. "Appendix H: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Checklist." Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.
The following HTML text is provided to enhance online
readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML.
Please use the page image
as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.
Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews
Summary of evidence
Summarize the main findings, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Discuss limitations at a study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias) and at review level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data) and the role of funders for the systematic review.
SOURCES: Liberati et al. (2009); Moher et al. (2009).
Liberati, A., D. G. Altman, J. Tetzlaff, C. Mulrow, P. Gotzsche, J. P. Ioannidis, M. Clarke, P. J. Devereaux, J. Kleijnen, and D. Moher. 2009. The PRISMA Statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analysis of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. Annals of InternalMedicine 151(4):W11–W30.
Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, and D. G. Altman. 2009. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine 6(7):1–6.