Scholarlink

<p>The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines are widely perceived as the gold standard for reporting evidence syntheses. However, the diversity of contributors, transparency of development processes and accessibility of PRISMA checklists have not been systematically examined. We systematically assessed 21 guidelines identified as PRISMA or PRISMA extensions, assessing equity, diversity and inclusion measures; transparency in guideline development; and the implementability and accessibility of their reporting checklists. We found that women were well represented among PRISMA authors (47%). Only 11% of PRISMA authors were affiliated with institutions in the Global South (0.01% excluding China), and 62% of extensions had no contributors from these regions. Transparency varied, most extensions reported following established methodological frameworks (72%) and seeking external feedback (62%), while only 24% provided summaries of consensus meetings and none reported repeatability or inter-rater reliability testing. Accessibility was similarly inconsistent. While 86% provided a reporting checklist, only 10% had openly accessible full texts. Our findings highlight the need for reform in the development of widely adopted reporting standards that underpin evidence synthesis and inform global decision-making. We provide practical recommendations to address these gaps and introduce an open-source reporting template based on current good practices.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Assessing the diversity, transparency and accessibility of PRISMA guideline extensions

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月30日

查看全文
  • Kyle Morrison,
  • Malgorzata Lagisz,
  • Manman Liu,
  • Manuela S. Santana,
  • Shinichi Nakagawa,
  • Yefeng Yang

摘要

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines are widely perceived as the gold standard for reporting evidence syntheses. However, the diversity of contributors, transparency of development processes and accessibility of PRISMA checklists have not been systematically examined. We systematically assessed 21 guidelines identified as PRISMA or PRISMA extensions, assessing equity, diversity and inclusion measures; transparency in guideline development; and the implementability and accessibility of their reporting checklists. We found that women were well represented among PRISMA authors (47%). Only 11% of PRISMA authors were affiliated with institutions in the Global South (0.01% excluding China), and 62% of extensions had no contributors from these regions. Transparency varied, most extensions reported following established methodological frameworks (72%) and seeking external feedback (62%), while only 24% provided summaries of consensus meetings and none reported repeatability or inter-rater reliability testing. Accessibility was similarly inconsistent. While 86% provided a reporting checklist, only 10% had openly accessible full texts. Our findings highlight the need for reform in the development of widely adopted reporting standards that underpin evidence synthesis and inform global decision-making. We provide practical recommendations to address these gaps and introduce an open-source reporting template based on current good practices.