Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 20, 2025
The Participant-Reported Implementation Update and Score PRIUS: A Novel Method for Capturing Implementation-Related Data Over Time
Published on: February 19, 2021
Do reporting guidelines have an impact? Empirical assessment of changes in reporting before and after the PRISMA
Areti Angeliki Veroniki1,2, Sofia Tsokani3, Stella Zevgiti3
1Department of Primary Education, School of Education, University of Ioannina, Ioannina, Greece. averoniki@uoi.gr.
Background:
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension statement for network meta-analysis (NMA) published in 2015 promotes comprehensive reporting in published systematic reviews with NMA. PRISMA-NMA includes 32 items: 27 core items as indicated in the 2009 PRISMA Statement and five items specific to the reporting of NMAs. Although NMA reporting is improving, it is unclear whether PRISMA-NMA has accelerated this improvement. We aimed to investigate the impact of PRISMA-NMA and highlight key items that require attention and improvement.
Methods:
We updated our previous collection of NMAs with articles published between April 2015 and July 2018. We assessed the completeness of reporting for each NMA, including main manuscript and online supplements, using the PRISMA-NMA checklist. The PRISMA-NMA checklist originally includes 32 total items (i.e. a 32-point scale original PRISMA-NMA score). We also prepared a modified version of the PRISMA-NMA checklist with 49 items to evaluate separately at a more granular level all multiple-content items (i.e. a 49-point scale modified PRISMA-NMA score). We compared average reporting scores of articles published until and after 2015.
Results:
In the 1144 included NMAs the mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 (95% CI 31.8-32.4) of a possible 49-excellence-score. For 1-year increase, the mean modified score increased by 0.96 (95% CI 0.32 to 1.59) for 389 NMAs published until 2015 and by 0.53 (95% CI 0.02 to 1.04) for 755 NMAs published after 2015. The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score for NMAs published after 2015 was higher by 0.81 (95% CI 0.23 to 1.39) compared to before 2015 when adjusting for journal impact factor, type of review, funding, and treatment category. Description of summary effect sizes to be used, presentation of individual study data, sources of funding for the systematic review, and role of funders dropped in frequency after 2015 by 6-16%.
Conclusions:
NMAs published after 2015 more frequently reported the five items associated with NMA compared to those published until 2015. However, improvement in reporting after 2015 is compatible with that observed on a yearly basis until 2015, and hence, it could not be attributed solely to the publication of the PRISMA-NMA.
Insights
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) extension for network meta-analysis (NMA) has not demonstrably accelerated reporting improvements. While reporting scores increased after 2015, the rate of improvement was similar to pre-2015 trends.
Area of Science:
- Medical Informatics
- Biostatistics
- Evidence Synthesis
Background:
- The PRISMA-NMA statement (2015) aimed to enhance reporting in systematic reviews utilizing network meta-analysis (NMA).
- It comprises 27 core PRISMA items and 5 NMA-specific items.
- The study evaluates if PRISMA-NMA has improved NMA reporting quality.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the impact of the PRISMA-NMA statement on the completeness of NMA reporting.
- To identify key reporting areas needing improvement in NMAs.
Main Methods:
- A collection of NMAs published between April 2015 and July 2018 was analyzed.
- Reporting completeness was assessed using a modified 49-item PRISMA-NMA checklist.
- Average reporting scores were compared for NMAs published before and after 2015.
Main Results:
- The mean modified PRISMA-NMA score was 32.1 out of 49.
- NMAs published after 2015 showed a higher mean score (0.81 points) compared to those published before, after adjusting for covariates.
- Reporting frequency decreased for specific items like summary effect sizes, individual study data, and funding information after 2015.
Conclusions:
- NMAs published post-2015 demonstrated improved reporting of NMA-specific items.
- However, the observed improvement rate is comparable to pre-2015 trends, suggesting PRISMA-NMA may not be the sole driver.
- Further attention is needed for specific reporting elements that have declined in frequency.
More Related Videos
09:50Impact Assessment of Repeated Exposure of Organotypic 3D Bronchial and Nasal Tissue Culture Models to Whole Cigarette Smoke
Published on: February 12, 2015
06:26Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI
Published on: November 27, 2019
Related Concept Videos
01:29Bias in Epidemiological Studies
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:19Pharmacovigilance
This process, termed pharmacovigilance, aims to detect, evaluate, and minimize harmful effects related to medication use. The data collection for pharmacovigilance depends on spontaneous reporting systems, where healthcare professionals or patients voluntarily report suspected ADRs.
In some cases, there...
01:20Study Designs in Epidemiology
Observational studies are those where the researcher does not intervene but rather observes natural variations. They include cross-sectional, cohort, and...
01:52Regression Toward the Mean
01:50Statistical Significance