QUOROM Statement

QUOROM Statement
Name	QUOROM Statement
Introduced	1999
Authors	Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses Group
Discipline	Evidence synthesis
Related	PRISMA Statement

QUOROM Statement is a guideline published in 1999 to improve the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews. It emerged from efforts by clinical researchers and journal editors to standardize reporting to aid interpretation and reproducibility, influencing subsequent initiatives in evidence synthesis and reporting standards.

Background and Development

The QUOROM Statement was developed by the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses Group, convened by editors and methodologists associated with journals such as The Lancet, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, Annals of Internal Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, and institutions including University of Oxford, University College London, Harvard University, McMaster University, and Stanford University. Its preparation drew on methods from randomized trials influenced by figures linked to CONSORT, David Sackett, Archie Cochrane, Iain Chalmers, Paul Glasziou, Gordon Guyatt, Douglas Altman, and committees associated with World Health Organization, National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Food and Drug Administration, and National Library of Medicine. The initiative involved collaboration with editorial boards of BMJ Publishing Group, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, and Springer Nature and consultation with groups active in evidence synthesis like Campbell Collaboration and Institute of Medicine.

Purpose and Scope

QUOROM aimed to provide a standardized checklist and flow diagram for authors reporting meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials to help readers, peer reviewers, and editors assess validity, drawing on principles endorsed by organizations such as Cochrane Collaboration, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, European Medicines Agency, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, and advisory bodies like UK Research and Innovation and Canadian Institutes of Health Research. It targeted systematic reviewers working in clinical areas including cardiology units linked to American Heart Association, oncology groups like European Society for Medical Oncology, infectious disease consortia associated with Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and public health programs connected to World Health Organization initiatives.

Key Components and Checklist

The QUOROM checklist and flow diagram specified items for titles and abstracts used by authors at institutions such as Johns Hopkins University, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, Massachusetts General Hospital, and Karolinska Institute. It emphasized methods sections referencing search strategies in databases like MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and indexing services such as PubMed and Scopus. Key elements included eligibility criteria, data extraction procedures, assessment of study quality informed by approaches from Cochrane Collaboration and researchers like Jadad, statistical synthesis procedures using models discussed by DerSimonian and Laird, Higgins and Thompson, and presentation of flow diagrams similar to practices in CONSORT and guidance from International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. The checklist addressed reporting of heterogeneity, bias assessments, subgroup analyses, and sensitivity analyses used in reviews from centers like Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, National Health Service, European Commission, and World Bank-funded evaluations.

Adoption and Impact

QUOROM was endorsed or referenced by editorial policies at journals including The Lancet, British Medical Journal, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Annals of Internal Medicine, and professional societies such as American Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians, European Respiratory Society, American College of Cardiology, and organizations supporting systematic review methodology like Cochrane Collaboration and Campbell Collaboration. Its influence extended to guideline developers including National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, US Preventive Services Task Force, National Comprehensive Cancer Network, and research funders like Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. QUOROM prompted changes in peer review and reporting expectations at publishers like Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Springer Nature, and Taylor & Francis.

Updates and Successor Guidelines

QUOROM was superseded by the PRISMA Statement, produced by experts associated with groups including PRISMA Group, EQUATOR Network, Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, University of York, McMaster University, Johns Hopkins University, and stakeholders from World Health Organization and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. PRISMA expanded scope and updated checklist items influenced by work from Higgins, Greenhalgh, Ioannidis, Guyatt, and institutions such as Cochrane Collaboration and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Subsequent extensions for network meta-analysis, diagnostic test accuracy, and individual participant data were developed with contributors from University of Bern, Vanderbilt University, Stanford University, Yale School of Medicine, and specialty societies like American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Criticisms and Limitations

Critiques of QUOROM noted limited attention to reporting of non-randomized studies, applicability to complex interventions developed in settings such as World Health Organization program evaluations, and evolving standards in statistical methods championed by researchers linked to Cochrane Collaboration, Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group, Campbell Collaboration, International Society for Clinical Biostatistics, and regulatory authorities like European Medicines Agency and Food and Drug Administration. Additional limitations cited by commentators from BMJ Publishing Group, The Lancet, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and guideline panels from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence and US Preventive Services Task Force included variable uptake, inconsistent enforcement by journals such as Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell, and need for clearer guidance on reporting conflicts of interest and data-sharing practices promoted by Open Science Framework and funders like Wellcome Trust.

Category:Reporting guidelines