Following PRISMA in a systematic review: Obligation or authority?

Arab‐Zozani, Morteza; Hassanipour, Soheil

doi:10.4103/ijpvm.ijpvm_400_19

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first issue we touch upon is the rigor of PRISMA guidelines implementation by authors, as well as the rigor of verification of its implementation by review-ers and journal editors. To address this point, we turn to the critique of Arab-Zozani and Hassani-pour 7 regarding a study by Hasanpour Dehkordi et al 8 Hasanpour Dehkordi et al claimed to respect PRISMA guidelines but did not actually “adhere to its components.” 7 For example, it was ambiguous as to whether the article was a systematic review or a meta-analysis; the number of articles included was not mentioned; there was no mention of database search strategies; and the order for PRISMA report-ing was not respected. 7 In other words, authors may claim that their study is PRISMA-compliant, merely to satisfy the journal’s editorial requests or to im-prove the publishability of their study, without actu-ally rigorously striving for utmost quality in their meta-analytical study.…”

Section: Issue #1: Rigor Of Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 For example, it was ambiguous as to whether the article was a systematic review or a meta-analysis; the number of articles included was not mentioned; there was no mention of database search strategies; and the order for PRISMA reporting was not respected. 7 In other words, authors may claim that their study is PRISMA-compliant, merely to satisfy the journal's editorial requests or to improve the publishability of their study, without actually rigorously striving for utmost quality in their meta-analytical study.…”

Section: Issue #1: Rigor Of Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Against Over-reliance on PRISMA Guidelines for Meta-analytical Studies

Teixeira da Silva,

Daly

2024

Rambam Maimonides Med J

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were elaborated to allow authors of such papers to identify quality articles for inclusion in their scholarly work. However, we have identified several issues that point to an over-reliance on the PRISMA guidelines. Firstly, we question the rigor of implementation by authors and the rigor of verification by peer reviewers and editors, and whether they have screened papers to ensure adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. Secondly, we have identified cases where the PRISMA criteria led to as much as 99.97% of the published literature being ignored, suggesting that valid publications meeting these criteria might be at risk of being ignored. Thirdly, we have noted that exclusion is not only a quantitative problem—it is also a qualitative one, since the screening procedure groups all non-conforming literature into one basket. Fourthly, we have noted that seven copies of the PRISMA guidelines exist. This being the case, which one should be cited? To replace over-reliance on PRISMA screening, we encourage authors, peer reviewers, and editors to publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses that respect the dual criteria of scientific plausibility and diversity of included papers.

show abstract

Section: Issue #1: Rigor Of Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Issue #1: Rigor Of Implementationmentioning

confidence: 99%