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

被引:3676
作者
Moher, D
Cook, DJ
Eastwood, S
Olkin, I
Rennie, D
Stroup, DF
机构
[1] Univ Ottawa, Thomas C Chalmers Ctr Systemat Reviews, Ottawa, ON, Canada
[2] McMaster Univ, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Stanford Univ, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
[5] JAMA, Chicago, IL USA
[6] Ctr Dis Control & Prevent, Atlanta, GA USA
关键词
D O I
10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background 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). Methods 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. Findings 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 metaanalysis. 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. Interpretation 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.
引用
收藏
页码:1896 / 1900
页数:5
相关论文
共 49 条
  • [1] A PROPOSAL FOR STRUCTURED REPORTING OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS
    ANDREW, E
    ANIS, A
    CHALMERS, T
    CHO, M
    CLARKE, M
    FELSON, D
    GOTZSCHE, P
    GREENE, R
    JADAD, A
    JONAS, W
    KLASSEN, T
    KNIPSCHILD, P
    LAUPACIS, A
    MEINERT, CL
    MOHER, D
    NICHOL, G
    OXMAN, A
    PENMAN, MF
    POCOCK, S
    REISCH, J
    SACKETT, D
    SCHULZ, K
    SNIDER, J
    TUGWELL, P
    TYSON, J
    VARIN, F
    WALOP, W
    WALSH, S
    WELLS, G
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1994, 272 (24): : 1926 - 1931
  • [2] Why review articles on the health effects of passive smoking reach different conclusions
    Barnes, DE
    Bero, LA
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1998, 279 (19): : 1566 - 1570
  • [3] Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement
    Begg, C
    Cho, M
    Eastwood, S
    Horton, R
    Moher, D
    Olkin, I
    Pitkin, R
    Rennie, D
    Schulz, KF
    Simel, D
    Stroup, DF
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (08): : 637 - 639
  • [4] Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses?
    Berlin, JA
    [J]. LANCET, 1997, 350 (9072) : 185 - 186
  • [5] THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION - PREPARING, MAINTAINING, AND DISSEMINATING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH-CARE
    BERO, L
    RENNIE, D
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (24): : 1935 - 1938
  • [6] Chalmers I., 1995, SYSTEMATIC REV, P86
  • [7] *COCHR COLL, 1996, COCHR LIB DAT DISK C
  • [8] SHOULD UNPUBLISHED DATA BE INCLUDED IN METAANALYSES - CURRENT CONVICTIONS AND CONTROVERSIES
    COOK, DJ
    GUYATT, GH
    RYAN, G
    CLIFTON, J
    BUCKINGHAM, L
    WILLAN, A
    MCLLROY, W
    OXMAN, AD
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1993, 269 (21): : 2749 - 2753
  • [9] METHODOLOGIC GUIDELINES FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF RANDOMIZED CONTROL TRIALS IN HEALTH-CARE FROM THE POTSDAM CONSULTATION ON METAANALYSIS
    COOK, DJ
    SACKETT, DL
    SPITZER, WO
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 1995, 48 (01) : 167 - 171
  • [10] Systematic reviews: Synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions
    Cook, DJ
    Mulrow, CD
    Haynes, RB
    [J]. ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 1997, 126 (05) : 376 - 380