Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

David Moher; Larissa Shamseer; Mike Clarke; Davina Ghersi; Alessandro Liberati; Mark Petticrew; Paul Shekelle; Lesley A. Stewart; Douglas G. Altman; Alison Booth; An Wen Chan; Stephanie Chang; Tammy Clifford; Kay Dickersin; Peter C. Gøtzsche; Jeremy M. Grimshaw; Trish Groves; Mark Helfand; Julian Higgins; Toby Lasserson; Joseph Lau; Kathleen Lohr; Jessie McGowan; Cynthia Mulrow; Melissa Norton; Matthew Page; Margaret Sampson; Holger Schünemann; Iveta Simera; William Summerskill; Jennifer Tetzlaff; Thomas A. Trikalinos; David Tovey; Lucy Turner; Evelyn Whitlock

doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

David Moher^*, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, Alessandro Liberati, Mark Petticrew, Paul Shekelle, Lesley A. Stewart, Douglas G. Altman, Alison Booth, An Wen Chan, Stephanie Chang, Tammy Clifford, Kay Dickersin, Peter C. Gøtzsche, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Trish Groves, Mark Helfand, Julian Higgins, Toby LassersonJoseph Lau, Kathleen Lohr, Jessie McGowan, Cynthia Mulrow, Melissa Norton, Matthew Page, Margaret Sampson, Holger Schünemann, Iveta Simera, William Summerskill, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Thomas A. Trikalinos, David Tovey, Lucy Turner, Evelyn Whitlock

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

Abstract

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Original language	English
Journal	Systematic Reviews
Volume	4
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Publication status	Published - 1 Jan 2015

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

2046-4053-4-1
(c) 2015 The Authors. This content is made available by the publisher under a Creative Commons CC-BY Licence
Final published version, 234 KB

Cite this

Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., Altman, D. G., Booth, A., Chan, A. W., Chang, S., Clifford, T., Dickersin, K., Gøtzsche, P. C., Grimshaw, J. M., Groves, T., Helfand, M., Higgins, J., ... Whitlock, E. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

@article{c72bab3ffc844b7b807fb08ef4e60328,

title = "Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement",

abstract = "Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.",

author = "David Moher and Larissa Shamseer and Mike Clarke and Davina Ghersi and Alessandro Liberati and Mark Petticrew and Paul Shekelle and Stewart, {Lesley A.} and Altman, {Douglas G.} and Alison Booth and Chan, {An Wen} and Stephanie Chang and Tammy Clifford and Kay Dickersin and G{\o}tzsche, {Peter C.} and Grimshaw, {Jeremy M.} and Trish Groves and Mark Helfand and Julian Higgins and Toby Lasserson and Joseph Lau and Kathleen Lohr and Jessie McGowan and Cynthia Mulrow and Melissa Norton and Matthew Page and Margaret Sampson and Holger Sch{\"u}nemann and Iveta Simera and William Summerskill and Jennifer Tetzlaff and Trikalinos, {Thomas A.} and David Tovey and Lucy Turner and Evelyn Whitlock",

year = "2015",

month = jan,

day = "1",

doi = "10.1186/2046-4053-4-1",

language = "English",

volume = "4",

journal = "Systematic Reviews",

issn = "2046-4053",

publisher = "BioMed Central",

number = "1",

}

Moher, D, Shamseer, L, Clarke, M, Ghersi, D, Liberati, A, Petticrew, M, Shekelle, P, Stewart, LA, Altman, DG, Booth, A, Chan, AW, Chang, S, Clifford, T, Dickersin, K, Gøtzsche, PC, Grimshaw, JM, Groves, T, Helfand, M, Higgins, J, Lasserson, T, Lau, J, Lohr, K, McGowan, J, Mulrow, C, Norton, M, Page, M, Sampson, M, Schünemann, H, Simera, I, Summerskill, W, Tetzlaff, J, Trikalinos, TA, Tovey, D, Turner, L & Whitlock, E 2015, 'Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement', Systematic Reviews, vol. 4, no. 1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

TY - JOUR

T1 - Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

AU - Moher, David

AU - Shamseer, Larissa

AU - Clarke, Mike

AU - Ghersi, Davina

AU - Liberati, Alessandro

AU - Petticrew, Mark

AU - Shekelle, Paul

AU - Stewart, Lesley A.

AU - Altman, Douglas G.

AU - Booth, Alison

AU - Chan, An Wen

AU - Chang, Stephanie

AU - Clifford, Tammy

AU - Dickersin, Kay

AU - Gøtzsche, Peter C.

AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy M.

AU - Groves, Trish

AU - Helfand, Mark

AU - Higgins, Julian

AU - Lasserson, Toby

AU - Lau, Joseph

AU - Lohr, Kathleen

AU - McGowan, Jessie

AU - Mulrow, Cynthia

AU - Norton, Melissa

AU - Page, Matthew

AU - Sampson, Margaret

AU - Schünemann, Holger

AU - Simera, Iveta

AU - Summerskill, William

AU - Tetzlaff, Jennifer

AU - Trikalinos, Thomas A.

AU - Tovey, David

AU - Turner, Lucy

AU - Whitlock, Evelyn

PY - 2015/1/1

Y1 - 2015/1/1

N2 - Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

AB - Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84920780781&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

DO - 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1

M3 - Article

C2 - 25554246

SN - 2046-4053

VL - 4

JO - Systematic Reviews

JF - Systematic Reviews

IS - 1

ER -

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this