Improving the quality of the evidence: the necessity to lead by example

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

Abstract

Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses should comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or PRISMA checklist. Variable reporting of systematic reviews has recently led to a number of publications demonstrating a lack of compliance with PRISMA. Poor reporting compliance can lower researchers’ and clinicians’ ability to detect bias in published research and can also lead to impaired clinical decision-making. The authors of this paper support the need for greater adherence to PRISMA standards when preparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses for publication and call on researchers who are drawing attention to this problem to lead by example.

LanguageEnglish
Pages165-166
Number of pages2
JournalJournal of Clinical Neuroscience
Volume46
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Dec 2017

Fingerprint

Meta-Analysis
Publications
Research Personnel
Checklist
Compliance
Research
Clinical Decision-Making

Keywords

  • Compliance
  • PRISMA checklist
  • Systematic reviews

Cite this

@article{f64d1f6ee7a4445593a600e450571e68,
title = "Improving the quality of the evidence: the necessity to lead by example",
abstract = "Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses should comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or PRISMA checklist. Variable reporting of systematic reviews has recently led to a number of publications demonstrating a lack of compliance with PRISMA. Poor reporting compliance can lower researchers’ and clinicians’ ability to detect bias in published research and can also lead to impaired clinical decision-making. The authors of this paper support the need for greater adherence to PRISMA standards when preparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses for publication and call on researchers who are drawing attention to this problem to lead by example.",
keywords = "Compliance, PRISMA checklist, Systematic reviews",
author = "Mary Simons and Kathryn Busch and Alberto Avolio and Hosen Kiat and Andrew Davidson",
year = "2017",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.jocn.2017.09.004",
language = "English",
volume = "46",
pages = "165--166",
journal = "Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia",
issn = "0967-5868",
publisher = "Churchill Livingstone",

}

Improving the quality of the evidence : the necessity to lead by example. / Simons, Mary; Busch, Kathryn; Avolio, Alberto; Kiat, Hosen; Davidson, Andrew.

In: Journal of Clinical Neuroscience, Vol. 46, 01.12.2017, p. 165-166.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Improving the quality of the evidence

T2 - Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia

AU - Simons, Mary

AU - Busch, Kathryn

AU - Avolio, Alberto

AU - Kiat, Hosen

AU - Davidson, Andrew

PY - 2017/12/1

Y1 - 2017/12/1

N2 - Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses should comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or PRISMA checklist. Variable reporting of systematic reviews has recently led to a number of publications demonstrating a lack of compliance with PRISMA. Poor reporting compliance can lower researchers’ and clinicians’ ability to detect bias in published research and can also lead to impaired clinical decision-making. The authors of this paper support the need for greater adherence to PRISMA standards when preparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses for publication and call on researchers who are drawing attention to this problem to lead by example.

AB - Published systematic reviews and meta-analyses should comply with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or PRISMA checklist. Variable reporting of systematic reviews has recently led to a number of publications demonstrating a lack of compliance with PRISMA. Poor reporting compliance can lower researchers’ and clinicians’ ability to detect bias in published research and can also lead to impaired clinical decision-making. The authors of this paper support the need for greater adherence to PRISMA standards when preparing systematic reviews and meta-analyses for publication and call on researchers who are drawing attention to this problem to lead by example.

KW - Compliance

KW - PRISMA checklist

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85030156696&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.09.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jocn.2017.09.004

M3 - Article

VL - 46

SP - 165

EP - 166

JO - Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia

JF - Journal of clinical neuroscience : official journal of the Neurosurgical Society of Australasia

SN - 0967-5868

ER -