2021 · BMJ
Matthew J. Page, Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamse…
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
102,011 citations3 viewsFull text
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n712019 · BMJ
Jonathan A C Sterne, Jelena Savović, Matthew J. Page, Roy G. Elbers, Natalie Blencowe, Isabelle Boutron, Christopher J Cates…
Assessment of risk of bias is regarded as an essential component of a systematic review on the effects of an intervention. The most commonly used tool for randomised trials is the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. We updated the tool to respond to developments in understanding how bias arises in randomised trials, and to address user feedback on and limitations of the original tool.
32,401 citations3 viewsFull text
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l48982011 · BMJ
Julian P. T. Higgins, Doug Altman, Peter C Gøtzsche, Peter Jüni, David Moher, Andrew D Oxman, Jelena Savović, Kenneth F. Sch…
Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate
34,694 citations4 viewsFull text
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.d5928