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

TLDR

The PRISMA statement, released in 2009, was designed to standardize reporting of systematic reviews and meta‑analyses. This study examined how endorsement of PRISMA by gastroenterology and hepatology journals affects the reporting and methodological quality of published systematic reviews and meta‑analyses. The authors assessed adherence to the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR scale across 90 papers, comparing those from journals that endorsed PRISMA (Groups A and B) with those from non‑endorsing journals (Groups C and D) and with papers published before endorsement. Endorsement of PRISMA was associated with higher compliance with the checklist (90.1 % vs 83.1 %) and AMSTAR (85.0 % vs 74.6 %), while explicit mention of PRISMA in manuscripts did not improve quality, leading the authors to recommend broader journal adoption of PRISMA.

Abstract

Introduction PRISMA statement was published in 2009 in order to set standards in the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Our aim was to evaluate the impact of PRISMA endorsement on the quality of reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, published in journals in the field of gastroenterology and hepatology (GH). Methods Quality of reporting and methodological quality were evaluated by assessing the adherence of papers to PRISMA checklist and AMSTAR quality scale. After identifying the GH journals which endorsed PRISMA in instructions for authors (IA), we appraised: 15 papers published in 2012 explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group A); 15 papers from the same journals published in 2012 not explicitly mentioning PRISMA in the full text (Group B); 30 papers published the year preceding PRISMA endorsement from the same journals as above (Group C); 30 papers published in 2012 on the 10 highest impact factor journals in GH which not endorsed PRISMA (Group D). Results PRISMA statement was referred in the IA in 9 out of 70 GH journals (12.9%). We found significant increase in overall adherence to PRISMA checklist (Group A, 90.1%; Group C, 83.1%; p = 0.003) and compliance to AMSTAR scale (Group A, 85.0%; Group C, 74.6%; p = 0.002), following the PRISMA endorsement from the nine GH journals. Explicit referencing of PRISMA in manuscript was not associated with increase in quality of reporting and methodological quality (Group A vs. B, p = 0.651, p = 0.900, respectively). Adherence to PRISMA checklist, and the compliance with AMSTAR were significantly higher in journals endorsing PRISMA compared to those not (Groups A+B vs. D; p = 0.003 and p = 0.016, respectively). Conclusion The endorsement of PRISMA resulted in increase of both quality of reporting and methodological quality. It is advised that an increasing number of medical journals include PRISMA in the instructions for authors.