schliessen

Filtern

 

Bibliotheken

Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement

The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and... Full description

Journal Title: The Lancet (British edition) 1999, Vol.354 (9193), p.1896-1900
Main Author: Moher, David
Other Authors: Cook, Deborah J , Eastwood, Susan , Olkin, Ingram , Rennie, Drummond , Stroup, Donna F
Format: Electronic Article Electronic Article
Language: English
Subjects:
Quelle: Alma/SFX Local Collection
Publisher: London: Elsevier Ltd
ID: ISSN: 0140-6736
Link: http://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1184085
Zum Text:
SendSend as email Add to Book BagAdd to Book Bag
Staff View
recordid: cdi_proquest_journals_198971402
title: Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
format: Article
creator:
  • Moher, David
  • Cook, Deborah J
  • Eastwood, Susan
  • Olkin, Ingram
  • Rennie, Drummond
  • Stroup, Donna F
subjects:
  • Biological and medical sciences
  • Clinical trials
  • Conferences
  • Evaluation
  • Health care industry
  • Medical literature
  • Medical sciences
  • Meta-analysis
  • Methods
  • Public health. Hygiene
  • Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
  • Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation
ispartof: The Lancet (British edition), 1999, Vol.354 (9193), p.1896-1900
description: The Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with “trial flow”, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
language: eng
source: Alma/SFX Local Collection
identifier: ISSN: 0140-6736
fulltext: fulltext
issn:
  • 0140-6736
  • 1474-547X
url: Link


@attributes
NO1
SEARCH_ENGINEprimo_central_multiple_fe
SEARCH_ENGINE_TYPEPrimo Central Search Engine
RANK2.5509822
LOCALfalse
PrimoNMBib
record
control
sourceidgale_proqu
recordidTN_cdi_proquest_journals_198971402
sourceformatXML
sourcesystemPC
galeidA195485402
sourcerecordidA195485402
originalsourceidFETCH-LOGICAL-c559t-e5cf11573a83a57f863928842a5b62e9ad5888702b3d18a7d7c7ed7123482da43
addsrcrecordideNqNkm1rFDEQxxdR8Kx-BGFRX1h0a7KbbBJ9IaX4UKgcPhR8F3LZ2W3K7uaayRXu2zd7V9pTLJVAEia_-U9m-GfZc0oOKKH1u5-EMlLUoqpfK7VPGGWq4A-yGWWCFZyJ3w-z2Q3yOHuCeE4IYTXhs6w7HpbBX7qxy-MZ5Bcr07u4zn2bB1j6EHG6DhBNYUbTrxE2gWDGxg8OocmtH2PwfZ-uMTjT4_uN0PfT-Y_5txyjiTDAGJ9mj9r0CM-uz73s9POnX0dfi5P5l-Ojw5PCcq5iAdy2lHJRGVkZLlpZV6qUkpWGL-oSlGm4lFKQclE1VBrRCCugEbSsmCwbw6q97MVWN3V1sQKM-tyvQvo6aqqkEmkM5S3UmR60G1sfg7GpH6sPuSQ1rVidoJd3QlRxJvlWqvgHlVYDg0uzgdal-K7qwf_wuwXe7CQsVuhGwLSh684idmaF-If82_vpXXG-xW3wiAFavQxuMGGtKdGTt_TGW3oyjlZKb7ylecp7dT1lg9b0bfKDdXibTCUjcsI-_CVvXTKEmyxjXH9TBO8o8nGbDckvlw6CRutgtNC4ADbqxrt7vnkFtm_yJg
sourcetypeAggregation Database
isCDItrue
recordtypearticle
pqid198971402
display
typearticle
titleImproving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
sourceAlma/SFX Local Collection
creatorMoher, David ; Cook, Deborah J ; Eastwood, Susan ; Olkin, Ingram ; Rennie, Drummond ; Stroup, Donna F
creatorcontribMoher, David ; Cook, Deborah J ; Eastwood, Susan ; Olkin, Ingram ; Rennie, Drummond ; Stroup, Donna F ; for the QUOROM Group
descriptionThe Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with “trial flow”, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
identifier
0ISSN: 0140-6736
1EISSN: 1474-547X
2DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5
3CODEN: LANCAO
languageeng
publisherLondon: Elsevier Ltd
subjectBiological and medical sciences ; Clinical trials ; Conferences ; Evaluation ; Health care industry ; Medical literature ; Medical sciences ; Meta-analysis ; Methods ; Public health. Hygiene ; Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine ; Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation
ispartofThe Lancet (British edition), 1999, Vol.354 (9193), p.1896-1900
rights
01999 Elsevier Ltd
12000 INIST-CNRS
2COPYRIGHT 1999 Elsevier B.V.
3Copyright Lancet Ltd. Nov 27, 1999
lds50peer_reviewed
citedbyFETCH-LOGICAL-c559t-e5cf11573a83a57f863928842a5b62e9ad5888702b3d18a7d7c7ed7123482da43
citesFETCH-LOGICAL-c559t-e5cf11573a83a57f863928842a5b62e9ad5888702b3d18a7d7c7ed7123482da43
links
openurl$$Topenurl_article
openurlfulltext$$Topenurlfull_article
thumbnail$$Usyndetics_thumb_exl
backlink$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&idt=1184085$$DView record in Pascal Francis
search
creatorcontrib
0Moher, David
1Cook, Deborah J
2Eastwood, Susan
3Olkin, Ingram
4Rennie, Drummond
5Stroup, Donna F
6for the QUOROM Group
title
0Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
1The Lancet (British edition)
descriptionThe Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with “trial flow”, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
subject
0Biological and medical sciences
1Clinical trials
2Conferences
3Evaluation
4Health care industry
5Medical literature
6Medical sciences
7Meta-analysis
8Methods
9Public health. Hygiene
10Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
11Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation
issn
00140-6736
11474-547X
fulltexttrue
rsrctypearticle
creationdate1999
recordtypearticle
recordideNqNkm1rFDEQxxdR8Kx-BGFRX1h0a7KbbBJ9IaX4UKgcPhR8F3LZ2W3K7uaayRXu2zd7V9pTLJVAEia_-U9m-GfZc0oOKKH1u5-EMlLUoqpfK7VPGGWq4A-yGWWCFZyJ3w-z2Q3yOHuCeE4IYTXhs6w7HpbBX7qxy-MZ5Bcr07u4zn2bB1j6EHG6DhBNYUbTrxE2gWDGxg8OocmtH2PwfZ-uMTjT4_uN0PfT-Y_5txyjiTDAGJ9mj9r0CM-uz73s9POnX0dfi5P5l-Ojw5PCcq5iAdy2lHJRGVkZLlpZV6qUkpWGL-oSlGm4lFKQclE1VBrRCCugEbSsmCwbw6q97MVWN3V1sQKM-tyvQvo6aqqkEmkM5S3UmR60G1sfg7GpH6sPuSQ1rVidoJd3QlRxJvlWqvgHlVYDg0uzgdal-K7qwf_wuwXe7CQsVuhGwLSh684idmaF-If82_vpXXG-xW3wiAFavQxuMGGtKdGTt_TGW3oyjlZKb7ylecp7dT1lg9b0bfKDdXibTCUjcsI-_CVvXTKEmyxjXH9TBO8o8nGbDckvlw6CRutgtNC4ADbqxrt7vnkFtm_yJg
startdate1999
enddate1999
creator
0Moher, David
1Cook, Deborah J
2Eastwood, Susan
3Olkin, Ingram
4Rennie, Drummond
5Stroup, Donna F
general
0Elsevier Ltd
1Lancet
2Elsevier B.V
3Elsevier Limited
scope
0IQODW
1AAYXX
2CITATION
3BSHEE
40TT
50TZ
60U~
73V.
87QL
97QP
107RV
117TK
127U7
137U9
147X7
157XB
1688A
1788C
1888E
1988G
2088I
218AF
228AO
238C1
248C2
258FE
268FH
278FI
288FJ
298FK
308G5
31ABUWG
32AN0
33ASE
34AZQEC
35BBNVY
36BEC
37BENPR
38BHPHI
39C1K
40DWQXO
41FPQ
42FYUFA
43GHDGH
44GNUQQ
45GUQSH
46H94
47HCIFZ
48K6X
49K9-
50K9.
51KB0
52KB~
53LK8
54M0R
55M0S
56M0T
57M1P
58M2M
59M2O
60M2P
61M7N
62M7P
63MBDVC
64NAPCQ
65PQEST
66PQQKQ
67PQUKI
68Q9U
69S0X
sort
creationdate1999
titleImproving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
authorMoher, David ; Cook, Deborah J ; Eastwood, Susan ; Olkin, Ingram ; Rennie, Drummond ; Stroup, Donna F
facets
frbrtype5
frbrgroupidcdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c559t-e5cf11573a83a57f863928842a5b62e9ad5888702b3d18a7d7c7ed7123482da43
rsrctypearticles
prefilterarticles
languageeng
creationdate1999
topic
0Biological and medical sciences
1Clinical trials
2Conferences
3Evaluation
4Health care industry
5Medical literature
6Medical sciences
7Meta-analysis
8Methods
9Public health. Hygiene
10Public health. Hygiene-occupational medicine
11Teaching. Deontology. Ethics. Legislation
toplevel
0peer_reviewed
1online_resources
creatorcontrib
0Moher, David
1Cook, Deborah J
2Eastwood, Susan
3Olkin, Ingram
4Rennie, Drummond
5Stroup, Donna F
6for the QUOROM Group
collection
0Pascal-Francis
1CrossRef
2Academic OneFile (A&I only)
3News PRO
4Pharma and Biotech Premium PRO
5Global News & ABI/Inform Professional
6ProQuest Central (Corporate)
7Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)
8Calcium & Calcified Tissue Abstracts
9Nursing & Allied Health Database
10Neurosciences Abstracts
11Toxicology Abstracts
12Virology and AIDS Abstracts
13Health & Medical Collection
14ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)
15Biology Database (Alumni Edition)
16Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)
17Medical Database (Alumni Edition)
18Psychology Database (Alumni)
19Science Database (Alumni Edition)
20STEM Database
21ProQuest Pharma Collection
22Public Health Database
23Lancet Titles
24ProQuest SciTech Collection
25ProQuest Natural Science Collection
26Hospital Premium Collection
27Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)
28ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)
29Research Library (Alumni Edition)
30ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)
31British Nursing Database
32British Nursing Index
33ProQuest Central Essentials
34Biological Science Collection
35eLibrary
36ProQuest Central
37Natural Science Collection
38Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management
39ProQuest Central Korea
40British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)
41Health Research Premium Collection
42Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)
43ProQuest Central Student
44Research Library Prep
45AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts
46SciTech Premium Collection
47British Nursing Index
48Consumer Health Database (Alumni Edition)
49ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)
50Nursing & Allied Health Database (Alumni Edition)
51ProQuest Newsstand Professional
52ProQuest Biological Science Collection
53Consumer Health Database
54Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)
55Healthcare Administration Database
56Medical Database
57Psychology Database
58Research Library
59Science Database
60Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)
61Biological Science Database
62Research Library (Corporate)
63Nursing & Allied Health Premium
64ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition
65ProQuest One Academic
66ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition
67ProQuest Central Basic
68SIRS Editorial
jtitleThe Lancet (British edition)
delivery
delcategoryRemote Search Resource
fulltextfulltext
addata
au
0Moher, David
1Cook, Deborah J
2Eastwood, Susan
3Olkin, Ingram
4Rennie, Drummond
5Stroup, Donna F
aucorpfor the QUOROM Group
formatjournal
genrearticle
ristypeJOUR
atitleImproving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
jtitleThe Lancet (British edition)
date1999
risdate1999
volume354
issue9193
spage1896
epage1900
pages1896-1900
issn0140-6736
eissn1474-547X
codenLANCAO
abstractThe Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) conference was convened to address standards for improving the quality of reporting of meta-analyses of clinical randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The QUOROM group consisted of 30 clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, statisticians, editors, and researchers. In conference, the group was asked to identify items they thought should be included in a checklist of standards. Whenever possible, checklist items were guided by research evidence suggesting that failure to adhere to the item proposed could lead to biased results. A modified Delphi technique was used in assessing candidate items. The conference resulted in the QUOROM statement, a checklist, and a flow diagram. The checklist describes our preferred way to present the abstract, introduction, methods, results, and discussion sections of a report of a meta-analysis. It is organised into 21 headings and subheadings regarding searches, selection, validity assessment, data abstraction, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis, and in the results with “trial flow”, study characteristics, and quantitative data synthesis; research documentation was identified for eight of the 18 items. The flow diagram provides information about both the numbers of RCTs identified, included, and excluded and the reasons for exclusion of trials. We hope this report will generate further thought about ways to improve the quality of reports of meta-analyses of RCTs and that interested readers, reviewers, researchers, and editors will use the QUOROM statement and generate ideas for its improvement.
copLondon
pubElsevier Ltd
doi10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5