Reporting standards

Find helpful guidance for systematic reviews and mata-analyses.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomised trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions.

PRISMA for systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P)

PRISMA-P was published in 2015 aiming to facilitate the development and reporting of systematic review protocols.

PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts

This PDF document provides guidance on writing abstracts for systematic reviews. It also offers a checklist enabling the items suggested to fit into any set of headings mandated by a journal or conference submission.

Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR)

The MECIR project aims to specify methodological expectations for Cochrane Protocols, Reviews, and updates of reviews on the effects of interventions, and to ensure that these methodological expectations are supported and implemented across The Cochrane Collaboration.

Meta-Analysis and Systematic Reviews of Observational Studies (MOOSE)

Contains specifications for reporting of meta-analyses of observational studies in epidemiology, including background, search strategy, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion.

Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) 2015: An Updated List of Essential Items for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy Studies

STARD was developed to improve the quality of reporting of diagnostic accuracy studies to help strengthen decisions and recommendations about medical tests.

The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies

STROBE was developed to improve the reporting of observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies) in research articles to ensure that readers can assess the strengths and weaknesses of such research.