Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: A cross-sectional study

BMJ Open

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2017, Pages

  Tam, Wilson W S ^a   Lo, Kenneth K H ^b   Khalechelvam, Parames ^a  

^a NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF SINGAPORE   (Singapore)

^b CHINESE UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG   (Hong Kong)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDY; DATA BASE; HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; NURSING; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; RANK SUM TEST; STATISTICS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING;

CROSS-SECTIONAL STUDIES; EDITORIAL POLICIES; GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; NURSING; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85012041051     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20446055     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-013905     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. 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. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:W65-94.
2. Dixon E, Hameed M, Sutherland F, et al. Evaluating meta-analyses in the general surgical literature: a critical appraisal. Ann Surg 2005;241:450-9.
3. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007;4:e78.
4. Light RJ, Pillemer DB. Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984.
5. Mullen PD, Ramirez G. Information synthesis and meta-analysis. Advances in health education and promotion. Greenwich: Jai Press, 1986.
6. Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med 1987;106:485-8.
7. Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, et al. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med 1987;316:450-5.
8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
9. PRISMA. PRISMA transparent reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 2015. http://www.prisma-statement.org/Endorsement/EndorsePRISMA.aspx
10. Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, et al. Endorsement of the CONSORT Statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey of journal editors and journal 'Instructions to Authors'. Trials 2008;9:20.
11. CONSORT. CONSORT transparent reporting of trials. 2015. http://www.consort-statement.org/about-consort/endorsers
12. Knobloch K, Yoon U, Vogt PM. Endorsement of the CONSORT and STROBE statements for plastic surgical clinical trials. Ann Plast Surg 2011;66:321.
13. Jull A, Aye PS. Endorsement of the CONSORT guidelines, trial registration, and the quality of reporting randomised controlled trials in leading nursing journals: a cross-sectional analysis. Int J Nurs Stud 2015;52:1071-9.
14. Altman DG. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high impact medical journals: survey of instructions for authors. BMJ 2005;330:1056-7.
15. Li XQ, Tao KM, Zhou QH, et al. Endorsement of the CONSORT statement by high-impact medical journals in China: a survey of instructions for authors and published papers. PLoS ONE 2012;7:e30683.
16. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, et al. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 2013;8:e83138.
17. Tao KM, Li XQ, Zhou QH, et al. From QUOROM to PRISMA: a survey of high-impact medical journals' instructions to authors and a review of systematic reviews in anesthesia literature. PLoS ONE 2011;6:e27611.
18. Fleming PS, Seehra J, Polychronopoulou A, et al. A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 2013;83:158-63.
19. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, et al. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology 2013;269:413-26.
20. Thomson Reuters. 2013 Journal Citation Reports®. Science edn. Thomson Reuters, 2014. https://jcr.incites.thomsonreuters.com/.
21. Huang Y, Mao C, Yuan J, et al. Distribution and epidemiological characteristics of published individual patient data meta-analyses. PLoS ONE 2014;9:e100151.
22. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10.
23. team TA. Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) Canada. 2015. http://amstar.ca/index.php
24. Dattalo P. Determining sample size: balancing power, precision, and practicality. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.
25. Peters JP, Hooft L, Grolman W, et al. Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of otorhinolaryngologic articles based on the PRISMA Statement. PLoS ONE 2015;10:e0136540.
26. Whiting LS. Systematic review protocols: an introduction. Nurse Res 2009;17:34-43.
27. Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, et al. Assessing the risk of bias of individual studies in systematic reviews of health care interventions. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US), 2008. AHRQ Methods for Effective Health Care. 8 Mar 2012.
28. Momeni A, Lee GK, Talley JR. The quality of systematic reviews in hand surgery: an analysis using AMSTAR. Plast Reconstr Surg 2013;131:831-7.
29. Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Stratford PW, et al. Evaluation of the methodological quality of systematic reviews of health status measurement instruments. Qual Life Res 2009;18:313-33.
30. Song Y, Oh M, Park S, et al. The methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the effectiveness of non-pharmacological cancer pain management. Pain Manag Nurs 2015;16:781-91.
31. Tsertsvadze A, Chen YF, Moher D, et al. How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously? Syst Rev 2015;4:160.
32. Bloom KC, Olinzock BJ, Radjenovic D, et al. Leveling EBP content for undergraduate nursing students. J Prof Nurs 2013;29:217-24.
33. Sadeghi-Bazargani H, Tabrizi JS, Azami-Aghdash S. Barriers to evidence-based medicine: a systematic review. J Eval Clin Pract 2014;20:793-802.
34. Bath-Hextall F, Wharrad H, Leonardi-Bee J. Teaching tools in evidence based practice: evaluation of reusable learning objects (RLOs) for learning about meta-analysis. BMC Med Educ 2011;11:18.
35. Lefebvre CM, John RM. The effect of breastfeeding on childhood overweight and obesity: a systematic review of the literature. JAm Assoc Nurse Pract 2014;26:386-401.
36. Journal TBM. Resources for authors London. 2015. http://www.bmj.com/about-bmj/resources-authors/article-submission/article-requirements
37. Medicine. Information for authors: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2015. http://journals.lww.com/md-journal/Pages/informationforauthors.aspx
38. Fong DY, Ho JW, Hui BP, et al. Physical activity for cancer survivors: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2012;344:e70.
39. Alvarez F, Meyer N, Gourraud PA, et al. CONSORT adoption and quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials: a systematic analysis in two dermatology journals. Br J Dermatol 2009;161:1159-65.
40. Han C, Kwak KP, Marks DM, et al. The impact of the CONSORT statement on reporting of randomized clinical trials in psychiatry. Contemp Clin Trials 2009;30:116-22.