🏆 Finalist — NIH Data Sharing Index (“S-Index”) Challenge
Demo corpus. Scores are computed on a select set of biomedical paper/datasets and may be inaccurate for papers outside this corpus — DataRank relies on network effects that improve with scale. We aim to expand this into a fully open resource pending additional funding.

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration

PLoS Medicine(2009)10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100Source: DataRank Database

The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration is a research paper published in PLoS Medicine (2009). On theSindex it has a DataRank of 1.5. It has been cited 27,757 times. Its calibrated FAIR score is 68/100.

N/A
1.5DataRank · unranked
1.5
Open Access27757 citations · base score 10.2
Cite:
datarank_citation_only_1hop_v6· scope data_onlyMethodology

Abstract

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 meta-analyses.

Data sources & pipeline
Pipeline:MetadataData-paper checkEnrichmentCitation networkScoring
Enrichment:Pending

FAIR Checklist

Context only (not used in score)
Findable (1/2)
  • Has DOI
Accessible (1/2)
  • Open Access
Interoperable (0/2)
    Reusable (0/3)

      FAIR checklist signals are shown for context only and do not affect DataRank scoring.

      68FAIR score
      F Findable
      100
      A Accessible
      70
      I Interoperable
      50
      R Reusable
      50
      Top 5% by FAIRdeterministic✓ full text read

      Calibrated FAIR score — a parallel quality metric, independent of the DataRank citation score. See the full evaluation →

      DataRank Breakdown

      Base Score 100%Citation Network 0%

      Base Score Contribution

      1.5

      From this paper's citation signal

      Citation Network Contribution

      0

      Citation network not refreshed for this result

      This paper's DataRank is currently driven only by its base citation score. Citation network data was not refreshed for this result.

      Learn more about DataRank methodology →
      Why this DataRank?

      DataRank blends this paper's own citation count with the influence of the papers that cite it. Here, roughly 100% comes from its base citations and 0% from the citation network.

      Base score B(p)
      log1p(citation_count) — grows sub-linearly, so a paper with 1,000 citations is not 10× a paper with 100.
      Network N(p)
      Σ over citers of log1p(Cq) ÷ max(outdegreeq, 1). Being cited by a highly-cited paper with few references counts most.
      Damping factor d = 0.85
      DataRank = (1−d)·B(p) + d·N(p) — the two cards above are each already multiplied by their share.
      Self-citations excluded
      Citers sharing any OpenAlex author ID with this paper are filtered out before the network sum.

      Citers are pulled from OpenAlex sorted by cited_by_count:descand capped per paper, so when the cap binds we keep the highest-signal references and the score is reproducible across reruns.

      Read the full methodology →

      Authors (10)

      Related Papers (10)

      Annals of Internal Medicine(2018)
      co-cited
      10.7326/m18-0850