Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement
Open Access
- 1 November 2000
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) in British Journal of Surgery
- Vol. 87 (11), 1448-1454
- https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2168.2000.01610.x
Abstract
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 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. 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.Keywords
This publication has 36 references indexed in Scilit:
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?The Lancet, 1998
- Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1997
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Statistical and theoretical considerations in meta-analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- Methodologic guidelines for systematic reviews of randomized control trials in health care from the potsdam consultation on meta-analysisJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 1995
- Systematic Review: Why sources of heterogeneity in meta-analysis should be investigatedBMJ, 1994
- Systematic Reviews: Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviewsBMJ, 1994
- Publication bias in clinical researchThe Lancet, 1991
- Identification of meta-analysesControlled Clinical Trials, 1990
- Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 1987