Bevorzugte Report Items für
systematische Übersichten und Meta-Analysen: Das PRISMA-Statement

D Moher; A Liberati; J Tetzlaff; D G Altman

doi:10.1055/s-0031-1272978

DMW - Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift, Inhaltsverzeichnis

Dtsch Med Wochenschr 2011; 136(8): e9-e15
DOI: 10.1055/s-0031-1272978

Kommentar | Commentary

Medizinisches Publizieren
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Bevorzugte Report Items für systematische Übersichten und Meta-Analysen: Das PRISMA-Statement

Preferred reporting items of systematic review and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statementD. Moher¹ ^, ² , A. Liberati³ ^, ⁴ , J. Tetzlaff¹ , D. G. Altman⁵

¹Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Kanada
²Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Kanada
³Università di Modena e Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italien
⁴Centro Cochrane Italiano, Istituto Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Mailand, Italien
⁵Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, Großbritannien

Abstract

Die Autoren der wörtlichen Übersetzung aus dem Englischen sind: A. Ziegler¹, G. Antes², I. R. König¹

¹Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik, Universität zu Lübeck, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck, Lübeck
²Deutsches Cochrane Zentrum, Freiburg

Abstract

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to accurately and reliably summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of therapies. To improve the clarity and transparency of the reports, 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. In this article, we provide a German translation of the PRISMA Statement.

Schlüsselwörter

Evidenzbasierte Anwendung - Meta-Analyse - Publikationsstandard - Qualitätskontrolle - Systematische Übersicht

Keywords

evidence-based practice - meta-analyisis - publishing standards - quality control - systematic review

Volltext

Referenzen

Literatur

1 Altman D G, Schulz K F, Moher D. et al . The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134 663-694
2 Altman D G. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ. 2001; 323 224-228
3 Bagshaw S M, McAlister F A, Manns B J, Ghali W A. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166 161-166
4 Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni A V, Tornetta 3rd P. Meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83-A 15-24
5 Biondi-Zoccai G G, Lotrionte M, Abbate A. et al . 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. 2006; 332 202-209
6 Bossuyt P M, Reitsma J B, Bruns D E. et al . Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD Initiative. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138 40-44
7 Canadian Institutes of Health Research .Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist (12/2006). 2006 http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf [zugegriffen am 5.7.2010]
8 Chan A W, Hrobjartsson A, Haahr M T, Gotzsche P C, Altman D G. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004; 291 2457-2465
9 Chan A W, Krleza-Jeric K, Schmid I, Altman D G. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ. 2004; 171 735-740
10 Choi P T, Halpern S H, Malik N. et al . Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg. 2001; 92 700-709
11 De Angelis C D, Drazen J M, Frizelle F A. et al . Is this clinical trial fully registered? A statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. CMAJ. 2005; 172 1700-1702
12 Deeks J J. Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001; 323 157-162
13 Delaney A, Bagshaw S M, Ferland A. et al . A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care. 2005; 9 R575-58
14 Dickersin K Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm.. In: Publication bias in meta-analysis-Prevention, assessment and adjustments.. Rothstein H R, Sutton A J, Borenstein M eds. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2005: 11-33
15 Green S, Higgins J. Glossary. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2005 http://www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm [zugegriffen am 4.7.2010]
16 Guyatt G H, Oxman A D, Vist G E. et al . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336 924-926
17 Ioannidis J P, Ntzani E E, Trikalinos T A, Contopoulos-Ioannidis D G. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet. 2001; 29 306-309
18 Kelly K D, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe B H. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 38 518-526
19 Ladabaum U, Chopra C L, Huang G. et al . Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135 769-781
20 Lau J, Ioannidis J P, Terrin N, Schmid C H, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006; 333 597-600
21 Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A. et al . Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 Suppl 1 35-48
22 Liberati A, Altman D G, 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 e1000100
23 Moher D, Cook D J, 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 1896-1900
24 Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco A C, Sampson M, Altman D G. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4 e78
25 Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update?. Lancet. 2006; 367 881-883
26 Moja L P, Telaro E, D’Amico R. et al . Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005; 330 1053
27 Mulrow C D. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106 485-488
28 Oxman A D, Cook D J, Guyatt G H. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA. 1994; 272 1367-1371
29 Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent. 2004; 5 17
30 Sacks H S, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk V A, Chalmers T C. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987; 316 450-455
31 Sacks H S, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med. 1996; 63 216-224
32 Schünemann H J, Jaeschke R, Cook D J. et al . An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006; 174 605-614
33 Silagy C A, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA. 2002; 287 2831-2834
34 Stewart L A, Clarke M J. Practical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med. 1995; 14 2057-2079
35 Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61 521-524
36 Sutton A J. Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases.. Publication bias in meta-analysis-Prevention, assessment and adjustments.. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons; 2005: 175-192
37 Swingler G H, Volmink J, Ioannidis J P. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ. 2003; 327 1083-1084
38 The Joanna Briggs Institute .Protocols & work in progress. 2008 http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_prot.php [zugegriffen am 04.07.2010]
39 University of York .Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2009 http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ [zugegriffen am 4.7.2010]
40 Vandenbroucke J P, von Elm E, Altman D G. et al . Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147 W163-194
41 Whittington C J, Kendall T, Fonagy P. et al . Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet. 2004; 363 1341-1345
42 Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005; 366 107-108

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Andreas Ziegler

Institut für Medizinische Biometrie und Statistik
Universität zu Lübeck
Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Lübeck,

Maria-Goeppert-Str. 1

23562 Lübeck

Telefon: 0451/500 2789

Fax: 0451/500 2999

eMail: ziegler@imbs.uni-luebeck.de