Funding matters: time to update preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?

TY - JOUR

T1 - Funding matters

T2 - time to update preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?

AU - Burgert, James

AU - Richards, Georgia

PY - 2025/4

Y1 - 2025/4

N2 - Reporting guidelines provide recommendations to researchers to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of their manuscripts when they submit their work for publication. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) is a commonly used guideline when reporting systematic reviews. The PRISMA-ScR extension is used when reporting scoping reviews. Our commentary describes an inconsistency identified in the reporting requirements of primary study funding between the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PRISMA 2020 recommends that authors describe funding sources and the roles of funders or sponsors in the reviews (item 25), but vaguely suggests listing funding sources for primary data (item 10b) In contrast, PRISMA-ScR explicitly recommends that reviewers describe the funding sources of their review and the included primary studies (item 22). Investigation of primary study funding allows reviewers to identify potential conflicts of interest and the risk of industry funding bias. Full investigation and reporting of primary study funding sources increases confidence in the credibility and integrity of review results allowing clinicians, policymakers, and patients to make better informed decisions. We recommend the PRISMA reporting checklist be updated to include an explicit recommendation, consistent with the explicit language of the PRISMA-ScR extension, that reviewers describe the funding of included primary studies as a preferred reporting item for systematic reviews.

AB - Reporting guidelines provide recommendations to researchers to improve the quality, consistency, and transparency of their manuscripts when they submit their work for publication. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) is a commonly used guideline when reporting systematic reviews. The PRISMA-ScR extension is used when reporting scoping reviews. Our commentary describes an inconsistency identified in the reporting requirements of primary study funding between the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-ScR guidelines. PRISMA 2020 recommends that authors describe funding sources and the roles of funders or sponsors in the reviews (item 25), but vaguely suggests listing funding sources for primary data (item 10b) In contrast, PRISMA-ScR explicitly recommends that reviewers describe the funding sources of their review and the included primary studies (item 22). Investigation of primary study funding allows reviewers to identify potential conflicts of interest and the risk of industry funding bias. Full investigation and reporting of primary study funding sources increases confidence in the credibility and integrity of review results allowing clinicians, policymakers, and patients to make better informed decisions. We recommend the PRISMA reporting checklist be updated to include an explicit recommendation, consistent with the explicit language of the PRISMA-ScR extension, that reviewers describe the funding of included primary studies as a preferred reporting item for systematic reviews.

KW - Reporting guideline

KW - PRISMA

KW - Systematic reviews

KW - Funding

KW - Biases

KW - Industry funding

KW - Critical appraisal

KW - AMSTAR-2

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85216235797&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111678

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111678

M3 - Letter

SN - 1878-5921

VL - 180

JO - Journal of clinical epidemiology

JF - Journal of clinical epidemiology

M1 - 111678

ER -