Ítems de referencia para publicar Revisiones Sistemáticas y Metaanálisis: La Declaración PRISMA

David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Douglas G Altman, The PRISMA Group


Artículo original: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.

The original authors have not revised and verified the Spanish translation, and not necessary endorse it.

Los autores originales no han revisado ni verificado la traducción del manuscrito al español, y no necesariamente están de acuerdo con su contenido.

Publicación del artículo original: 21 Julio 2009

Derechos: © 2009 Moher et al. Este es un artículo de acceso abierto distribuido bajo las condiciones de The Creative Commons Attribution License, que permite el uso ilimitado, su distribución y reproducción en cualquier medio, siempre y cuando se acredite el autor y su fuente original.

Procedencia: No comisionado; revisión científica externa. Para promover la publicación de la Declaración PRISMA, el artículo se ha publicado como acceso abierto y se puede encontrar en la página web de PLoS Medicine (http://medicine.plosjournals.org/) y también se ha publicado en Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, y Open Medicine. Los autores tienen unánimemente los derechos de este artículo. Para más detalles de su uso ver la página web de PRISMA (http://www.prisma-statement.org/).

Traducción y adaptación al español: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto, Johana Prieto, Maria Manera, Eduard Baladia, Rodrigo Martínez-Rodríguez y Julio Basulto.

Autor de correspondencia de la traducción: Mercedes Sotos-Prieto (merchesotosprieto@gmail.com)

Palabras clave

Declaración PRISMA; Revisiones sistemáticas; Metaanálisis;

Texto completo:



Oxman AD, Cook DJ, Guyatt GH. Users’ guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 1994; 272: 1367–71.

Swingler GH, Volmink J, Ioannidis JPA. Number of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ. 2003; 327: 1083–4.

Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist (12/2006) [portal en internet]. 2006 [citado 19 de mayo de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/documents/rct_reg_e.pdf

Young C, Horton R. Putting clinical trials into context. Lancet. 2005; 366: 107–8.

Mulrow CD. The medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med. 1987; 106: 485–8.

Sacks HS, Berrier J, Reitman D, Ancona-Berk VA, Chalmers TC. Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 1987; 316: 450–5.

Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Metaanalysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med N Y. 1996; 63: 216–24.

Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet. 1999; 354: 1896–900.

Green S, Higgins J. Glossary. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collaboration [portal en internet]. 2005 [citado 19 de mayo de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.cochrane.org/resources/glossary.htm

Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008; 61: 521–4.

Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? Lancet. 2006; 367: 881–3.

University of York. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination [portal en internet]. 2009 [citado 19 de mayo de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/.

The Joanna Briggs Institute. Protocols & work in progress [portal en internet]. 2008 [citado 19 de mayo de 2009]. Disponible en: http://www.joannabriggs.edu.au/pubs/systematic_reviews_prot.php.

De Angelis C, Drazen JM, Frizelle FA, Haug C, Hoey J, Horton R, et al. Clinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can. 2004; 171: 606–7.

Whittington CJ, Kendall T, Fonagy P, Cottrell D, Cotgrove A, Boddington E. Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet. 2004; 363:1341–5.

Bagshaw SM, McAlister FA, Manns BJ, Ghali WA. Acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med. 2006; 166: 161–6.

Biondi-Zoccai GGL, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, et al. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006; 332: 202–9.

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JPA, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.

Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D, Egger M, Davidoff F, Elbourne D, et al. The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 134: 663–94.

Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB, Bruns DE, Gatsonis CA, Glasziou PP, Irwig LM, et al. The STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138: W1–12.

Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, et al. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2007; 147: W163–194.

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4: e78.

Bhandari M, Morrow F, Kulkarni AV, Tornetta P. Metaanalyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2001; 83-A: 15–24.

Kelly KD, Travers A, Dorgan M, Slater L, Rowe BH. Evaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med. 2001; 38: 518–26.

Richards D. The quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent. 2004; 5: 17.

Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramèr MR, Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg. 2001; 92: 700–9.

Delaney A, Bagshaw SM, Ferland A, Manns B, Laupland KB, Doig CJ. A systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care Lond Engl. 2005; 9: R575–582.

Dickersin K. Publication bias: Recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm. En: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. 1 edition. Chichester, England ; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005. p. 11-33.

Utton AJ. Evidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases. En: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. 1 edition. Chichester, England; Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005. p. 175-92.

Lau J, Ioannidis JPA, Terrin N, Schmid CH, Olkin I. The case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ. 2006; 333: 597–600.

Ladabaum U, Chopra CL, Huang G, Scheiman JM, Chernew ME, Fendrick AM. Aspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2001; 135:769–81.

Deeks JJ. Systematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ. 2001; 323: 157–62.

Altman DG. Systematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ. 2001; 323: 224–8.

Ioannidis JP, Ntzani EE, Trikalinos TA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Replication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet. 2001; 29: 306–9.

Lavis J, Davies H, Oxman A, Denis J-L, Golden-Biddle K, Ferlie E. Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005; 10 Suppl 1: 35–48.

Stewart LA, Clarke MJ. Practical methodology of metaanalyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med. 1995; 14: 2057–79.

Moja LP, Telaro E, D’Amico R, Moschetti I, Coe L, Liberati A. Assessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ. 2005; 330: 1053.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008; 336: 924–6.

Schünemann HJ, Jaeschke R, Cook DJ, Bria WF, El-Solh AA, Ernst A, et al. An official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006; 174: 605–14.

Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2004; 291: 2457–65.

Chan A-W, Krleza-Jerić K, Schmid I, Altman DG. Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ Can Med Assoc J J Assoc Medicale Can. 2004; 171: 735–40.

Silagy CA, Middleton P, Hopewell S. Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA J Am Med Assoc. 2002; 287:2831–4.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.14306/renhyd.18.3.114

Enlaces refback

  • No hay ningún enlace refback.

Copyright (c)


Licencia de Creative Commons
Este obra está bajo una licencia de Creative Commons Reconocimiento-CompartirIgual 4.0 Internacional.

Política de privacidad de la revista

Esta revista ha conseguido la validación para ser Data Provider OAI-PMH version 2.0 de Open Archives Initiative (OAI)

ISSN (online): 2174-5145 / ISSN (print): 2173-1292

Abreviatura: Rev Esp Nutr Hum Diet

DOI revista: 10.14306/renhyd



Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/renhyd


Twitter: https://twitter.com/renhyd_org (@renhyd_org)



Bases de datos bibliográficas en las que está indexada:

Índices de Evaluación relativa de la Revista: 
  • CiteScore (Scopus - 2019): 0.5 (percentil 19, posición 241/299 en "Food Science"; percentil 10, posición 108/120 en "Nutrition and Dietetics") (link)
  • SJR (SCImago Journal Rank, Scopus - 2019): 0.149 (cuartil 4, posición 264/327 en "Food Science y posición 111/128 en "Nutrition and Dietetics) (link)
  • Índice H (Scopus): 9 (link)
  • REDIB (Red Iberoamericana de Innovación y Conocimiento Científico - 2019): percentil de factor de impacto = 68.147 (posición 296/1070) (link)
Evaluación de Calidad Editorial de la Revista:
Difusión en Repositorios y Portales de Revistas OpenAccess: 

 Citaciones recibidas y realizadas, artículos más consultados





Cooperación entre revistas iberoamericanas de nutrición humana:

Perspectivas en Nutrición Humana