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

IF 1.4 Q2 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal Pub Date : 2024-01-19 DOI:10.5041/RMMJ.10518
Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Daly
{"title":"Against Over-reliance on PRISMA Guidelines for Meta-analytical Studies.","authors":"Jaime A Teixeira da Silva, Timothy Daly","doi":"10.5041/RMMJ.10518","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":46408,"journal":{"name":"Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10807856/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5041/RMMJ.10518","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
反对过度依赖《元分析研究 PRISMA 指南》。
系统综述和元分析首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南的制定是为了让此类论文的作者能够确定高质量的文章,以便纳入其学术著作。然而,我们发现了几个问题,表明对 PRISMA 指南的过度依赖。首先,我们质疑作者执行的严谨性以及同行评审员和编辑核查的严谨性,质疑他们是否对论文进行了筛选以确保遵守 PRISMA 指南。其次,我们发现在一些案例中,PRISMA 标准导致高达 99.97% 的已发表文献被忽略,这表明符合这些标准的有效出版物可能面临被忽略的风险。第三,我们注意到,排除不仅是一个量的问题,也是一个质的问题,因为筛选程序将所有不符合标准的文献都归到了一个篮子里。第四,我们注意到有七份 PRISMA 指南。既然如此,应该引用哪一份呢?为了取代对 PRISMA 筛选的过度依赖,我们鼓励作者、同行评审员和编辑在发表系统综述和荟萃分析时尊重科学合理性和纳入论文多样性的双重标准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal
Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
55
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
IgG4-related Breast Disease: Review of the Literature. Inpatient Rehabilitation is Effective for Severe Daily Activity Deficits Related to Chronic Low Back Pain. Kidnapped But Not Kids: A Case Series of Three Octogenarian Hostages Held in Captivity by Hamas. Myxedema Coma-associated Pancytopenia: A Case Report. The Medical Professional Elimination Program and the Ideology and Motivation of Nazi Physicians.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1