The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are essential to summarize evidence relating to efficacy and safety of health care interventions accurately and reliably. The clarity and transparency of these reports, however, is not optimal. Poor reporting of systematic reviews diminishes their value to clinicians, policy makers, and other users. Since the development of the QUOROM (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analysis) Statement-a reporting guideline published in 1999-there have been several conceptual, methodological, and practical advances regarding the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Also, reviews of published systematic reviews have found that key information about these studies is often poorly reported. Realizing these issues, an international group that included experienced authors and methodologists developed PRISMA ( Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) as an evolution of the original QUOROM guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of evaluations of health care interventions. The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram. The checklist includes items deemed essential for transparent reporting of a systematic review. In this Explanation and Elaboration document, we explain the meaning and rationale for each checklist item. For each item, we include an example of good reporting and, where possible, references to relevant empirical studies and methodological literature. The PRISMA Statement, this document, and the associated Web site (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) should be helpful resources to improve reporting of systematic reviews and metaanalyses.

Factor structure and validity of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) in a sample of mentally disordered offenders

Investigations of the factor structure of the Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT) have produced conflicting results. The current study assessed the factor structure of the AUDIT for a group of Mentally Disordered Offenders (MDOs) and examined the pattern of scoring in specific subgroups. The sample comprised 2005 MDOs who completed a battery of tests including the AUDIT. Confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a two-factor solution – alcohol consumption and alcohol-related consequences – provided the best data fit for AUDIT scores. A three-factor solution provided an equally good fit, but the second and third factors were highly correlated and a measure of parsimony also favoured the two-factor solution. This study provides useful information on the factor structure of the AUDIT amongst a large MDO population, while also highlighting the difficulties associated with the presence of people with mental health problems in the criminal justice system.

AUDIT OF ANTIBIOTIC USAGE IN A MEDIUM-SIZED GENERAL-HOSPITAL OVER AN 11-YEAR PERIOD - THE IMPACT OF ANTIBIOTIC POLICIES

The objective of the present study was to evaluate trends in antibiotic expenditure over an 11-year period (1982-1992) in a 370-bed district general hospital in Northern Ireland and to examine the impact of two separate antibiotic policies on antibiotic usage. A further objective was to examine the attitudes of prescribers to the second policy. Drug utilization review was used to collect information on antibiotic expenditure and usage before and after introduction of separate antibiotic policies in 1985 (not intensively monitored) and 1989 (intensively monitored). A mail questionnaire was used to determine the attitudes of prescribers. The first policy (1985) showed no benefits with regard to the number of antibiotic entities stocked (45 before, 45 after), number of dosage units issued (9.35 increase) or expenditure (33.35 increase). The 1989 policy led to significant reductions in the number of antibiotic entities stocked (28.9%), number of antibiotics issued (11.9%) and expenditure (6.1%). Expenditure began to spiral upwards when active monitoring of the second policy was suspended. The majority of prescribers (87.2%) who responded to the questionnaire (56.5% response rate) felt that the 1989 policy made a positive contribution to antibiotic usage in the hospital.