Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA

[en] Objectives:To investigate the effect of the explicit mention of PRISMA, a statement designed to help authors report meta-analyses(MAs), on the reporting completeness of MAs.

Disciplines :

Public health, health care sciences & services
Social & behavioral sciences, psychology: Multidisciplinary, general & others

Author, co-author :

Leclercq, Victoria ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Epidémiologie clinique

Beaudart, Charlotte ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Santé publique, Epidémiologie et Economie de la santé

Ajamieh, Sara ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Dpt. de gestion vétérinaire des Ressources Animales (DRA) > Biostatistiques et bioinformatique appliquées aux sc. vétér.

Rabenda, Véronique; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Santé publique, épidémiologie et économie de la santé

Tirelli, Ezio ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département de Psychologie > Neuroscience comportementale et psychopharmacologie expér.

Bruyère, Olivier ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Département des sciences de la santé publique > Santé publique, Epidémiologie et Economie de la santé

Language :

English

Title :

Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA

Publication date :

July 2019

Journal title :

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ISSN :

0895-4356

eISSN :

1878-5921

Publisher :

Elsevier, Netherlands

Volume :

115

Pages :

46-54

Peer reviewed :

Peer Reviewed verified by ORBi

Available on ORBi :

since 30 July 2019

Statistics

Number of views

101 (24 by ULiège)

Number of downloads

7 (2 by ULiège)

More statistics

Scopus citations^®

Scopus citations^®
without self-citations

OpenCitations

Bibliography

Guyatt, G., Rennie, D., Meade, M., Cook, D., American Medical Association. Users’ guides to the medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2015.
Ioannidis, J.P.A., Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspect Psychol Sci 7 (2012), 645–654.
Bakker, M., Wicherts, J.M., The (mis)reporting of statistical results in psychology journals. Behav Res Methods 43 (2011), 666–678.
Oliveras, I., Losilla, J.-M., Vives, J., Methodological quality is underrated in systematic reviews and meta-analyses in health psychology. J Clin Epidemiol 86 (2017), 59–70.
Stanley, T.D., Carter, E.C., Doucouliagos, H., What meta-analyses reveal about the replicability of psychological research. Psychol Bull 144 (2018), 1325–1346.
Ioannidis, J.P.A., The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q 94 (2016), 485–514.
Adie, S., Ma, D., Harris, I.A., Naylor, J.M., Craig, J.C., Quality of conduct and reporting of meta-analyses of surgical interventions. Ann Surg 261 (2015), 685–694.
Page, M.J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A.C., et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med, 13, 2016, e1002028.
Page, M.J., Moher, D., Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev, 6, 2017, 263.
Hutton, B., Wolfe, D., Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Reporting guidance considerations from a statistical perspective: overview of tools to enhance the rigour of reporting of randomised trials and systematic reviews. Evid Based Ment Health 20 (2017), 46–52.
Zhu, Y., Fan, L., Zhang, H., Wang, M., Mei, X., Hou, J., et al. Is the best evidence good enough: quality assessment and factor analysis of meta-analyses on depression. PLoS One, 11, 2016, e0157808.
Dieckmann, N.F., Malle, B.F., Bodner, T.E., An empirical assessment of meta-analytic practice. Rev Gen Psychol 13 (2009), 101–115.
Aytug, Z.G., Rothstein, H.R., Zhou, W., Kern, M.C., Revealed or concealed? transparency of procedures, decisions, and judgment calls in meta-analyses. Organ Res Methods 15 (2012), 103–133.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G., Group, T.P., Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (reprinted from annals of internal medicine). Phys Ther 89 (2009), 873–880.
Ahn, S., Ames, A.J., Myers, N.D., A review of meta-analyses in education: methodological strengths and weaknesses. Rev Educ Res 82 (2012), 436–476.
Schalken, N., Rietbergen, C., The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in industrial and organizational psychology: a systematic review. Front Psychol, 8, 2017, 1395.
Kepes, S., McDaniel, M.A., Brannick, M.T., Banks, G.C., Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the meta-analytic reporting standards). J Bus Psychol 28 (2013), 123–143.
Fehrmann, P., Thomas, J., Comprehensive computer searches and reporting in systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods 2 (2011), 15–32.
Panic, N., Leoncini, E., De Belvis, G., Ricciardi, W., Boccia, S., 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, 8, 2013, e83138.
Cullis, P.S., Gudlaugsdottir, K., Andrews, J., A systematic review of the quality of conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in paediatric surgery. PLoS One, 12, 2017, e0175213.
Peters, J.P.M., Hooft, L., Grolman, W., Stegeman, I., Reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of otorhinolaryngologic articles based on the PRISMA statement. PLoS One, 10, 2015, e0136540.
Stevens, A., Shamseer, L., Weinstein, E., Yazdi, F., Turner, L., Thielman, J., et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ, 348, 2014, g3804.
Liberati, A., Altman, D.G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P.C., Ioannidis, J.P.A., et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med, 6, 2009, e1000100.
Fleming, P.S., Seehra, J., Polychronopoulou, A., Fedorowicz, Z., Pandis, N., A PRISMA assessment of the reporting quality of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Angle Orthod 83 (2013), 158–163.
Gagnier, J.J., Kellam, P.J., Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature. J Bone Joint Surg Am 95 (2013), e771–e777.
Pussegoda, K., Turner, L., Garritty, C., Mayhew, A., Skidmore, B., Stevens, A., et al. Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev, 6, 2017, 131.
Tunis, A.S., McInnes, M.D.F., Hanna, R., Esmail, K., 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 269 (2013), 413–426.
Zhang, H., Han, J., Zhu, Y.-B., Lau, W.-Y., Schwartz, M.E., Xie, G.-Q., et al. Reporting and methodological qualities of published surgical meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol 70 (2016), 4–16.
Tam, W.W.S., Lo, K.K.H., Khalechelvam, P., Endorsement of PRISMA statement and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in nursing journals: a cross-sectional study. BMJ Open, 7, 2017, e013905.
Fanelli, D., Costas, R., Ioannidis, J.P.A., Meta-assessment of bias in science. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114 (2017), 3714–3719.