ABSTRACT
Throughout the twentieth century, biomedical experts developed and redefined, in an ongoing process, evidence practices such as randomized controlled trials or meta-analyses. Recently the making of systematic reviews—the most promising type of evidence in evidence-based medicine—has been renegotiated, due to claims of decreasing quality and transparency. To reinstate the epistemic authority of this genre, experts developed the PRISMA reporting guideline. The authors want to understand how such guidelines are constructed, and how they influence and transform authoritative evidence practices. Their study draws on a document analysis of the PRISMA reporting guidelines, and expert interviews with its developers. The authors found that the guideline documents are legitimized by creating a resemblance to crucial features of scientific articles. In addition, guideline documents employ a procedural understanding of evidence practices so that they can be regulated and guided upon. Furthermore, the process of developing PRISMA employed several techniques which make it authoritative, and which are normally used in the making of clinical treatment guidelines.
