PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts

1. BastianH, GlasziouP, ChalmersI (2010) Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 7 (9) e1000326 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326.

2. Dogan RI, Murray GC, Neveol A, Lu Z (2009) Understanding PubMed user search behavior through log analysis. Database: Article ID bap018. doi:10.1093/database/bap018.

3. ToveyD (2010) Impact of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7 (8) ED000007.

4. Ad Hoc Working Group for Critical Appraisal of the Medical Literature (1987) A proposal for more informative abstracts of clinical articles. Ann Intern Med 106 : 598–604.

5. HaynesRB, MulrowCD, HuthEJ, AltmanDG, GardnerMJ (1990) More informative abstracts revisited. Ann Intern Med 113 : 69–76.

6. HartleyJ (2000) Clarifying the abstracts of systematic literature reviews. Bull Med Libr Assoc 88 (4) 332–337.

7. FroomP, FroomJ (1993) Deficiencies in structured medical abstracts. J Clin Epidemiol 46 (7) 591–594.

8. HopewellS, EisingaA, ClarkeM (2008) Better reporting of randomized trials in biomedical journal and conference abstracts. J Info Sci 34 (2) 162–173.

9. HopewellS, ClarkeM, AskieL (2006) Reporting of trials presented in conference abstracts needs to be improved. J Clin Epidemiol 59 : 681–684.

10. BellerEM, GlasziouPP, HopewellS, AltmanDG (2011) Reporting of effect direction and size in abstracts of systematic reviews. JAMA 306 (18) 1981–1982.

11. LiberatiA, AltmanDG, TetzlaffJ, MulrowC, GotzschePC, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6 (7) e1000100 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.

12. SacksHS, BerrierJ, ReitmanD, Ancona-BerkVA, ChalmersTC (1987) Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. New Engl J Med 316 : 450–455.

13. Murphy MK, Black NA, Lamping DL, McKee CM, Sanderson CFB, et al. (1998) Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assessment 2 (3).

14. MoherD, HopewellS, SchulzKF, MontoriV, GotzchePC, et al. (2010) CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340: c869 doi:10.1136/bmj.c869.

15. HopewellS, ClarkeM, MoherD, WagerE, MiddletonP, et al. (2008) CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 5 (1) e20 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020.

16. MontoriVM, WilczynskiNL, MorganD, HaynesRB (2005) Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ 330 : 68.

17. EggerM, JuniP, BartlettC, HolensteinF, SterneJ (2003) How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assessment 7 (1) 1–76.

18. SongF, ParekhS, HooperL, LokeYK, RyderJ, et al. (2010) Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. Health Technol Assessment 14 (8) iii, ix–xi, 1–193.

19. HigginsJPT, AltmanDG, GotzschePC, JuniP, MoherD, et al. (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343: d5928 doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928.

20. PildalJ, HrobjartssonA, JorgensenK, HildenJ, AltmanD, et al. (2007) Impact of allocation concealment on conclusions drawn from metaanalyses of randomized trials. Int J Epidemiol 36 : 847–857.

21. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2006) The Lancet handbook of essential concepts in clinical research. London: Elsevier.

22. HrobjartssonA, ThomsenAS, EmanuelssonF, TendalB, HildenJ, et al. (2012) Observer bias in randomised clinical trials with binary outcomes: systematic review of trials with both blinded and non-blinded outcome assessors. BMJ 344: e1119 doi:10.1136/bmj.e1119.

23. JüniP, AltmanDG, EggerM (2001) Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 323 : 42–46.

24. Als-Nielsen B, Gluud LL, Gluud C (2004) Methodological quality and treatment effects in randomized trials: a review of six empirical studies. 12th Cochrane Colloquium, Ottawa (Canada).

25. TierneyJF, StewartLA (2005) Investigating patient exclusion bias in meta-analysis. Int J Epidemiol 34 : 79–87.

26. ChanAW, HróbjartssonA, HaahrMT, GøtzschePC, AltmanDG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291 : 2457–2465.

27. GuyattG, OxmanAD, AklEA, KunzR, VistG, et al. (2011) GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction –⁠ GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol 64 : 383–394.

28. AntmanEM, LauJ, KupelnickB, MostellerF, ChalmersTC (1992) A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 268 : 240–248.

29. Als-NielsonB (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290 (7) 921–928.

30. LexchinJ, BeroLA, DjulbegovicB, ClarkO (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: Systematic review. BMJ 326 : 1167–1170.

31. JørgensenAW, HildenJ, GøtzschePC (2006) Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333 : 782–785.

32. BoothA, ClarkeM, GhersiD, MoherD, PetticrewM, et al. (2011) Establishing a minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: an international consultation. PLoS ONE 6 (11) e27319 doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027319.

33. HopewellS, ClarkeM, MoherD, WagerE, MiddletonP, et al. (2008) CONSORT for reporting randomized controlled trials in journal and conference abstracts: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 5 (1) e20 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050020.

34. HopewellS, RavaudP, BaronG, BoutronI (2012) Effect of editors' implementation of CONSORT guidelines on the reporting of abstracts in high impact medical journals: interrupted time series analysis. BMJ 344: e4178 doi:10.1136/bmj.e4178.