Research summary
Output sits at the methodological core of evidence synthesis and reporting guidelines for biomedical research. The PRISMA Statement provides a 27-item checklist and four-phase flow diagram for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, with a structured summary covering background, eligibility, sources, appraisal, results, limitations, and registration; it was published concurrently in BMJ [1], PLoS Medicine [2], and PubMed-indexed venues [4]. The Explanation and Elaboration companion document set out conceptual, methodological, and practical advances since QUOROM (1999) and explained each PRISMA item with examples, addressing the documented under-reporting of systematic reviews [5]. The STROBE Statement extended analogous reporting guidance to observational research, defining checklists for cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional designs through a 2004 multidisciplinary workshop of methodologists, researchers, and journal editors; it was published in both PLoS Medicine [6] and Annals of Internal Medicine [8]. Statistical methodology for meta-analysis includes the I^2 statistic for quantifying inconsistency across studies in Cochrane reviews, presented as a practical tool for assessing heterogeneity in clinical practice [3]. Reporting tools for non-randomized evidence are addressed by ROBINS-I, a risk-of-bias instrument designed for systematic reviews that incorporate non-randomized studies of intervention effects, scoring strengths and weaknesses of comparative effectiveness estimates from designs that did not allocate units randomly [7]. Methodologically the work codifies consensus-based reporting standards through structured workshops and Delphi-style expert deliberation, and develops statistical tools (I^2, ROBINS-I) for the appraisal and synthesis of heterogeneous evidence. The redundant publication across journals of PRISMA and STROBE reflects deliberate dissemination strategy rather than separate studies.
Recent publications
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statementDOI
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA StatementDOI
- Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysesDOI
- Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
- The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and ElaborationDOI
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational StudiesDOI
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA StatementDOI
- ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventionsDOI
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studiesDOI
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: Guidelines for Reporting Observational StudiesDOI
The lab page does not clearly state student acceptance status. Email the professor directly to confirm.
How to apply
Email Douglas G. Altman 6-12 months before your application deadline. Read several recent papers and reference specific work in your message. Use our how to email a Japanese professor guide for the proven email structure.
For applications via MEXT scholarship: see our MEXT 2027 complete guide and university-specific University Recommendation track.
External profiles
- ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7183-4083
- OpenAlex: openalex.org
Profile compiled from public sources (Researchmap, OpenAlex, Kyushu University faculty directory). Last refreshed 2026-05. Report incorrect information.