Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta‐analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: a PRISMA extension

Abstract

Since the early 1990s, ecologists and evolutionary biologists have aggregated primary research using meta-analytic methods to understand ecological and evolutionary phenomena. Meta-analyses can resolve long-standing disputes, dispel spurious claims, and generate new research questions. At their worst, however, meta-analysis publications are wolves in sheep's clothing: subjective with biased conclusions, hidden under coats of objective authority. Conclusions can be rendered unreliable by inappropriate statistical methods, problems with the methods used to select primary research, or problems within the primary research itself. Because of these risks, meta-analyses are increasingly conducted as part of systematic reviews, which use structured, transparent, and reproducible methods to collate and summarise evidence. For readers to determine whether the conclusions from a systematic review or meta-analysis should be trustedand to be able to build upon the reviewauthors need to report what they did, why they did it, and what they found. Complete, transparent, and reproducible reporting is measured by 'reporting quality'. To assess perceptions and standards of reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses published in ecology and evolutionary biology, we surveyed 208 researchers with relevant experience (as authors, reviewers, or editors), and conducted detailed evaluations of 102 systematic review and meta-analysis papers published between 2010 and 2019. Reporting quality was far below optimal and approximately normally distributed. Measured reporting quality was lower than what the community perceived, particularly for the systematic review methods required to measure trustworthiness. The minority of assessed papers that referenced a guideline (16%) showed substantially higher reporting quality than average, and surveyed researchers showed interest in using a reporting guideline to improve reporting quality. The leading guideline for improving reporting quality of systematic reviews is the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Here we unveil an extension of PRISMA to serve the meta-analysis community in ecology and evolutionary biology: PRISMA-EcoEvo (version 1.0). PRISMA-EcoEvo is a checklist of 27 main items that, when applicable, should be reported in systematic review and meta-analysis publications summarising primary research in ecology and evolutionary biology. In this explanation and elaboration document, we provide guidance for authors, reviewers, and editors, with explanations for each item on the checklist, including supplementary examples from published papers. Authors can

The Combined Effects of Ocean Acidification and Heavy Metals on Marine Organisms: A Meta-Analysis

“…Studies that did not report, or where it was impossible to determine, the data variation (Std. dev., SEM, CIs or variance) or sample size (absence or pseudo-replication) were not included, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses guidelines (PRISMA) (O'Dea et al, 2021).…”

Systematic Reviews and Quality Appraisal ofIn VitroCancer Studies: Investigation of Current Practice

“…These could take the form of a PRISMA extension, which has been used widely in other fields to adapt these general guidelines for specific contexts (e.g., PRISMA extension for Ecology and Evolutionary Biology), that includes criteria such as: Describe the type of replication unit (e.g. individuals, broods, study sites) (69).…”

Are we there yet? Unbundling the potential adoption and integration of telemedicine to improve virtual healthcare services in African health systems

“…The study adopted the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) model [ 23 ]. The PRISMA has been extensively utilized health field to conduct systematic reviews [ 24 ]. The steps of the PRISMA model guided the literature search in various electronic databases on the utilization of telemedicine in sub-Saharan Africa health systems to improve virtual care during the COVID-19 pandemic.…”