-1030.
26. PRISMA Endorsers List [cited 2010 Jun 16]. Available from: http://www.prisma-statement.org/endorsers.htm.
27. Irwig L, Tosteson AN, Gatsonis C, et al . Guidelines for meta-analyses evaluating diagnostic tests. Ann Intern Med , 1994, 120(8): 667-676.
28. Kriston L, Harter M, Holzel L, et al . Challenges in reporting meta-analyses of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med , 2009, 150(6): 430.
29. Eisenberg JM, Graham R. Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence, AHRQ, 2002.

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Report Guidelines for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis: A Systematic Review

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Next Article

Format

Content