Unclaimed author profile

David Moher

· Ottawa Hospital

Is this your research profile?

Create or sign in to your KnowledgeTrend account to claim this page. After the claim, this same profile URL and its linked publications will belong to your account. Claiming does not automatically grant a verified badge.

Create account and claim this profile Sign in to claim

5Linked publications

0Citations

0h-index

0i10-index

Metrics are calculated from publications currently linked to this profile.

Researcher overview

About

David Moher is a registered researcher in their academic field.

Research output

Recent Publications

5 research works linked to this profile

▤

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews, Traumatic Brain Injury Research, Delphi Technique in Research · 2021 · BMJ

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.

View Read PDF Download

▤

Delphi Technique in Research, Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life, Meta-analysis and systematic reviews · 2018 · Annals of Internal Medicine

PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation

Scoping reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis, follow a systematic approach to map evidence on a topic and identify main concepts, theories, sources, and knowledge gaps. Although more scoping reviews are being done, their methodological and reporting quality need improvement. This document presents the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and explanation. The checklist was developed by a 24-member expert panel and 2 research leads following published guidance from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. The final checklist contains 20 essential reporting items and 2 optional items. The authors provide a rationale and an example of good reporting for each item. The intent of the PRISMA-ScR is to help readers (including researchers, publishers, commissioners, policymakers, health care providers, guideline developers, and patients or consumers) develop a greater understanding of relevant terminology, core concepts, and key items to report for scoping reviews.

View Read PDF Download

▤

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews, Delphi Technique in Research, Traumatic Brain Injury Research · 2015 · Systematic Reviews

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

PRISMA-P Group, David Moher, Larissa Shamseer, Mike Clarke, Davina Ghersi, Alessandro Liberati, Mark Petticrew, Paul Shekelle, Lesley Stewart

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

View Read PDF Download

▤

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews, Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life, Healthcare cost, quality, practices · 2011 · BMJ

The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Julian P. T. Higgins, Doug Altman, Peter C Gøtzsche, Peter Jüni, David Moher, Andrew D Oxman, Jelena Savović, Kenneth F. Schulz, Laura Weeks, Jonathan A C Sterne, Cochrane Bias Methods Group, Cochrane Statistical Methods Group

Flaws in the design, conduct, analysis, and reporting of randomised trials can cause the effect of an intervention to be underestimated or overestimated. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias aims to make the process clearer and more accurate

View Read PDF Download

▤

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews, Hemodynamic Monitoring and Therapy, Health Sciences Research and Education · 2009 · PLoS Medicine

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

Alessandro Liberati, Douglas G. Altman, Jennifer Tetzlaff, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Peter C Gøtzsche, John P. A. Ioannidis, Mike Clarke, P.J. Devereaux, Jos Kleijnen, David Moher

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.

View Read PDF Download