Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: Systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses are used to synthesise evidence to inform decision-making or guide research priorities. Therefore, it is important that a SR abstract contains essential information about the review. The 12-Item PRISMA-A (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstracts) checklist provides authors with a framework for complete and transparent SR reporting in an abstract. This study assessed whether abstracts presented at ISPOR (The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research) adhered to the PRISMA-A checklist.
METHODS: A pragmatic search was conducted in Embase in June 2025 for ISPOR 2025 abstracts that referred to SRs in the titles. One reviewer performed rapid screening of the records to identify SRs explicitly evaluating health intervention effects at the title level. Included records formed the pragmatic sample and were assessed for adherence to PRISMA-A by two independent reviewers.
RESULTS: Of 250 records identified, 99 passed title screening and 94 met full eligibility criteria. Most evaluated clinical effects (63.8%), while 23.4% addressed economic effects. Across the pragmatic sample of 94 abstracts, none (0%) reported all 12 PRISMA-A items, with a mean adherence of 57.6%. Excluding Item 1 (SR title identification), adherence was highest (>90%) for Items 2, 8 and 10 (objectives, synthesis of results and discussion interpretation). Adherence was lowest (<20%) for Items 7, 9, 11 and 12 (included studies, limitations, funding and registration).
CONCLUSIONS: As conference abstracts are often a reader’s sole source of information, comprehensive reporting is essential. ISPOR SR abstracts demonstrate suboptimal completeness, particularly concerning included studies, evidence limitations, and funding. Although the PRISMA-A checklist encourages high standards, strict adherence is often hindered by word constraints and diverse review designs. Nevertheless, authors should utilise this checklist where possible to ensure transparency, while conference reviewers should consider reporting completeness during the abstract selection process.