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

Area of Science:

• Bibliometrics
• Scientific publishing
• Research methodology

Background:

• The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines are widely used for article selection in scholarly reviews.
• Concerns exist regarding the rigorous implementation and verification of PRISMA adherence by authors, peer reviewers, and editors.

Purpose of the Study:

• To critically evaluate the over-reliance on PRISMA guidelines in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
• To propose alternative criteria for article inclusion that balance rigor with comprehensiveness.

Main Methods:

• Analysis of potential issues arising from strict adherence to PRISMA criteria.
• Identification of cases where PRISMA exclusion rates are excessively high.
• Qualitative assessment of the impact of PRISMA screening on literature inclusion.

Main Results:

• PRISMA criteria can lead to the exclusion of a substantial portion (up to 99.97%) of published literature.
• The screening process may qualitatively oversimplify the exclusion of non-conforming literature.
• Multiple versions of PRISMA guidelines create citation ambiguity.

Conclusions:

• A critical reassessment of over-reliance on PRISMA guidelines is necessary.
• Authors, peer reviewers, and editors should consider scientific plausibility and diversity alongside reporting standards.
• Moving beyond strict PRISMA adherence can ensure the inclusion of valid and diverse research in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.