Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

1. OxmanAD

CookDJ

GuyattGH

1994 Users' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA 272 1367 1371

2. SwinglerGH

VolminkJ

IoannidisJP

2003 Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: Database analysis. BMJ 327 1083 1084

3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research 2006 Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist (12/2006). Available: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf. Accessed 19 May 2009

4. YoungC

HortonR

2005 Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet 366 107

5. MulrowCD

1987 The medical review article: State of the science. Ann Intern Med 106 485 488

6. SacksHS

BerrierJ

ReitmanD

Ancona-BerkVA

ChalmersTC

1987 Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New Engl J Med 316 450 455

7. SacksHS

ReitmanD

PaganoD

KupelnickB

1996 Meta-analysis: An update. Mt Sinai J Med 63 216 224

8. MoherD

CookDJ

EastwoodS

OlkinI

RennieD

1994 Improving the quality of reporting of meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials: The QUOROM statement. Lancet 354 1896 1900

9. GreenS

HigginsJ

2005 Glossary. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm. Accessed 19 May 2009

10. StrechD

TilburtJ

2008 Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 61 521 524

11. MoherD

TsertsvadzeA

2006 Systematic reviews: When is an update an update? Lancet 367 881 883

12. University of York 2009 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Available: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/. Accessed 19 May 2009

13. The Joanna Briggs Institute 2008 Protocols & work in progress. Available: http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_prot.php. Accessed 19 May 2009

14. De AngelisC

DrazanJM

FrizelleFA

HaugC

HoeyJ

2004 Clinical trial registration: A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. CMAJ 171 606 607

15. WhittingtonCJ

KendallT

FonagyP

CottrellD

CotgroveA

2004 Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: Systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet 363 1341 1345

16. BagshawSM

McAlisterFA

MannsBJ

GhaliWA

2006 Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: A case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med 166 161 166

17. Biondi-ZoccaiGG

LotrionteM

AbbateA

TestaL

RemigiE

2006 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. BMJ 332 202 209

18. LiberatiA

AltmanDG

TetzlaffJ

MulrowC

GøtzscheP

2009 The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6 e1000100 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

19. AltmanDG

SchulzKR

MoherD

EggerM

DavidoffF

2001 The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 134 663 694

20. BossuytPM

ReitsmaJB

BrunsDE

GatsonisCA

GlasziouPP

2003 Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 138 W1 W12

21. VandenbrouckeJP

von ElmE

AltmanDG

GøtzschePC

MulrowCD

2007 Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med 147 W163 W194

22. MoherD

TetzlaffJ

TriccoAC

SampsonM

AltmanDG

2007 Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4 e78 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078

23. BhandariM

MorrowF

KulkarniAV

TornettaP

2001 Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery: A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am 83-A 15 24

24. KellyKD

TraversA

DorganM

SlaterL

RoweBH

2001 Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med 38 518 526

25. RichardsD

2004 The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent 5 17

26. ChoiPT

HalpernSH

MalikN

JadadAR

TramerMR

2001 Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: A critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg 92 700 709

27. DelaneyA

BagshawSM

FerlandA

MannsB

LauplandKB

2005 A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care 9 R575 R582

28. DickersinK

2005 Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm.

RothsteinHR

SuttonAJ

BorensteinM

Publication bias in meta-analysis-Prevention, assessment and adjustments Chichester (UK) John Wiley & Sons 11 33

29. SuttonAJ

2005 Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases.

RothsteinHR

SuttonAJ

BorensteinM

Publication bias in meta-analysis-Prevention, assessment and adjustments Chichester (UK) John Wiley & Sons 175 192

30. LauJ

IoannidisJP

TerrinN

SchmidCH

OlkinI

2006 The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ 333 597 600

31. LadabaumU

ChopraCL

HuangG

ScheimanJM

ChernewME

2001 Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer: A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med 135 769 781

32. DeeksJJ

2001 Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ 323 157 162

33. AltmanDG

2001 Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ 323 224 228

34. IoannidisJP

NtzaniEE

TrikalinosTA

Contopoulos-IoannidisDG

2001 Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet 29 306 309

35. LavisJ

DaviesH

OxmanA

DenisJ

Golden-BiddleK

2005 Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 10 35 48

36. StewartLA

ClarkeMJ

1995 Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med 14 2057 2079

37. MojaLP

TelaroE

D'AmicoR

MoschettiI

CoeL

2005 Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: Results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ 330 1053 1055

38. GuyattGH

OxmanAD

VistGE

KunzR

Falck-YtterY

2008 GRADE: An emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336 924 926

39. SchunemannHJ

JaeschkeR

CookDJ

BriaWF

El-SolhAA

2006 An official ATS statement: Grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 174 605 614

40. ChanAW

HrobjartssonA

HaahrMT

GøtzschePC

AltmanDG

2004 Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: Comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291 2457 2465

41. ChanAW

Krleza-JericK

SchmidI

AltmanDG

2004 Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ 171 735 740

42. SilagyCA

MiddletonP

HopewellS

2002 Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: Comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA 287 2831 2834