Science Explorer Back to mapMap
Discussion
Topic · Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Most cited papers in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews

What are the most cited papers in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews?

The most cited paper in Meta-analysis and systematic reviews is "The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews" (Matthew James Page et al., 2021), with 105,915 citations. Next come "Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement" (83,711) and "Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses" (64,184).

Showing 50 of 82 papers. Every paper with more than 4,662 citations is listed.

Most cited papers, sortable by citations and release date
#Paper
1 The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews Matthew James Page et al. · BMJ ReviewOpen access 29 Mar 2021 105,915
2 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff et al. · BMJ ReviewOpen access 21 Jul 2009 83,711
3 Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses Julian P. T. Higgins, Simon G. Thompson, Jonathan J Deeks et al. · BMJ Open access 4 Sep 2003 64,184
4 Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test Matthias Egger, George Davey Smith, Martin Schneider et al. · BMJ Open access 13 Sep 1997 57,774
5 Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups Allison Tong, Peter Sainsbury, Jonathan C. Craig · International Journal for Quality in Health Care Open access 14 Sep 2007 43,999
6 PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation Andrea C. Tricco et al. · Annals of Internal Medicine Open access 3 Sep 2018 43,960
7 Meta-analysis in clinical trials Rebecca DerSimonian, Nan M. Laird · Controlled Clinical Trials Sep 1986 40,073
8 Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis Julian P. T. Higgins, Simon G. Thompson · Statistics in Medicine 21 May 2002 37,545
9 The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials Julian P. T. Higgins, Doug G. Altman, Peter Christian Gøtzsche et al. · BMJ Open access 18 Oct 2011 34,881
10 RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials Jonathan A C Sterne et al. · BMJ Open access 28 Aug 2019 33,250
11 A Guideline of Selecting and Reporting Intraclass Correlation Coefficients for Reliability Research Terry K. K. Koo, Mae Y. Li · Journal of Chiropractic Medicine Open access Apr 2016 29,409
12 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 et al. · PLoS Medicine ReviewOpen access 20 Jul 2009 28,074
13 Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement PRISMA-P Group, David Moher, Larissa Shamseer et al. · Systematic Reviews ReviewOpen access 2015 27,092
14 Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam M. Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz et al. · Systematic Reviews ReviewOpen access Dec 2016 26,444
15 GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations Gordon Henry Guyatt, Andrew David Oxman, Gunn Elisabeth Vist et al. · BMJ Open access 24 Apr 2008 23,388
16 The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational Studies Erik B von Elm, Douglas G. Altman, Matthias Egger et al. · PLoS Medicine Open access 10 Oct 2007 22,347
17 Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology A Proposal for Reporting Donna Fox Stroup · JAMA Review 19 Apr 2000 20,943
18 ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions Jonathan A C Sterne et al. · BMJ Open access 12 Oct 2016 20,199
19 Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package Wolfgang Viechtbauer · Journal of Statistical Software Open access 2010 19,468
20 Critical evaluation of the Newcastle-Ottawa scale for the assessment of the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses Andreas Stang · European Journal of Epidemiology 21 Jul 2010 18,104
21 The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses George A. Wells · Medical Entomology and Zoology Open access 2014 17,881
22 Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary? Alejandro R. Jadad, R Andrew Moore, Dawn M. Carroll et al. · Controlled Clinical Trials Feb 1996 17,767
23 Operating Characteristics of a Rank Correlation Test for Publication Bias Colin B. Begg, Madhuchhanda Mazumdar · Biometrics Dec 1994 17,335
24 Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't David L. Sackett, William Rosenberg, J. A. Muir Gray et al. · BMJ Open access 13 Jan 1996 15,892
25 Scoping studies: advancing the methodology Danielle Elaine Levac, Heather L. Colquhoun, Kelly Kathleen O’Brien · Implementation Science Open access 20 Sep 2010 15,551
26 QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Penny F. Whiting, Anne W.S. Rutjes, Marie E. Westwood et al. · Annals of Internal Medicine Open access 18 Oct 2011 14,541
27 Trim and Fill: A Simple Funnel‐Plot–Based Method of Testing and Adjusting for Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis Sue Duval, Richard L. Tweedie · Biometrics Jun 2000 14,320
28 CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials the CONSORT Group, Kenneth F. Schulz, Douglas G. Altman et al. · BMC Medicine Open access 24 Mar 2010 13,628
29 Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation Larissa Shamseer, David Moher, Mike J Clarke et al. · BMJ ReviewOpen access 2 Jan 2015 13,503
30 Estimating the sample mean and standard deviation from the sample size, median, range and/or interquartile range Xiang Wan, Wenqian Wang, Jiming Liu et al. · BMC Medical Research Methodology Open access Dec 2014 11,974
31 PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews Matthew James Page et al. · BMJ ReviewOpen access 29 Mar 2021 11,781
32 Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach Zachary Munn, Micah D.J. Peters, Cindy Stern et al. · BMC Medical Research Methodology ReviewOpen access 19 Nov 2018 11,572
33 Better reporting of interventions: template for intervention description and replication (TIDieR) checklist and guide Tammy Hoffmann, Paul Glasziou, Isabelle Boutron et al. · BMJ Open access 7 Mar 2014 10,971
34 AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both Beverley Shea, Barnaby C Reeves, George A. Wells et al. · BMJ ReviewOpen access 21 Sep 2017 10,915
35 GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction—GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables Gordon Henry Guyatt, Andrew David Oxman, Elie A. Akl et al. · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 4 Jan 2011 10,853
36 Why Most Published Research Findings Are False John P. A. Ioannidis · PLoS Medicine Open access 2 Aug 2005 10,796
37 Strengthening the reporting of observational studies in epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies Erik B von Elm, Douglas G. Altman, Matthias Egger et al. · BMJ Open access 18 Oct 2007 10,774
38 A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies Maria J. Grant, Andrew Booth · Health Information & Libraries Journal Open access 27 May 2009 10,748
39 Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs Daniël Lakens · Frontiers in Psychology Open access 2013 10,466
40 The integrative review: updated methodology Robin Whittemore, Kathleen Astin Knafl · Journal of Advanced Nursing 2 Nov 2005 10,110
41 Methods for the thematic synthesis of qualitative research in systematic reviews James Thomas, Angela Harden · BMC Medical Research Methodology ReviewOpen access 10 Jul 2008 9,345
42 Estimating the mean and variance from the median, range, and the size of a sample Stela Pudar Hozo, Benjamin Djulbegović, Iztok Hozo · BMC Medical Research Methodology Open access 20 Apr 2005 9,308
43 Progressive Statistics for Studies in Sports Medicine and Exercise Science Will G. Hopkins, Stephen W. Marshall, Alan M. Batterham et al. · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise 24 Dec 2008 9,161
44 CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials David Moher, Sally Hopewell, Kenneth F. Schulz et al. · BMJ Open access 23 Mar 2010 9,147
45 CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials K. F Schulz, D. G Altman, D. Moher et al. · BMJ Open access 23 Mar 2010 8,916
46 Measuring agreement in method comparison studies John M. Bland, Douglas G. Altman · Statistical Methods in Medical Research Apr 1999 8,865
47 Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): Explanation and Elaboration Jan Paul Vandenbroucke, Erik B von Elm, Douglas G. Altman et al. · PLoS Medicine Open access 10 Oct 2007 8,626
48 The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations Brian F. Hutton, Georgia Salanti, Deborah M Caldwell et al. · Annals of Internal Medicine Review Jun 2015 8,528
49 GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence Howard Balshem, Mark Helfand, Holger Jens Schünemann et al. · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 6 Jan 2011 8,430
50 The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. Sara H. Downs, Nicholas A. Black · Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health Open access Jun 1998 8,393

Citations are OpenAlex's own counts, from its 2026-09-23 snapshot, so the ranking can differ from Google Scholar or Web of Science. A paper is listed for a field when OpenAlex files it under one of the field's topics; retracted papers and papers whose citation count cannot be traced to citing works are left out, and a preprint and the article it became are shown once. Release dates are OpenAlex's: where a source gave only a month or a year, that is what is shown. How the lists are chosen.