This website may not work correctly because your browser is out of date. Please update your browser .
- PRISMA flow diagram generator
Resource link
- PRISMA flow diagram templates
This tool, developed by PRISMA, can be used to develop a PRISMA flow diagram in order to report on systematic reviews.
The flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions.
The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors report a wide array of systematic reviews to assess the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. PRISMA focuses on ways in which authors can ensure the transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
We have adopted the definitions of systematic review and meta-analysis used by the Cochrane Collaboration [9]. A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyse data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyse and summarise the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies.
PRISMA (n.d.). PRISMA Flow Diagram Generator . Retrieved from: https://estech.shinyapps.io/prisma_flowdiagram/
PRISMA (n.d.). PRISMA Flow Diagram Generator . Retrieved from: http://prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/
'PRISMA flow diagram generator' is referenced in:
- Systematic review
Back to top
© 2022 BetterEvaluation. All right reserved.
Creating a PRISMA flow diagram
- PRISMA-S Extension (PRISMA for Searching)
- PRISMA-SCR Extension (PRISMA for Scoping Reviews)
- PRISMA for Scoping Reviews Tips This link opens in a new window
Choosing a PRISMA Flow Diagram
Step-by-step: prisma 2020 flow diagram, documenting other sources, updating a systematic review with prisma 2020, citing prisma 2020.
- Examples of Articles that use Prisma 2020
- Removing Duplicates This link opens in a new window
- EndNote 20 Assisting You in Research This link opens in a new window
In PRISMA 2020, there are now expanded options depending on where you search and whether you are updating a review. Version 1 of PRISMA 2020 includes databases and clinical trial or preprint registers. Version 2 includes additional sections for elaborating on other sources that you have located, such as searches on websites (like Google Scholar) or in citation lists. Both versions are available for new and updated reviews from the Equator Network's PRISMA Flow Diagram page .
To complete the the PRISMA diagram, save a copy of the diagram & checklist to use alongside your searches. It can be downloaded from the PRISMA website . I would recommend printing the diagram off and writing on it as you complete the PRISMA process. On the checklist, pay special attention to sections #6 to #8. In addition, before you begin your search you should read the PRISMA-S information & checklist.
In addition, you may find the following YouTube Video created by MD Anderson Research Library helpful. If you would like to use EndNote, here is a great video on how to integrate PRISMA with EndNote (more information on Endnote can be found here ).
Run the search for each database individually, including ALL your search terms, any MeSH or other subject headings, truncation (like hemipleg * ), and/or wildcards (like sul ? ur). Apply all your limits (such as years of search, English language only, and so on). Once all search terms have been combined and you have applied all relevant limits, you should have a final number of records or articles for each database. Enter this information in the top left box of the PRISMA flow chart. You should also keep track your searches using the PRISMA-S extension . You should add the total number of combined results from all databases (including duplicates) after the equal sign where it says Databases (n=) . Many researchers also add notations in the box for the number of results from each database search, for example, Medline with Fulltext (n=335), Cinahl Plus with Fulltext (n= 600), and so on. FYI Google Scholar should be documented following the next section about Documenting Other Sources . If you search trial registers, such as ClinicalTrials.gov , CENTRAL , ICTRP , or others, you should enter that number after the equal sign in Registers (n=) . You should also keep track of your searches using the PRISMA-S extension . Search strategies for all databases should be maintained on a document as they need to be reported in the final systematic/scoping review.
NOTE: Some citation managers automatically remove duplicates with each file you import. Be sure to capture the number of articles from your database searches before any duplicates are removed.
To avoid reviewing duplicate articles, you need to remove any articles that appear more than once in your results. I have created a page on how to Deduplicate your search results - read over this to learn how to do it. Enter the number of records removed as duplicates in the second box on your PRISMA template. If you are using automation tools to help evaluate the relevance of citations in your results, you would also enter that number here. You can use Endnote to automatically deduplicate your results - For more information see this YouTube video from JCU Library .
NOTE: If you are using Covidence to screen your articles , you can copy the numbers from the PRISMA diagram in your Covidence review into the boxes mentioned below. Covidence does not include the number of results from each database, so you will need to keep track of that number yourself. APU does not have a subscription for this however you can sign up for a free trial here .
The next step is to add the number of articles that you will screen. This should be the number of records identified minus the number from the duplicates removed box.
You will need to screen the titles and abstracts for articles which are relevant to your research question. Any articles that appear to help you provide an answer to your research question should be included. Record the number of articles excluded through title/abstract screening in the box to the right titled "Records excluded." You can optionally add exclusion reasons at this level, but they are not required until full text screening.
This is the number of articles you obtain in preparation for full text screening. Subtract the number of excluded records (Step 5) from the total number screened (Step 4) and this will be your number sought for retrieval.
List the number of articles for which you are unable to find the full text. Remember to use Article Finder & Interlibrary Loan to locate articles in which we have a subscription and to request articles from other libraries before automatically excluding them.
This should be the number of reports sought for retrieval (Step 6) minus the number of reports not retrieved (Step 7). Review the full text for these articles to assess their eligibility for inclusion in your paper.
After reviewing all articles in the full-text screening stage for eligibility, enter the total number of articles you exclude in the box titled "Reports excluded," and then list your reasons for excluding the articles as well as the number of records excluded for each reason. Examples include wrong setting, wrong patient population, wrong intervention, wrong dosage, etc. You should only count an excluded article once in your list even if if meets multiple exclusion criteria.
The final step is to subtract the number of records excluded during the eligibility review of full-texts (Step 9) from the total number of articles reviewed for eligibility (Step 8). Enter this number in the box labeled "Studies included in review," combining numbers with your sources from other methods search results in this box if needed. You have now completed your PRISMA flow diagram, unless you have also performed searches in non-database sources.
Reports of included studies: " Authors might identify a study that has results appearing in two reports (for example one providing data at three months, another at two years follow-up). In this case, the number of studies included in the review is one , whereas the number of reports of included studies is two. This distinction was introduced in the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram based on our observation that the jump from the number of reports assessed for eligibility to the number of studies included in the review (as was prompted in the original PRISMA flow diagram) sometimes resulted in some reports not being accounted for. For example, we have seen some flow diagrams where the authors report assessing fifty full-text reports for eligibility, excluding forty reports , and including eight studies (failing to indicate that two of the eight studies were published in two reports)" ( Rethlefsen & Page, 2021 ).
If you have also searched additional sources, such as professional organization websites, cited or citing references, etc., complete the additional steps listed in the following "Documenting Other Sources" .
This tool allows you to produce a flow diagram for your own review that conforms to the PRISMA2020 Statement. You can provide the numbers in the data entry section of the 'Create flow diagram' tab (click on the button at the top of the page).
It also allows you to download an interactive HTML, PDF, PNG version of the plot, alongside several other common formats.
Automatically generate your diagram using the ShinyApps Prisma Flow Diagram
Please remember to cite the tool as:
Haddaway, N. R., Page, M. J., Pritchard, C. C., & McGuinness, L. A. (2022). PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis Campbell Systematic Reviews, 18, e1230. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1230
To document other sources search, download the flow diagram template
- version 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources or the
- version 2 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources .
Complete the boxes documenting your database searches on the left side of the template as outlined in the previous box Step-by-step: PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram . Complete the right side of the template, Identification of studies via other methods, using the steps below.
If you have identified articles through other sources than databases (such as manual searches through reference lists of articles you have found or search engines like Google Scholar), enter the total number of records from each source type in the box on the top right of the flow diagram.
This should be the total number of reports you obtain from other sources.
List the number of documents for which you are unable to find the full text. Remember to use Article Finder and Interlibrary Loan to locate articles in which we have a subscription and to request articles from other libraries before automatically excluding them.
This should be the number of other source methods reports sought for retrieval (Step 2) minus the number of reports not retrieved (Step 3). Review the full text for these items to assess their eligibility for inclusion in your paper.
After reviewing all items in the full-text screening stage for eligibility, enter the total number of articles you exclude in the box titled "Reports Excluded," and then list your reasons for excluding the item as well as the number of items excluded for each reason. Examples include wrong setting, wrong patient population, wrong intervention, wrong dosage, etc. You should only count an excluded item once in your list even if if meets multiple exclusion criteria.
The final step is to subtract the number of excluded articles or records during the eligibility review of full-texts from the total number of articles reviewed for eligibility. Enter this number in the box labeled "Studies included in review," combining numbers with your database search results in this box if needed. You have now completed your PRISMA flow diagram, which you can now include in the results section of your article or assignment.
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews- databases and registers only
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews- databases, registers and other sources
When referring to PRISMA 2020, The Equator Network recommends using journal article citations (such as those in our References below) rather than referring to the PRISMA website. If you are not already using a journal article citation, they recommend that you cite one of the original publications of the PRISMA Statement or PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration .
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews - Equator Network
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement . J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:103-112.
- Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews . Bmj. 2021;372:n160.
- Radua J. PRISMA 2020 - An updated checklist for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2021;124:324-325.
- Sarkis-Onofre R, Catalá-López F, Aromataris E, Lockwood C. How to properly use the PRISMA Statement . Systematic reviews. 2021;10(1):117-117.
- Sohrabi C, Franchi T, Mathew G, et al. PRISMA 2020 statement: What's new and the importance of reporting guidelines. Int J Surg. 2021;88:105918.
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . Int J Surg. 2021;88:105906.
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021.
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . Bmj. 2021;372:n71.
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . PLoS Med. 2021;18(3):e1003583.
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews . Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):89.
- << Previous: PRISMA for Scoping Reviews Tips
- Next: Examples of Articles that use Prisma 2020 >>
- Last Updated: Feb 10, 2024 6:17 PM
- URL: https://apu.libguides.com/prisma
Literature Reviews: systematic searching at various levels
- for assignments
- for dissertations / theses
- Search strategy and searching
- Boolean Operators
- Search strategy template
- Screening & critiquing
- Citation Searching
- Google Scholar (with Lean Library)
- Resources for literature reviews
- Adding a referencing style to EndNote
- Exporting from different databases
PRISMA Flow Diagram
- Grey Literature
- What is the PRISMA Flow Diagram?
- How should I use it?
- When should I use it?
- PRISMA Links
The PRISMA Flow Diagram is a tool that can be used to record different stages of the literature search process--across multiple resources--and clearly show how a researcher went from, 'These are the databases I searched for my terms', to, 'These are the papers I'm going to talk about'.
PRISMA is not inflexible; it can be modified to suit the research needs of different people and, indeed, if you did a Google images search for the flow diagram you would see many different versions of the diagram being used. It's a good idea to have a look at a couple of those examples, and also to have a look at a couple of the articles on the PRISMA website to see how it has--and can--be used.
The PRISMA 2020 Statement was published in 2021. It consists of a checklist and a flow diagram , and is intended to be accompanied by the PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration document.
In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA 2020 Statement, it has been published in several journals.
- How to use the PRISMA Flow Diagram for literature reviews A PDF [3.81MB] of the PowerPoint used to create the video. Each slide that has notes has a callout icon on the top right of the page which can be toggled on or off to make the notes visible.
There is also a PowerPoint version of the document but the file size is too large to upload here.
If you would like a copy, please email the Academic Librarians' mailbox from your university account to ask for it to be sent to you.
This is an example of how you could fill in the PRISMA flow diagram when conducting a new review. It is not a hard and fast rule but it should give you an idea of how you can use it.
For more detailed information, please have a look at this article:
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting,P. & Moher, D. (2021) 'The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews', BMJ 372:(71). doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 .
- Example of PRISMA 2020 diagram This is an example of *one* of the PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams you can use when reporting on your research process. There is more than one form that you can use so for other forms and advice please look at the PRISMA website for full details.
Start using the flow diagram as you start searching the databases you've decided upon.
Make sure that you record the number of results that you found per database (before removing any duplicates) as per the filled in example. You can also do a Google images search for the PRISMA flow diagram to see the different ways in which people have used them to express their search processes.
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions.
- Prisma Flow Diagram This link will take you to downloadable Word and PDF copies of the flow diagram. These are modifiable and act as a starting point for you to record the process you engaged in from first search to the papers you ultimately discuss in your work. more... less... Do an image search on the internet for the flow diagram and you will be able to see all the different ways that people have modified the diagram to suit their personal research needs.
You can access the various checklists via the Equator website and the articles explaining PRISMA and its various extensions are available via PubMed.
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021) ' The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,' BMJ . Mar 29; 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 .
Page, M.J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting, P., & McKenzie, J.E. (2021) 'PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews', BMJ, Mar 29; 372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160 .
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021) ' The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,' Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, June; 134:178-189. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001 .
- << Previous: Exporting from different databases
- Next: Grey Literature >>
- Last Updated: Apr 12, 2024 11:57 AM
- URL: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/literature-reviews
- UNC Libraries
- HSL Academic Process
- Systematic Reviews
- Step 8: Write the Review
Systematic Reviews: Step 8: Write the Review
Created by health science librarians.
- Step 1: Complete Pre-Review Tasks
- Step 2: Develop a Protocol
- Step 3: Conduct Literature Searches
- Step 4: Manage Citations
- Step 5: Screen Citations
- Step 6: Assess Quality of Included Studies
- Step 7: Extract Data from Included Studies
About Step 8: Write the Review
Write your review, report your review with prisma, review sections, plain language summaries for systematic reviews, writing the review- webinars.
- Writing the Review FAQs
Check our FAQ's
Email us
Call (919) 962-0800
Make an appointment with a librarian
Request a systematic or scoping review consultation
Search the FAQs
In Step 8, you will write an article or a paper about your systematic review. It will likely have five sections: introduction, methods, results, discussion, and conclusion. You will:
- Review the reporting standards you will use, such as PRISMA.
- Gather your completed data tables and PRISMA chart.
- Write the Introduction to the topic and your study, Methods of your research, Results of your research, and Discussion of your results.
- Write an Abstract describing your study and a Conclusion summarizing your paper.
- Cite the studies included in your systematic review and any other articles you may have used in your paper.
- If you wish to publish your work, choose a target journal for your article.
The PRISMA Checklist will help you report the details of your systematic review. Your paper will also include a PRISMA chart that is an image of your research process.
Click an item below to see how it applies to Step 8: Write the Review.
Reporting your review with PRISMA
To write your review, you will need the data from your PRISMA flow diagram . Review the PRISMA checklist to see which items you should report in your methods section.
Managing your review with Covidence
When you screen in Covidence, it will record the numbers you need for your PRISMA flow diagram from duplicate removal through inclusion of studies. You may need to add additional information, such as the number of references from each database, citations you find through grey literature or other searching methods, or the number of studies found in your previous work if you are updating a systematic review.
How a librarian can help with Step 8
A librarian can advise you on the process of organizing and writing up your systematic review, including:
- Applying the PRISMA reporting templates and the level of detail to include for each element
- How to report a systematic review search strategy and your review methodology in the completed review
- How to use prior published reviews to guide you in organizing your manuscript
Reporting standards & guidelines
Be sure to reference reporting standards when writing your review. This helps ensure that you communicate essential components of your methods, results, and conclusions. There are a number of tools that can be used to ensure compliance with reporting guidelines. A few review-writing resources are listed below.
- Cochrane Handbook - Chapter 15: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions
- JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis - Chapter 12.3 The systematic review
- PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
Tools for writing your review
- RevMan (Cochrane Training)
- Methods Wizard (Systematic Review Accelerator) The Methods Wizard is part of the Systematic Review Accelerator created by Bond University and the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare.
- UNC HSL Systematic Review Manuscript Template Systematic review manuscript template(.doc) adapted from the PRISMA 2020 checklist. This document provides authors with template for writing about their systematic review. Each table contains a PRISMA checklist item that should be written about in that section, the matching PRISMA Item number, and a box where authors can indicate if an item has been completed. Once text has been added, delete any remaining instructions and the PRISMA checklist tables from the end of each section.
- The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies.
- PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews This document is intended to enhance the use, understanding and dissemination of the PRISMA 2020 Statement. Through examples and explanations, the meaning and rationale for each checklist item are presented.
The PRISMA checklist
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) is a 27-item checklist used to improve transparency in systematic reviews. These items cover all aspects of the manuscript, including title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and funding. The PRISMA checklist can be downloaded in PDF or Word files.
- PRISMA 2020 Checklists Download the 2020 PRISMA Checklists in Word or PDF formats or download the expanded checklist (PDF).
The PRISMA flow diagram
The PRISMA Flow Diagram visually depicts the flow of studies through each phase of the review process. The PRISMA Flow Diagram can be downloaded in Word files.
- PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagrams The flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions. Different templates are available depending on the type of review (new or updated) and sources used to identify studies.
Documenting grey literature and/or hand searches
If you have also searched additional sources, such as professional organization websites, cited or citing references, etc., document your grey literature search using the flow diagram template version 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources or the version 2 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources .
Complete the boxes documenting your database searches, Identification of studies via databases and registers, according to the PRISMA flow diagram instructions. Complete the boxes documenting your grey literature and/or hand searches on the right side of the template, Identification of studies via other methods, using the steps below.
Need help completing the PRISMA flow diagram?
There are different PRISMA flow diagram templates for new and updated reviews, as well as different templates for reviews with and without grey literature searches. Be sure you download the correct template to match your review methods, then follow the steps below for each portion of the diagram you have available.
View the step-by-step explanation of the PRISMA flow diagram
Step 1: Preparation Download the flow diagram template version 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only or the version 2 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only .
View the step-by-step explanation of the grey literature & hand searching portion of the PRISMA flow diagram
Step 1: Preparation Download the flow diagram template version 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources or the version 2 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources .
View the step-by-step explanation of review update portion of the PRISMA flow diagram
Step 1: Preparation Download the flow diagram template version 2 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews which included searches of databases and registers only or the version 2 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources .
For more information about updating your systematic review, see the box Updating Your Review? on the Step 3: Conduct Literature Searches page of the guide.
Sections of a Scientific Manuscript
Scientific articles often follow the IMRaD format: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Discussion. You will also need a title and an abstract to summarize your research.
You can read more about scientific writing through the library guides below.
- Structure of Scholarly Articles & Peer Review • Explains the standard parts of a medical research article • Compares scholarly journals, professional trade journals, and magazines • Explains peer review and how to find peer reviewed articles and journals
- Writing in the Health Sciences (For Students and Instructors)
- Citing & Writing Tools & Guides Includes links to guides for popular citation managers such as EndNote, Sciwheel, Zotero; copyright basics; APA & AMA Style guides; Plagiarism & Citing Sources; Citing & Writing: How to Write Scientific Papers
Sections of a Systematic Review Manuscript
Systematic reviews follow the same structure as original research articles, but you will need to report on your search instead of on details like the participants or sampling. Sections of your manuscript are shown as bold headings in the PRISMA checklist.
Refer to the PRISMA checklist for more information.
Consider including a Plain Language Summary (PLS) when you publish your systematic review. Like an abstract, a PLS gives an overview of your study, but is specifically written and formatted to be easy for non-experts to understand.
Tips for writing a PLS:
- Use clear headings e.g. "why did we do this study?"; "what did we do?"; "what did we find?"
- Use active voice e.g. "we searched for articles in 5 databases instead of "5 databases were searched"
- Consider need-to-know vs. nice-to-know: what is most important for readers to understand about your study? Be sure to provide the most important points without misrepresenting your study or misleading the reader.
- Keep it short: Many journals recommend keeping your plain language summary less than 250 words.
- Check journal guidelines: Your journal may have specific guidelines about the format of your plain language summary and when you can publish it. Look at journal guidelines before submitting your article.
Learn more about Plain Language Summaries:
- Rosenberg, A., Baróniková, S., & Feighery, L. (2021). Open Pharma recommendations for plain language summaries of peer-reviewed medical journal publications. Current Medical Research and Opinion, 37(11), 2015–2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2021.1971185
- Lobban, D., Gardner, J., & Matheis, R. (2021). Plain language summaries of publications of company-sponsored medical research: what key questions do we need to address? Current Medical Research and Opinion, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2021.1997221
- Cochrane Community. (2022, March 21). Updated template and guidance for writing Plain Language Summaries in Cochrane Reviews now available. https://community.cochrane.org/news/updated-template-and-guidance-writing-plain-language-summaries-cochrane-reviews-now-available
- You can also look at our Health Literacy LibGuide: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/healthliteracy
How to Approach Writing a Background Section
What Makes a Good Discussion Section
Writing Up Risk of Bias
Developing Your Implications for Research Section
- << Previous: Step 7: Extract Data from Included Studies
- Next: FAQs >>
- Last Updated: May 16, 2024 3:24 PM
- URL: https://guides.lib.unc.edu/systematic-reviews
Literature reviews: Health: PRISMA flowchart
- Search strategy
- Database searching
- Other ways to search
- PRISMA flowchart
- Help and support
- Health Library Guide
Look at the 'check your progress' box at the bottom of this page to make sure you have completed all the steps for this stage of your search.
Download these for your own use - a downloadable blank PRISMA you can use in your literature review and a worked example:
- Example of a PRISMA
- Blank PRISMA
The diagram below explains the steps you need work through to complete your PRISMA.
- PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews, Page et al. 2021.
Check your progress
- << Previous: Evaluating
- Next: Help and support >>
- Last Updated: May 7, 2024 8:49 AM
- URL: https://libguides.bournemouth.ac.uk/healthliteraturereview
- Open access
- Published: 29 March 2021
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
- Matthew J. Page ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4242-7526 1 ,
- Joanne E. McKenzie 1 ,
- Patrick M. Bossuyt 2 ,
- Isabelle Boutron 3 ,
- Tammy C. Hoffmann 4 ,
- Cynthia D. Mulrow 5 ,
- Larissa Shamseer 6 ,
- Jennifer M. Tetzlaff 7 ,
- Elie A. Akl 8 ,
- Sue E. Brennan 1 ,
- Roger Chou 9 ,
- Julie Glanville 10 ,
- Jeremy M. Grimshaw 11 ,
- Asbjørn Hróbjartsson 12 ,
- Manoj M. Lalu 13 ,
- Tianjing Li 14 ,
- Elizabeth W. Loder 15 ,
- Evan Mayo-Wilson 16 ,
- Steve McDonald 1 ,
- Luke A. McGuinness 17 ,
- Lesley A. Stewart 18 ,
- James Thomas 19 ,
- Andrea C. Tricco 20 ,
- Vivian A. Welch 21 ,
- Penny Whiting 17 &
- David Moher 22
Systematic Reviews volume 10 , Article number: 89 ( 2021 ) Cite this article
310k Accesses
78k Citations
102 Altmetric
Metrics details
An Editorial to this article was published on 19 April 2021
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on BMJ, PLOS Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and International Journal of Surgery journal websites.
Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers) [ 1 , 2 ]. To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this [ 3 ].
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009) [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ] is a reporting guideline designed to address poor reporting of systematic reviews [ 11 ]. The PRISMA 2009 statement comprised a checklist of 27 items recommended for reporting in systematic reviews and an “explanation and elaboration” paper [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ] providing additional reporting guidance for each item, along with exemplars of reporting. The recommendations have been widely endorsed and adopted, as evidenced by its co-publication in multiple journals, citation in over 60,000 reports (Scopus, August 2020), endorsement from almost 200 journals and systematic review organisations, and adoption in various disciplines. Evidence from observational studies suggests that use of the PRISMA 2009 statement is associated with more complete reporting of systematic reviews [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ], although more could be done to improve adherence to the guideline [ 21 ].
Many innovations in the conduct of systematic reviews have occurred since publication of the PRISMA 2009 statement. For example, technological advances have enabled the use of natural language processing and machine learning to identify relevant evidence [ 22 , 23 , 24 ], methods have been proposed to synthesise and present findings when meta-analysis is not possible or appropriate [ 25 , 26 , 27 ], and new methods have been developed to assess the risk of bias in results of included studies [ 28 , 29 ]. Evidence on sources of bias in systematic reviews has accrued, culminating in the development of new tools to appraise the conduct of systematic reviews [ 30 , 31 ]. Terminology used to describe particular review processes has also evolved, as in the shift from assessing “quality” to assessing “certainty” in the body of evidence [ 32 ]. In addition, the publishing landscape has transformed, with multiple avenues now available for registering and disseminating systematic review protocols [ 33 , 34 ], disseminating reports of systematic reviews, and sharing data and materials, such as preprint servers and publicly accessible repositories. To capture these advances in the reporting of systematic reviews necessitated an update to the PRISMA 2009 statement.
Development of PRISMA 2020
A complete description of the methods used to develop PRISMA 2020 is available elsewhere [ 35 ]. We identified PRISMA 2009 items that were often reported incompletely by examining the results of studies investigating the transparency of reporting of published reviews [ 17 , 21 , 36 , 37 ]. We identified possible modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement by reviewing 60 documents providing reporting guidance for systematic reviews (including reporting guidelines, handbooks, tools, and meta-research studies) [ 38 ]. These reviews of the literature were used to inform the content of a survey with suggested possible modifications to the 27 items in PRISMA 2009 and possible additional items. Respondents were asked whether they believed we should keep each PRISMA 2009 item as is, modify it, or remove it, and whether we should add each additional item. Systematic review methodologists and journal editors were invited to complete the online survey (110 of 220 invited responded). We discussed proposed content and wording of the PRISMA 2020 statement, as informed by the review and survey results, at a 21-member, two-day, in-person meeting in September 2018 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Throughout 2019 and 2020, we circulated an initial draft and five revisions of the checklist and explanation and elaboration paper to co-authors for feedback. In April 2020, we invited 22 systematic reviewers who had expressed interest in providing feedback on the PRISMA 2020 checklist to share their views (via an online survey) on the layout and terminology used in a preliminary version of the checklist. Feedback was received from 15 individuals and considered by the first author, and any revisions deemed necessary were incorporated before the final version was approved and endorsed by all co-authors.
The PRISMA 2020 statement
Scope of the guideline.
The PRISMA 2020 statement has been designed primarily for systematic reviews of studies that evaluate the effects of health interventions, irrespective of the design of the included studies. However, the checklist items are applicable to reports of systematic reviews evaluating other interventions (such as social or educational interventions), and many items are applicable to systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (such as evaluating aetiology, prevalence, or prognosis). PRISMA 2020 is intended for use in systematic reviews that include synthesis (such as pairwise meta-analysis or other statistical synthesis methods) or do not include synthesis (for example, because only one eligible study is identified). The PRISMA 2020 items are relevant for mixed-methods systematic reviews (which include quantitative and qualitative studies), but reporting guidelines addressing the presentation and synthesis of qualitative data should also be consulted [ 39 , 40 ]. PRISMA 2020 can be used for original systematic reviews, updated systematic reviews, or continually updated (“living”) systematic reviews. However, for updated and living systematic reviews, there may be some additional considerations that need to be addressed. Where there is relevant content from other reporting guidelines, we reference these guidelines within the items in the explanation and elaboration paper [ 41 ] (such as PRISMA-Search [ 42 ] in items 6 and 7, Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline [ 27 ] in item 13d). Box 1 includes a glossary of terms used throughout the PRISMA 2020 statement.
PRISMA 2020 is not intended to guide systematic review conduct, for which comprehensive resources are available [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. However, familiarity with PRISMA 2020 is useful when planning and conducting systematic reviews to ensure that all recommended information is captured. PRISMA 2020 should not be used to assess the conduct or methodological quality of systematic reviews; other tools exist for this purpose [ 30 , 31 ]. Furthermore, PRISMA 2020 is not intended to inform the reporting of systematic review protocols, for which a separate statement is available (PRISMA for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement [ 47 , 48 ]). Finally, extensions to the PRISMA 2009 statement have been developed to guide reporting of network meta-analyses [ 49 ], meta-analyses of individual participant data [ 50 ], systematic reviews of harms [ 51 ], systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies [ 52 ], and scoping reviews [ 53 ]; for these types of reviews we recommend authors report their review in accordance with the recommendations in PRISMA 2020 along with the guidance specific to the extension.
How to use PRISMA 2020
The PRISMA 2020 statement (including the checklists, explanation and elaboration, and flow diagram) replaces the PRISMA 2009 statement, which should no longer be used. Box 2 summarises noteworthy changes from the PRISMA 2009 statement. The PRISMA 2020 checklist includes seven sections with 27 items, some of which include sub-items (Table 1 ). A checklist for journal and conference abstracts for systematic reviews is included in PRISMA 2020. This abstract checklist is an update of the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts statement [ 54 ], reflecting new and modified content in PRISMA 2020 (Table 2 ). A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated (Fig. 1 ).
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template for systematic reviews. The new design is adapted from flow diagrams proposed by Boers [ 55 ], Mayo-Wilson et al. [ 56 ] and Stovold et al. [ 57 ] The boxes in grey should only be completed if applicable; otherwise they should be removed from the flow diagram. Note that a “report” could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report or any other document providing relevant information
We recommend authors refer to PRISMA 2020 early in the writing process, because prospective consideration of the items may help to ensure that all the items are addressed. To help keep track of which items have been reported, the PRISMA statement website ( http://www.prisma-statement.org/ ) includes fillable templates of the checklists to download and complete (also available in Additional file 1 ). We have also created a web application that allows users to complete the checklist via a user-friendly interface [ 58 ] (available at https://prisma.shinyapps.io/checklist/ and adapted from the Transparency Checklist app [ 59 ]). The completed checklist can be exported to Word or PDF. Editable templates of the flow diagram can also be downloaded from the PRISMA statement website.
We have prepared an updated explanation and elaboration paper, in which we explain why reporting of each item is recommended and present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations (which we refer to as elements) [ 41 ]. The bullet-point structure is new to PRISMA 2020 and has been adopted to facilitate implementation of the guidance [ 60 , 61 ]. An expanded checklist, which comprises an abridged version of the elements presented in the explanation and elaboration paper, with references and some examples removed, is available in Additional file 2 . Consulting the explanation and elaboration paper is recommended if further clarity or information is required.
Journals and publishers might impose word and section limits, and limits on the number of tables and figures allowed in the main report. In such cases, if the relevant information for some items already appears in a publicly accessible review protocol, referring to the protocol may suffice. Alternatively, placing detailed descriptions of the methods used or additional results (such as for less critical outcomes) in supplementary files is recommended. Ideally, supplementary files should be deposited to a general-purpose or institutional open-access repository that provides free and permanent access to the material (such as Open Science Framework, Dryad, figshare). A reference or link to the additional information should be included in the main report. Finally, although PRISMA 2020 provides a template for where information might be located, the suggested location should not be seen as prescriptive; the guiding principle is to ensure the information is reported.
Use of PRISMA 2020 has the potential to benefit many stakeholders. Complete reporting allows readers to assess the appropriateness of the methods, and therefore the trustworthiness of the findings. Presenting and summarising characteristics of studies contributing to a synthesis allows healthcare providers and policy makers to evaluate the applicability of the findings to their setting. Describing the certainty in the body of evidence for an outcome and the implications of findings should help policy makers, managers, and other decision makers formulate appropriate recommendations for practice or policy. Complete reporting of all PRISMA 2020 items also facilitates replication and review updates, as well as inclusion of systematic reviews in overviews (of systematic reviews) and guidelines, so teams can leverage work that is already done and decrease research waste [ 36 , 62 , 63 ].
We updated the PRISMA 2009 statement by adapting the EQUATOR Network’s guidance for developing health research reporting guidelines [ 64 ]. We evaluated the reporting completeness of published systematic reviews [ 17 , 21 , 36 , 37 ], reviewed the items included in other documents providing guidance for systematic reviews [ 38 ], surveyed systematic review methodologists and journal editors for their views on how to revise the original PRISMA statement [ 35 ], discussed the findings at an in-person meeting, and prepared this document through an iterative process. Our recommendations are informed by the reviews and survey conducted before the in-person meeting, theoretical considerations about which items facilitate replication and help users assess the risk of bias and applicability of systematic reviews, and co-authors’ experience with authoring and using systematic reviews.
Various strategies to increase the use of reporting guidelines and improve reporting have been proposed. They include educators introducing reporting guidelines into graduate curricula to promote good reporting habits of early career scientists [ 65 ]; journal editors and regulators endorsing use of reporting guidelines [ 18 ]; peer reviewers evaluating adherence to reporting guidelines [ 61 , 66 ]; journals requiring authors to indicate where in their manuscript they have adhered to each reporting item [ 67 ]; and authors using online writing tools that prompt complete reporting at the writing stage [ 60 ]. Multi-pronged interventions, where more than one of these strategies are combined, may be more effective (such as completion of checklists coupled with editorial checks) [ 68 ]. However, of 31 interventions proposed to increase adherence to reporting guidelines, the effects of only 11 have been evaluated, mostly in observational studies at high risk of bias due to confounding [ 69 ]. It is therefore unclear which strategies should be used. Future research might explore barriers and facilitators to the use of PRISMA 2020 by authors, editors, and peer reviewers, designing interventions that address the identified barriers, and evaluating those interventions using randomised trials. To inform possible revisions to the guideline, it would also be valuable to conduct think-aloud studies [ 70 ] to understand how systematic reviewers interpret the items, and reliability studies to identify items where there is varied interpretation of the items.
We encourage readers to submit evidence that informs any of the recommendations in PRISMA 2020 (via the PRISMA statement website: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ ). To enhance accessibility of PRISMA 2020, several translations of the guideline are under way (see available translations at the PRISMA statement website). We encourage journal editors and publishers to raise awareness of PRISMA 2020 (for example, by referring to it in journal “Instructions to authors”), endorsing its use, advising editors and peer reviewers to evaluate submitted systematic reviews against the PRISMA 2020 checklists, and making changes to journal policies to accommodate the new reporting recommendations. We recommend existing PRISMA extensions [ 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 71 , 72 ] be updated to reflect PRISMA 2020 and advise developers of new PRISMA extensions to use PRISMA 2020 as the foundation document.
We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders. Ultimately, we hope that uptake of the guideline will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making.
Box 1 Glossary of terms
Systematic review —A review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesise findings of studies that address a clearly formulated question [ 43 ]
Statistical synthesis —The combination of quantitative results of two or more studies. This encompasses meta-analysis of effect estimates (described below) and other methods, such as combining P values, calculating the range and distribution of observed effects, and vote counting based on the direction of effect (see McKenzie and Brennan [ 25 ] for a description of each method)
Meta-analysis of effect estimates —A statistical technique used to synthesise results when study effect estimates and their variances are available, yielding a quantitative summary of results [ 25 ]
Outcome —An event or measurement collected for participants in a study (such as quality of life, mortality)
Result —The combination of a point estimate (such as a mean difference, risk ratio, or proportion) and a measure of its precision (such as a confidence/credible interval) for a particular outcome
Report —A document (paper or electronic) supplying information about a particular study. It could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report, or any other document providing relevant information
Record —The title or abstract (or both) of a report indexed in a database or website (such as a title or abstract for an article indexed in Medline). Records that refer to the same report (such as the same journal article) are “duplicates”; however, records that refer to reports that are merely similar (such as a similar abstract submitted to two different conferences) should be considered unique.
Study —An investigation, such as a clinical trial, that includes a defined group of participants and one or more interventions and outcomes. A “study” might have multiple reports. For example, reports could include the protocol, statistical analysis plan, baseline characteristics, results for the primary outcome, results for harms, results for secondary outcomes, and results for additional mediator and moderator analyses
Box 2 Noteworthy changes to the PRISMA 2009 statement
• Inclusion of the abstract reporting checklist within PRISMA 2020 (see item #2 and Box 2 ).
• Movement of the ‘Protocol and registration’ item from the start of the Methods section of the checklist to a new Other section, with addition of a sub-item recommending authors describe amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol (see item #24a-24c).
• Modification of the ‘Search’ item to recommend authors present full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites searched, not just at least one database (see item #7).
• Modification of the ‘Study selection’ item in the Methods section to emphasise the reporting of how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process (see item #8).
• Addition of a sub-item to the ‘Data items’ item recommending authors report how outcomes were defined, which results were sought, and methods for selecting a subset of results from included studies (see item #10a).
• Splitting of the ‘Synthesis of results’ item in the Methods section into six sub-items recommending authors describe: the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis; any methods required to prepare the data for synthesis; any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses; any methods used to synthesise results; any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (such as subgroup analysis, meta-regression); and any sensitivity analyses used to assess robustness of the synthesised results (see item #13a-13f).
• Addition of a sub-item to the ‘Study selection’ item in the Results section recommending authors cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded (see item #16b).
• Splitting of the ‘Synthesis of results’ item in the Results section into four sub-items recommending authors: briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among studies contributing to the synthesis; present results of all statistical syntheses conducted; present results of any investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results; and present results of any sensitivity analyses (see item #20a-20d).
• Addition of new items recommending authors report methods for and results of an assessment of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome (see items #15 and #22).
• Addition of a new item recommending authors declare any competing interests (see item #26).
• Addition of a new item recommending authors indicate whether data, analytic code and other materials used in the review are publicly available and if so, where they can be found (see item #27).
Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature. 2018;555:175–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753 .
Article CAS PubMed Google Scholar
Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Syst Rev. 2019;8:170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2 .
Article PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Moher D. Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers. BMC Med. 2018;16:233. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1226-0 .
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9, W64. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 .
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 .
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 .
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 .
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 .
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3:e123–30.
PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Reprint--preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther. 2009;89:873–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873 .
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 .
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 .
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 .
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W65–94. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 .
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 .
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting. systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care. interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 .
Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 .
Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8:e83138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 .
Article CAS PubMed PubMed Central Google Scholar
Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Limb C, et al. Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: a before and after study. Int J Surg. 2016;30:169–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032 .
Leclercq V, Beaudart C, Ajamieh S, Rabenda V, Tirelli E, Bruyère O. Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;115:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.014 .
Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2017;6:263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8 .
O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 .
Marshall IJ, Noel-Storr A, Kuiper J, Thomas J, Wallace BC. Machine learning for identifying randomized controlled trials: an evaluation and practitioner’s guide. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9:602–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1287 .
Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2019;8:163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9 .
McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: Cochrane; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch12 .
Chapter Google Scholar
Higgins JPT, López-López JA, Becker BJ, et al. Synthesising quantitative evidence in systematic reviews of complex health interventions. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000858. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858 .
Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890 .
Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898 .
Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 .
Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, ROBIS group, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 .
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 .
Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, et al. The GRADE working group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006 .
Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-2 .
Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Establishing a new journal for systematic review products. Syst Rev. 2012;1:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-1 .
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;134:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003 .
Page MJ, Altman DG, Shamseer L, et al. Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;94:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.017 .
Page MJ, Altman DG, McKenzie JE, et al. Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.022 .
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;118:60–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.010 .
Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 .
France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0 .
Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 .
Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S Group PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z .
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 6.0. London: Cochrane; 2019. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook
Book Google Scholar
Dekkers OM, Vandenbroucke JP, Cevallos M, Renehan AG, Altman DG, Egger M. COSMOS-E: guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology. PLoS Med. 2019;16:e1002742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742 .
Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JV. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2019.
IOM (Institute of Medicine). Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2011.
Google Scholar
Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, PRISMA-P Group, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 .
Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, PRISMA-P Group, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 .
Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385 .
Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, PRISMA-IPD Development Group, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA. 2015;313:1657–65. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3656 .
Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al. PRISMAHarms Group PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i157 .
McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, the PRISMA-DTA Group, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA. 2018;319:388–96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163 .
Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 .
Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA for Abstracts Group PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 .
Boers M. Graphics and statistics for cardiology: designing effective tables for presentation and publication. Heart. 2018;104:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311581 .
Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin K, MUDS investigators. Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Res Synth Methods. 2018;9:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1277 .
Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev. 2014;3:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-54 .
McGuinness LA. mcguinlu/PRISMA-Checklist: Initial release for manuscript submission (Version v1.0.0). Geneva: Zenodo; 2020. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3994319 .
Aczel B, Szaszi B, Sarafoglou A, et al. A consensus-based transparency checklist. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4:4–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0772-6 .
Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2015;13:221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y .
Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Moher D, et al. Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study. BMC Med. 2019;17:205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0 .
Wayant C, Page MJ, Vassar M. Evaluation of reproducible research practices in oncology systematic reviews with meta-analyses referenced by national comprehensive cancer network guidelines. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1550–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2564 .
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge. Syst Rev. 2017;6:185. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0582-8 .
Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 .
Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010;8:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-24 .
Speich B, Schroter S, Briel M, et al. Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035114. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035114 .
Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3804 .
Hair K, Macleod MR, Sena ES, IICARus Collaboration. A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus). Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3 .
Blanco D, Altman D, Moher D, Boutron I, Kirkham JJ, Cobo E. Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026589. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026589 .
Charters E. The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Educ J. 2003;12:68–82. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38 .
Article Google Scholar
Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group, et al. PRISMA-equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333 .
Wang X, Chen Y, Liu Y, et al. Reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of acupuncture: the PRISMA for acupuncture checklist. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019;19:208. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-019-2624-3 .
Download references
Acknowledgements
We dedicate this paper to the late Douglas G Altman and Alessandro Liberati, whose contributions were fundamental to the development and implementation of the original PRISMA statement.
We thank the following contributors who completed the survey to inform discussions at the development meeting: Xavier Armoiry, Edoardo Aromataris, Ana Patricia Ayala, Ethan M Balk, Virginia Barbour, Elaine Beller, Jesse A Berlin, Lisa Bero, Zhao-Xiang Bian, Jean Joel Bigna, Ferrán Catalá-López, Anna Chaimani, Mike Clarke, Tammy Clifford, Ioana A Cristea, Miranda Cumpston, Sofia Dias, Corinna Dressler, Ivan D Florez, Joel J Gagnier, Chantelle Garritty, Long Ge, Davina Ghersi, Sean Grant, Gordon Guyatt, Neal R Haddaway, Julian PT Higgins, Sally Hopewell, Brian Hutton, Jamie J Kirkham, Jos Kleijnen, Julia Koricheva, Joey SW Kwong, Toby J Lasserson, Julia H Littell, Yoon K Loke, Malcolm R Macleod, Chris G Maher, Ana Marušic, Dimitris Mavridis, Jessie McGowan, Matthew DF McInnes, Philippa Middleton, Karel G Moons, Zachary Munn, Jane Noyes, Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit, Donald L Patrick, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Ba′ Pham, Bob Phillips, Dawid Pieper, Michelle Pollock, Daniel S Quintana, Drummond Rennie, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Hannah R Rothstein, Maroeska M Rovers, Rebecca Ryan, Georgia Salanti, Ian J Saldanha, Margaret Sampson, Nancy Santesso, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, Jelena Savović, Christopher H Schmid, Kenneth F Schulz, Guido Schwarzer, Beverley J Shea, Paul G Shekelle, Farhad Shokraneh, Mark Simmonds, Nicole Skoetz, Sharon E Straus, Anneliese Synnot, Emily E Tanner-Smith, Brett D Thombs, Hilary Thomson, Alexander Tsertsvadze, Peter Tugwell, Tari Turner, Lesley Uttley, Jeffrey C Valentine, Matt Vassar, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Meera Viswanathan, Cole Wayant, Paul Whaley, and Kehu Yang. We thank the following contributors who provided feedback on a preliminary version of the PRISMA 2020 checklist: Jo Abbott, Fionn Büttner, Patricia Correia-Santos, Victoria Freeman, Emily A Hennessy, Rakibul Islam, Amalia (Emily) Karahalios, Kasper Krommes, Andreas Lundh, Dafne Port Nascimento, Davina Robson, Catherine Schenck-Yglesias, Mary M Scott, Sarah Tanveer and Pavel Zhelnov. We thank Abigail H Goben, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Tanja Rombey, Anna Scott, and Farhad Shokraneh for their helpful comments on the preprints of the PRISMA 2020 papers. We thank Edoardo Aromataris, Stephanie Chang, Toby Lasserson and David Schriger for their helpful peer review comments on the PRISMA 2020 papers.
Provenance and peer review
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient and public involvement
Patients and the public were not involved in this methodological research. We plan to disseminate the research widely, including to community participants in evidence synthesis organisations.
There was no direct funding for this research. MJP is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200101618) and was previously supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (1088535) during the conduct of this research. JEM is supported by an Australian NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1143429). TCH is supported by an Australian NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1154607). JMT is supported by Evidence Partners Inc. JMG is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. MML is supported by The Ottawa Hospital Anaesthesia Alternate Funds Association and a Faculty of Medicine Junior Research Chair. TL is supported by funding from the National Eye Institute (UG1EY020522), National Institutes of Health, United States. LAM is supported by a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (DRF-2018-11-ST2–048). ACT is supported by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. DM is supported in part by a University Research Chair, University of Ottawa. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Matthew J. Page, Joanne E. McKenzie, Sue E. Brennan & Steve McDonald
Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Patrick M. Bossuyt
Université de Paris, Centre of Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, F 75004, Paris, France
Isabelle Boutron
Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
Tammy C. Hoffmann
Annals of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA
Cynthia D. Mulrow
Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Larissa Shamseer
Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada
Jennifer M. Tetzlaff
Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Elie A. Akl
Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA
York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC Ltd), University of York, York, UK
Julie Glanville
Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Jeremy M. Grimshaw
Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, JB Winsløwsvej 9b, 3rd Floor, 5000 Odense, Denmark; Open Patient data Exploratory Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; Regenerative Medicine Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
Manoj M. Lalu
Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Tianjing Li
Division of Headache, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Head of Research, The BMJ, London, UK
Elizabeth W. Loder
Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, USA
Evan Mayo-Wilson
Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Luke A. McGuinness & Penny Whiting
Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
Lesley A. Stewart
EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK
James Thomas
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Epidemiology Division of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Institute of Health Management, Policy, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
Andrea C. Tricco
Methods Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Vivian A. Welch
Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
David Moher
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Contributions
JEM and DM are joint senior authors. MJP, JEM, PMB, IB, TCH, CDM, LS, and DM conceived this paper and designed the literature review and survey conducted to inform the guideline content. MJP conducted the literature review, administered the survey and analysed the data for both. MJP prepared all materials for the development meeting. MJP and JEM presented proposals at the development meeting. All authors except for TCH, JMT, EAA, SEB, and LAM attended the development meeting. MJP and JEM took and consolidated notes from the development meeting. MJP and JEM led the drafting and editing of the article. JEM, PMB, IB, TCH, LS, JMT, EAA, SEB, RC, JG, AH, TL, EMW, SM, LAM, LAS, JT, ACT, PW, and DM drafted particular sections of the article. All authors were involved in revising the article critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the article. MJP is the guarantor of this work. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.
Corresponding author
Correspondence to Matthew J. Page .
Ethics declarations
Competing interests.
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ and declare: EL is head of research for the BMJ ; MJP is an editorial board member for PLOS Medicine ; ACT is an associate editor and MJP, TL, EMW, and DM are editorial board members for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology ; DM and LAS were editors in chief, LS, JMT, and ACT are associate editors, and JG is an editorial board member for Systematic Reviews . None of these authors were involved in the peer review process or decision to publish. TCH has received personal fees from Elsevier outside the submitted work. EMW has received personal fees from the American Journal for Public Health , for which he is the editor for systematic reviews. VW is editor in chief of the Campbell Collaboration, which produces systematic reviews, and co-convenor of the Campbell and Cochrane equity methods group. DM is chair of the EQUATOR Network, IB is adjunct director of the French EQUATOR Centre and TCH is co-director of the Australasian EQUATOR Centre, which advocates for the use of reporting guidelines to improve the quality of reporting in research articles. JMT received salary from Evidence Partners, creator of DistillerSR software for systematic reviews; Evidence Partners was not involved in the design or outcomes of the statement, and the views expressed solely represent those of the author.
Additional information
Publisher’s note.
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Additional file 1..
PRISMA 2020 checklist.
Additional file 2.
PRISMA 2020 expanded checklist.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
Reprints and permissions
About this article
Cite this article.
Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10 , 89 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Download citation
Accepted : 04 January 2021
Published : 29 March 2021
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Share this article
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Systematic Reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
- Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
- General enquiries: [email protected]
How to Create an Effective PRISMA Flow Diagram
A PRISMA flow diagram is a visual representation of the study selection process in a systematic review or meta-analysis. PRISMA flow charts help improve transparency, methodological quality, and reporting in these types of studies, making it easier for authors, reviewers, and readers to understand the research process and assess potential biases.
Updated on December 27, 2023
If you’ve ever read a systematic review and/or meta-analysis , you may have noticed that the authors followed the “PRISMA guidelines”. But what exactly does that mean?
According to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) website, “PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA primarily focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating the effects of interventions, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (e.g. evaluating etiology, prevalence, diagnosis or prognosis).”
What is a PRISMA flow diagram?
A PRISMA flow diagram is an image that shows the flow of information in a systematic review or meta-analysis. PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, which is an evidence-based set of reporting guidelines developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting in these types of studies.
A PRISMA flow diagram provides a visual overview of the different stages in a systematic review or meta-analysis, including the identification, screening, eligibility assessment, and inclusion of studies. It helps researchers and readers understand the study selection process in the review and any reasons for excluding certain studies.
The flow diagram typically starts with the initial number of studies identified through database searches. It then outlines the number of studies remaining after removing duplicates and the number of studies excluded at each stage based on predefined eligibility criteria. Finally, it shows the number of studies included in the final analysis.
The PRISMA flow chart is an important component of a systematic review or meta-analysis , as it provides a clear overview of the study selection process. It allows readers to assess the rigor and comprehensiveness of the review and helps researchers avoid bias or potential errors in study selection.
What are the benefits of using PRISMA?
For authors:.
- Transparency : PRISMA flow charts enhance the transparency of the research process and help authors clearly communicate the steps taken to identify, screen, and include/exclude studies, promoting transparency and reproducibility.
- Methodological quality : A PRISMA flow diagram helps authors maintain a clear and organized record of their study selection process, which is crucial in assessing the reliability and validity of the review.
- Reduced bias : A PRISMA flow diagram documents the number of studies identified, screened, and included/excluded, with the reasons for exclusion. This transparency helps readers evaluate potential bias and assess the generalizability of the findings.
- Enhanced reporting : A PRISMA flow diagram supplements the written description of the study selection process, allowing authors to present a comprehensive and visually appealing summary of their work. This visual representation helps readers quickly understand the selection of studies and the reasons for their inclusion or exclusion.
- Compliance with guidelines : Many academic journals and research institutions require authors to adhere to PRISMA guidelines when conducting systematic reviews or meta-analyses.
For Journal Peer Reviewers and Editors:
- Evaluation of study selection process : PRISMA flow diagrams allow reviewers and editors to evaluate the study selection process followed by the authors. The flow diagram provides a clear overview of the number of records identified, screened, and included/excluded at each stage, enabling reviewers to assess the quality and comprehensiveness of the review.
- Assessment of bias and generalizability : By reviewing the PRISMA flow chart, reviewers can examine the reasons for excluding studies from the review. This information allows them to evaluate potential sources of bias and assess the generalizability of the findings.
- Reproducibility and transparency : PRISMA flow diagrams enhance the reproducibility and transparency of research. Reviewers and other researchers can easily follow the flow diagram to repeat the steps taken by the authors in selecting studies for inclusion.
- Compliance with guidelines : PRISMA flow diagrams are aligned with the PRISMA guidelines and checklist. Reviewers can use the flow diagram to ensure that the authors have complied with these guidelines and followed appropriate reporting standards.
- Assessment of methodological quality : Reviewers can use the PRISMA flow diagram as a tool to evaluate the methodological quality of the systematic review or meta-analysis. They can ensure that all relevant studies have been included and irrelevant ones excluded.
What is included in a PRISMA flow diagram?
A PRISMA flow diagram includes several elements and provides a visual representation of the study selection process in a systematic review or meta-analysis. Blow are the key components typically included in a PRISMA flow diagram:
1) Identification
The flow diagram starts with the initial number of records identified through various sources such as literature databases, manual searches, or other means.
Flow diagram from: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/
2) Screening
It shows the number of records remaining after removing duplicates. This stage involves screening the titles and abstracts of the identified records to assess their relevance to the research question or objective.
3) Eligibility
The flow diagram indicates the number of studies that passed the initial screening and proceeded to the next stage. At this stage, full-text articles of potentially relevant studies are assessed against predetermined eligibility criteria.
4) Inclusion/Exclusion
It presents the number of studies included in the systematic review or meta-analysis. These studies have met the predefined eligibility criteria and are considered suitable for further analysis. The flow diagram highlights the number of studies excluded at different stages and the reasons for their exclusion. Common reasons for exclusion include irrelevance to the research question, inadequate study design, insufficient data, or failure to meet specific inclusion criteria.
5) Data Extraction
Depending on the study design and objectives, the flow diagram may include a stage for data extraction, where the number of studies included for data extraction is recorded. Data extraction involves extracting relevant information from the included studies, such as study characteristics, outcomes, and effect sizes.
6) Synthesis
While not always included in the flow diagram, some flow diagrams may show the number of studies included in the synthesis or analysis phase. This stage involves synthesizing the findings of the included studies, often through statistical methods, to draw overall conclusions.
PRISMA flow diagram examples and templates
Examples of and templates for PRISMA flow diagrams can be found on the PRISMA webpage .
PRISMA flow chart best practices
When creating a PRISMA flow diagram, it is important to follow certain best practices to ensure accuracy, clarity, and adherence to the PRISMA guidelines.
Before creating the flow diagram, thoroughly read and understand the PRISMA guidelines. Familiarize yourself with the recommended reporting items and the flow diagram structure specified in the guidelines.
Avoid overcrowding the flow diagram with excessive text or unnecessary details. Use concise and clear descriptions for each stage, ensuring that readers can easily follow the flow of information.
Include the necessary information in each step of the flow chart. This typically includes the number of studies or records at each stage (n= ), reasons for exclusion (if applicable), and the final number of studies included in the analysis.
Use consistent terminology throughout the flow diagram. Ensure that the terms used in the flow diagram match those used in the text.
If possible, provide detailed information on the reasons for excluding studies at each stage. This can include specific eligibility criteria not met, study design limitations, or any other relevant details that justify exclusion. However, be mindful of space constraints and the need for readability.
Double-check the accuracy of the flow diagram by cross-referencing it with the study selection process described in the text. Ensure that the flow diagram accurately represents the steps taken and the number of studies at each stage.
If any changes occur during the review process (e.g., updated searches, additional screening rounds), update the flow diagram accordingly to reflect the most current information accurately.
Challenges with PRISMA flow diagrams
While PRISMA flow diagrams have several benefits, there are also some challenges associated with their creation and interpretation. Here are some common challenges:
- Complexity of the study selection process : The study selection process in systematic reviews or meta-analyses can be complex, involving multiple screening rounds, eligibility criteria, and decision-making criteria. Representing this complexity in a concise and clear flow diagram can be challenging, especially when dealing with a large number of studies.
- Space constraints : Journals often have limitations on the space available for figures and flow diagrams. PRISMA flow diagrams need to be designed to fit within these limitations, which can make it difficult to include all relevant information and maintain readability.
- Limited information in the flow diagram : PRISMA flow charts provide a summary of the study selection process but may not capture all the details and nuances of the inclusion and exclusion decisions. The flow diagram alone may not fully explain the reasons behind each decision, which may require referring to the main text for more comprehensive information.
- Evolving review process : Systematic reviews and meta-analyses can be iterative processes, involving ongoing updates, additional searches, or changes in inclusion/exclusion criteria. Keeping the flow diagram up to date with these changes can be challenging, especially if multiple versions of the flow diagram exist.
- Interpretation challenges : Readers and reviewers may interpret the flow diagram differently, leading to potential misunderstandings or misinterpretations. The flow diagram should be designed and described in a way that minimizes ambiguity and maximizes clarity.
Final thoughts
PRISMA flow diagrams benefit both authors and readers by promoting transparency, methodological quality, reduced bias, enhanced reporting, and compliance with guidelines. They contribute to the overall quality and credibility of the systematic review or meta-analysis, enabling readers to assess the reliability and validity of the study selection process.
PRISMA flow diagrams remain valuable tools for summarizing and visualizing the study selection process in both systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
For more in-depth information about PRISMA flow charts, check out the article titled PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews in the BMJ .
Catherine Zettel Nalen, MS
Academic Editor, Specialist, and Journal Recommendation Team Lead
See our "Privacy Policy"
MSU Libraries
- Need help? Ask a Librarian
Nursing Literature Reviews
- Literature and Other Types of Reviews
- Starting Your Search
- Developing a Research Question and the Literature Search Process
- Conducting a Literature Search
- Levels of Evidence
- Creating a PRISMA Table
- Literature Table and Synthesis
- Other Resources
PRISMA Diagrams
- PRISMA 2020 Template
- PRISMA 2009 Template
Introduction to a PRISMA Table
PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. It is intended to show the research process from search to abstract review to full text selection. Those reading an article should pay attention to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and how authors determined articles for inclusion in their final research.
From the PRISMA website: "PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions."
PRISMA Flow Diagram (PDF and downloadable Word doc)
Introduction to PRISMA Tables
Examples of prisma tables.
Folkestad, T., Brurberg, K.G., Nordhuus, K.M. et al. Acute kidney injury in burn patients admitted to the intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care 24, 2 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13054-019-2710-4
- << Previous: Levels of Evidence
- Next: Literature Table and Synthesis >>
- Last Updated: May 10, 2024 9:36 AM
- URL: https://libguides.lib.msu.edu/nursinglitreview
- Macquarie University Library
- Subject and Research Guides
Systematic Reviews
- Step 6: PRISMA Flow Diagram & Screen
- Step 1: Check Protocols & Guides
- Step 2: Form a Question
- Step 3: Develop a Search Strategy & Criteria
- Grey Literature
- Documenting the Search
- Step 5: Export Results with EndNote, Mendeley
- Review Software and Tools
- Step 7: Extract Data
- Step 8: Appraise Studies & Assess Risk of Bias
- Step 9: Synthesise & Interpret, Meta-analyses
- Step 10: Templates, Write & Publish
- Non-Health Systematic Reviews
PRISMA Flow Diagram & Diagram Generator Tool
Your systematic review can be documented using the PRISMA Flow Diagram:
The PRISMA flow diagram visually summarises the screening process. It initially records the number of articles found and then makes the selection process transparent by reporting on decisions made at various stages of the systematic review. Numbers of articles are recorded at the different stages. When you're excluding articles at the full-text stage, it is important to include the reasons for exclusion.
See the Prisma2020 site for more information including all available downloads for Statement and Flow Diagram.
- PRISMA Flow Diagram
- PRISMA Flow Diagram Generator
Screening Results
Screening your results.
Once you have completed your searches and used a reference manager (such as EndNote or Mendeley) to export your results, you can then begin screening your results. Screening can be done using EndNote or you can use a screening tool eg Covidence (your references can be exported from EndNote to Covidence).
You can commence the selection of relevant studies based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. This process is usually done by 2-3 independent reviewers so as to control selection bias and minimise the risk of excluding any relevant studies. When there is disagreement between reviewers then discussion can occur to decide outcomes.
Example of a screening workflow
Remove duplicate records from your results
Examine titles and abstracts to exclude articles that don't meet the inclusion criteria
Find the full text of relevant articles
Keep together any reports referring to the same study
Screen full-text articles against criteria for inclusion
Make any final decisions on study inclusion
Further Reading
- Article: The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
- Article: Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large‐evidence systematic reviews and meta‐analyses
- Article: Considerations for conducting systematic reviews: evaluating the performance of different methods for de-duplicating references
- Article: Managing and coding references for systematic reviews and scoping reviews in EndNote
- Article: Can abstract screening workload be reduced using text mining? User experiences of the tool Rayyan
- Article: Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers
- Article: Software tools for literature screening in systematic reviews in biomedical research
- Article: Covidence and Rayyan (Review)
- Article: Usability and acceptability of four systematic review automation software packages: a mixed method design
- Article: Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation
- << Previous: Review Software and Tools
- Next: Step 7: Extract Data >>
- Last Updated: Dec 5, 2023 2:23 PM
- URL: https://libguides.mq.edu.au/systematic_reviews
- UofGH Library Services
- Research Guides
Systematic Reviews
- PRISMA Diagram & Checklist
- PubMed: Create a Systematic Search
PRISMA Templates
Download these fillable templates to include the PRISMA Flow Diagram and Checklist in your systematic review.
What is PRISMA?
PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. It is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.
The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a 4-phase flow diagram. These items have been adapted for use by students conducting systematic reviews as part of the course requirements for KIN 4400.
For more information, consult the PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration document.
Why PRISMA?
PRISMA is the recognized standard for reporting evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The standards are endorsed by organizations and journals in the health sciences.
Benefits of using PRISMA
- Demonstrate quality of the review
- Allow readers to assess strengths and weaknesses
- Permits replication of review methods
- Structure and format the review using PRISMA headings
- << Previous: Start Here
- Next: PubMed: Create a Systematic Search >>
- Last Updated: Apr 10, 2024 3:48 PM
- URL: https://guelphhumber.libguides.com/systematic-reviews
Searching for Systematic Reviews & Evidence Synthesis: Recording your search strategy and results
- Define your search question
- Searching Databases
- Drawing up your search strategy
- Advanced search techniques
- Using Filters
- Grey Literature
- Recording your search strategy and results
- Managing References & Software Tools
- Further information
- Library Workshops, Drop ins and 1-2-1s
- AI tools in evidence synthesis
PRISMA (the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) Updated in March 2021. In February 2021 the PRISMA extension for searching was published. The new searching checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. It includes the guidance to "Include the search strategies for each database and information source, copied and pasted exactly as run "
- PRISMA Checklist The PRISMA checklist is a 27-part list of the qualities a high-quality paper should contain. Using it you would appraise the quality of a paper's structure, methodology, reporting and more. You can use it on your own paper to check where you need to improve!
- PRISMA Flow Diagram The flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions. Different templates are available depending on the type of review (new or updated) and sources used to identify studies.
- PRISMA Extension for Searching The checklist includes 16 reporting items, each of which is detailed with exemplar reporting and rationale. A detailed introduction to the searching is available at Rethlefsen, M.L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S. et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Syst Rev 10, 39 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
Several extensions of the PRISMA Statement have been developed to facilitate the reporting of different types or aspects of systematic reviews. These include for Abstracts; Equity; Harms (for reviews including Harm outcomes); Individual Patient Data; Network Meta-Analyses; Protocols; Diagnostic Test Accuracy; and Scoping Reviews.
- PRISMA 2020: updated guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses YouTube video presentation from 2019 introducing the PRISMA 2020 guidelines currently in development.
- PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: common questions on tracking records and the flow diagram Article answering some common questions about how PRISMA-S and the 2021 update to PRISMA work together. more... less... Rethlefsen, M. L., & Page, M. J. (2022). PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S: common questions on tracking records and the flow diagram. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 110(2), 253–257. https://doi.org/10.5195/jmla.2022.1449
Reporting your search strategy
The PRISMA 2020 checklist states for '#7 Search strategy' that you should "Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used". The new 2021 PRISMA extension for searching extends this to " include the search strategies for each database and information source, copied and pasted exactly as run" . These reported electronic search strategies normally appear in an appendix or as supplementary material to a published systematic review as they are too long to include in the main part of the systematic review. Some published systematic reviews only include a search strategy optimised for one database whilst others e.g. some Cochrane systematic reviews will publish the search strategies for all databases searched. It is not necessary to include the number of results for each search line (although this can be helpful if you are seeking feedback on the search strategy).
In many databases you can simply copy and paste the search strategy from the screen but you may also find that some databases allow you to download the search strategy (which may require less formatting than the copy and paste option).
For a search strategy on the Ovid platform (Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Global Health etc) take the following steps:
4) Select Word as the download format and ensure the Include Search History tick box is ticked. Click Export.
5) Open the Word document to view the search strategy at the top. This can be copied and pasted into e.g. an appendix or used to send to a colleague for peer review or posted to the King's KEATS KLaSS Searching for Systematic Reviews Discussion Forum for feedback [you may need to self-enrol at the main KEATS KLaSS module first before posting].
Ovid Search History Launcher
Ovid have now made available a way to run a search strategy that someone else has sent you e.g. from Medline, Embase, PsycInfo etc. The Search History Launcher is available on their website . You copy and paste the search history in (you will need to edit out search line numbers). It works on campus without having to enter a username or password.
This will be useful for:
- sharing a search strategy with a colleague so that they can see your search, its results and adapt it.
- when using a published search filter to add to your own search e.g. to limit to UK research or only a specific publication type e.g. RCTs or qualitative studies.
- when adapting a search strategy on a specific concept from another published systematic review.
Study Flow Diagram example
Examples of flow diagrams from published systematic reviews (see the PRISMA Flow Diagram for a template).
You will see the information recorded can differ even in Cochrane Reviews but the flow diagram can be a useful place to summarise what databases and other resources have been searched and the reasons why full text articles which were assessed have been excluded (as recommended by PRISMA).
From: Kew KM, Carr R, Donovan T, Gordon M. Asthma education for school staff. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2017, Issue 4. Art. No.: CD012255. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012255.pub2.
From: Welsh EJ, Carr R. Pulse oximeters to self monitor oxygen saturation levels as part of a personalised asthma action plan for people with asthma. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2015, Issue 9. Art. No.: CD011584. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011584.pub2.
Publishing your search strategy
Best practice is to publish your systematic review search strategy alongside the systematic review. As well as including this in an appendix/supplementary information on a journal site it can also be submitted to a data repository.
- The King's Research Data Management System is a a research data repository service providing long term storage and public access for datasets that support published research and/or have long term value. Search strategies fall into this category. View the Libraries & Collections Research Support webpage (Preserve > Deposit with King's tab) f or more information on how to submit. Please note that this is normally limited to researcher and PhD level.
- Other data repositories are also linked from the Libraries & Collections Research Support webpage (Preserve > Deposit your data tab)
- << Previous: Grey Literature
- Next: Managing References & Software Tools >>
- Last Updated: May 14, 2024 1:15 PM
- URL: https://libguides.kcl.ac.uk/systematicreview
© 2017 King's College London | Strand | London WC2R 2LS | England | United Kingdom | Tel +44 (0)20 7836 5454
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
- Publications
- Account settings
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
- Advanced Search
- Journal List
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Matthew j. page.
1 School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Joanne E. McKenzie
Patrick m. bossuyt.
2 Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands
Isabelle Boutron
3 Université de Paris, Centre of Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, F 75004 Paris, France
Tammy C. Hoffmann
4 Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia
Cynthia D. Mulrow
5 Annals of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas USA
Larissa Shamseer
6 Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Jennifer M. Tetzlaff
7 Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada
Elie A. Akl
8 Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario Canada
Sue E. Brennan
9 Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR USA
Julie Glanville
10 York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC Ltd), University of York, York, UK
Jeremy M. Grimshaw
11 Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Asbjørn Hróbjartsson
12 Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, JB Winsløwsvej 9b, 3rd Floor, 5000 Odense, Denmark; Open Patient data Exploratory Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
Manoj M. Lalu
13 Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; Regenerative Medicine Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
Tianjing Li
14 Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland USA
Elizabeth W. Loder
15 Division of Headache, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Head of Research, The BMJ, London, UK
Evan Mayo-Wilson
16 Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana USA
Steve McDonald
Luke a. mcguinness.
17 Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Lesley A. Stewart
18 Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK
James Thomas
19 EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK
Andrea C. Tricco
20 Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Epidemiology Division of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Institute of Health Management, Policy, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
Vivian A. Welch
21 Methods Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Penny Whiting
David moher.
22 Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
Associated Data
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on BMJ, PLOS Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and International Journal of Surgery journal websites.
Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers) [ 1 , 2 ]. To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this [ 3 ].
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009) [ 4 – 10 ] is a reporting guideline designed to address poor reporting of systematic reviews [ 11 ]. The PRISMA 2009 statement comprised a checklist of 27 items recommended for reporting in systematic reviews and an “explanation and elaboration” paper [ 12 – 16 ] providing additional reporting guidance for each item, along with exemplars of reporting. The recommendations have been widely endorsed and adopted, as evidenced by its co-publication in multiple journals, citation in over 60,000 reports (Scopus, August 2020), endorsement from almost 200 journals and systematic review organisations, and adoption in various disciplines. Evidence from observational studies suggests that use of the PRISMA 2009 statement is associated with more complete reporting of systematic reviews [ 17 – 20 ], although more could be done to improve adherence to the guideline [ 21 ].
Many innovations in the conduct of systematic reviews have occurred since publication of the PRISMA 2009 statement. For example, technological advances have enabled the use of natural language processing and machine learning to identify relevant evidence [ 22 – 24 ], methods have been proposed to synthesise and present findings when meta-analysis is not possible or appropriate [ 25 – 27 ], and new methods have been developed to assess the risk of bias in results of included studies [ 28 , 29 ]. Evidence on sources of bias in systematic reviews has accrued, culminating in the development of new tools to appraise the conduct of systematic reviews [ 30 , 31 ]. Terminology used to describe particular review processes has also evolved, as in the shift from assessing “quality” to assessing “certainty” in the body of evidence [ 32 ]. In addition, the publishing landscape has transformed, with multiple avenues now available for registering and disseminating systematic review protocols [ 33 , 34 ], disseminating reports of systematic reviews, and sharing data and materials, such as preprint servers and publicly accessible repositories. To capture these advances in the reporting of systematic reviews necessitated an update to the PRISMA 2009 statement.
Development of PRISMA 2020
A complete description of the methods used to develop PRISMA 2020 is available elsewhere [ 35 ]. We identified PRISMA 2009 items that were often reported incompletely by examining the results of studies investigating the transparency of reporting of published reviews [ 17 , 21 , 36 , 37 ]. We identified possible modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement by reviewing 60 documents providing reporting guidance for systematic reviews (including reporting guidelines, handbooks, tools, and meta-research studies) [ 38 ]. These reviews of the literature were used to inform the content of a survey with suggested possible modifications to the 27 items in PRISMA 2009 and possible additional items. Respondents were asked whether they believed we should keep each PRISMA 2009 item as is, modify it, or remove it, and whether we should add each additional item. Systematic review methodologists and journal editors were invited to complete the online survey (110 of 220 invited responded). We discussed proposed content and wording of the PRISMA 2020 statement, as informed by the review and survey results, at a 21-member, two-day, in-person meeting in September 2018 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Throughout 2019 and 2020, we circulated an initial draft and five revisions of the checklist and explanation and elaboration paper to co-authors for feedback. In April 2020, we invited 22 systematic reviewers who had expressed interest in providing feedback on the PRISMA 2020 checklist to share their views (via an online survey) on the layout and terminology used in a preliminary version of the checklist. Feedback was received from 15 individuals and considered by the first author, and any revisions deemed necessary were incorporated before the final version was approved and endorsed by all co-authors.
The PRISMA 2020 statement
Scope of the guideline.
The PRISMA 2020 statement has been designed primarily for systematic reviews of studies that evaluate the effects of health interventions, irrespective of the design of the included studies. However, the checklist items are applicable to reports of systematic reviews evaluating other interventions (such as social or educational interventions), and many items are applicable to systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (such as evaluating aetiology, prevalence, or prognosis). PRISMA 2020 is intended for use in systematic reviews that include synthesis (such as pairwise meta-analysis or other statistical synthesis methods) or do not include synthesis (for example, because only one eligible study is identified). The PRISMA 2020 items are relevant for mixed-methods systematic reviews (which include quantitative and qualitative studies), but reporting guidelines addressing the presentation and synthesis of qualitative data should also be consulted [ 39 , 40 ]. PRISMA 2020 can be used for original systematic reviews, updated systematic reviews, or continually updated (“living”) systematic reviews. However, for updated and living systematic reviews, there may be some additional considerations that need to be addressed. Where there is relevant content from other reporting guidelines, we reference these guidelines within the items in the explanation and elaboration paper [ 41 ] (such as PRISMA-Search [ 42 ] in items 6 and 7, Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline [ 27 ] in item 13d). Box 1 includes a glossary of terms used throughout the PRISMA 2020 statement.
PRISMA 2020 is not intended to guide systematic review conduct, for which comprehensive resources are available [ 43 – 46 ]. However, familiarity with PRISMA 2020 is useful when planning and conducting systematic reviews to ensure that all recommended information is captured. PRISMA 2020 should not be used to assess the conduct or methodological quality of systematic reviews; other tools exist for this purpose [ 30 , 31 ]. Furthermore, PRISMA 2020 is not intended to inform the reporting of systematic review protocols, for which a separate statement is available (PRISMA for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement [ 47 , 48 ]). Finally, extensions to the PRISMA 2009 statement have been developed to guide reporting of network meta-analyses [ 49 ], meta-analyses of individual participant data [ 50 ], systematic reviews of harms [ 51 ], systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies [ 52 ], and scoping reviews [ 53 ]; for these types of reviews we recommend authors report their review in accordance with the recommendations in PRISMA 2020 along with the guidance specific to the extension.
How to use PRISMA 2020
The PRISMA 2020 statement (including the checklists, explanation and elaboration, and flow diagram) replaces the PRISMA 2009 statement, which should no longer be used. Box 2 summarises noteworthy changes from the PRISMA 2009 statement. The PRISMA 2020 checklist includes seven sections with 27 items, some of which include sub-items (Table 1 ). A checklist for journal and conference abstracts for systematic reviews is included in PRISMA 2020. This abstract checklist is an update of the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts statement [ 54 ], reflecting new and modified content in PRISMA 2020 (Table 2 ). A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated (Fig. 1 ).
PRISMA 2020 item checklist
PRISMA 2020 for abstracts checklist a
a This abstract checklist retains the same items as those included in the PRISMA for Abstracts statement published in 2013 [ 54 ], but has been revised to make the wording consistent with the PRISMA 2020 statement and includes a new item recommending authors specify the methods used to present and synthesise results (item #6)
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template for systematic reviews. The new design is adapted from flow diagrams proposed by Boers [ 55 ], Mayo-Wilson et al. [ 56 ] and Stovold et al. [ 57 ] The boxes in grey should only be completed if applicable; otherwise they should be removed from the flow diagram. Note that a “report” could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report or any other document providing relevant information
We recommend authors refer to PRISMA 2020 early in the writing process, because prospective consideration of the items may help to ensure that all the items are addressed. To help keep track of which items have been reported, the PRISMA statement website ( http://www.prisma-statement.org/ ) includes fillable templates of the checklists to download and complete (also available in Additional file 1 ). We have also created a web application that allows users to complete the checklist via a user-friendly interface [ 58 ] (available at https://prisma.shinyapps.io/checklist/ and adapted from the Transparency Checklist app [ 59 ]). The completed checklist can be exported to Word or PDF. Editable templates of the flow diagram can also be downloaded from the PRISMA statement website.
We have prepared an updated explanation and elaboration paper, in which we explain why reporting of each item is recommended and present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations (which we refer to as elements) [ 41 ]. The bullet-point structure is new to PRISMA 2020 and has been adopted to facilitate implementation of the guidance [ 60 , 61 ]. An expanded checklist, which comprises an abridged version of the elements presented in the explanation and elaboration paper, with references and some examples removed, is available in Additional file 2 . Consulting the explanation and elaboration paper is recommended if further clarity or information is required.
Journals and publishers might impose word and section limits, and limits on the number of tables and figures allowed in the main report. In such cases, if the relevant information for some items already appears in a publicly accessible review protocol, referring to the protocol may suffice. Alternatively, placing detailed descriptions of the methods used or additional results (such as for less critical outcomes) in supplementary files is recommended. Ideally, supplementary files should be deposited to a general-purpose or institutional open-access repository that provides free and permanent access to the material (such as Open Science Framework, Dryad, figshare). A reference or link to the additional information should be included in the main report. Finally, although PRISMA 2020 provides a template for where information might be located, the suggested location should not be seen as prescriptive; the guiding principle is to ensure the information is reported.
Use of PRISMA 2020 has the potential to benefit many stakeholders. Complete reporting allows readers to assess the appropriateness of the methods, and therefore the trustworthiness of the findings. Presenting and summarising characteristics of studies contributing to a synthesis allows healthcare providers and policy makers to evaluate the applicability of the findings to their setting. Describing the certainty in the body of evidence for an outcome and the implications of findings should help policy makers, managers, and other decision makers formulate appropriate recommendations for practice or policy. Complete reporting of all PRISMA 2020 items also facilitates replication and review updates, as well as inclusion of systematic reviews in overviews (of systematic reviews) and guidelines, so teams can leverage work that is already done and decrease research waste [ 36 , 62 , 63 ].
We updated the PRISMA 2009 statement by adapting the EQUATOR Network’s guidance for developing health research reporting guidelines [ 64 ]. We evaluated the reporting completeness of published systematic reviews [ 17 , 21 , 36 , 37 ], reviewed the items included in other documents providing guidance for systematic reviews [ 38 ], surveyed systematic review methodologists and journal editors for their views on how to revise the original PRISMA statement [ 35 ], discussed the findings at an in-person meeting, and prepared this document through an iterative process. Our recommendations are informed by the reviews and survey conducted before the in-person meeting, theoretical considerations about which items facilitate replication and help users assess the risk of bias and applicability of systematic reviews, and co-authors’ experience with authoring and using systematic reviews.
Various strategies to increase the use of reporting guidelines and improve reporting have been proposed. They include educators introducing reporting guidelines into graduate curricula to promote good reporting habits of early career scientists [ 65 ]; journal editors and regulators endorsing use of reporting guidelines [ 18 ]; peer reviewers evaluating adherence to reporting guidelines [ 61 , 66 ]; journals requiring authors to indicate where in their manuscript they have adhered to each reporting item [ 67 ]; and authors using online writing tools that prompt complete reporting at the writing stage [ 60 ]. Multi-pronged interventions, where more than one of these strategies are combined, may be more effective (such as completion of checklists coupled with editorial checks) [ 68 ]. However, of 31 interventions proposed to increase adherence to reporting guidelines, the effects of only 11 have been evaluated, mostly in observational studies at high risk of bias due to confounding [ 69 ]. It is therefore unclear which strategies should be used. Future research might explore barriers and facilitators to the use of PRISMA 2020 by authors, editors, and peer reviewers, designing interventions that address the identified barriers, and evaluating those interventions using randomised trials. To inform possible revisions to the guideline, it would also be valuable to conduct think-aloud studies [ 70 ] to understand how systematic reviewers interpret the items, and reliability studies to identify items where there is varied interpretation of the items.
We encourage readers to submit evidence that informs any of the recommendations in PRISMA 2020 (via the PRISMA statement website: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ ). To enhance accessibility of PRISMA 2020, several translations of the guideline are under way (see available translations at the PRISMA statement website). We encourage journal editors and publishers to raise awareness of PRISMA 2020 (for example, by referring to it in journal “Instructions to authors”), endorsing its use, advising editors and peer reviewers to evaluate submitted systematic reviews against the PRISMA 2020 checklists, and making changes to journal policies to accommodate the new reporting recommendations. We recommend existing PRISMA extensions [ 47 , 49 – 53 , 71 , 72 ] be updated to reflect PRISMA 2020 and advise developers of new PRISMA extensions to use PRISMA 2020 as the foundation document.
We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders. Ultimately, we hope that uptake of the guideline will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making.
Box 1 Glossary of terms
Systematic review —A review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesise findings of studies that address a clearly formulated question [ 43 ]
Statistical synthesis —The combination of quantitative results of two or more studies. This encompasses meta-analysis of effect estimates (described below) and other methods, such as combining P values, calculating the range and distribution of observed effects, and vote counting based on the direction of effect (see McKenzie and Brennan [ 25 ] for a description of each method)
Meta-analysis of effect estimates —A statistical technique used to synthesise results when study effect estimates and their variances are available, yielding a quantitative summary of results [ 25 ]
Outcome —An event or measurement collected for participants in a study (such as quality of life, mortality)
Result —The combination of a point estimate (such as a mean difference, risk ratio, or proportion) and a measure of its precision (such as a confidence/credible interval) for a particular outcome
Report —A document (paper or electronic) supplying information about a particular study. It could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report, or any other document providing relevant information
Record —The title or abstract (or both) of a report indexed in a database or website (such as a title or abstract for an article indexed in Medline). Records that refer to the same report (such as the same journal article) are “duplicates”; however, records that refer to reports that are merely similar (such as a similar abstract submitted to two different conferences) should be considered unique.
Study —An investigation, such as a clinical trial, that includes a defined group of participants and one or more interventions and outcomes. A “study” might have multiple reports. For example, reports could include the protocol, statistical analysis plan, baseline characteristics, results for the primary outcome, results for harms, results for secondary outcomes, and results for additional mediator and moderator analyses
Box 2 Noteworthy changes to the PRISMA 2009 statement
• Inclusion of the abstract reporting checklist within PRISMA 2020 (see item #2 and Box 2 ).
• Movement of the ‘Protocol and registration’ item from the start of the Methods section of the checklist to a new Other section, with addition of a sub-item recommending authors describe amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol (see item #24a-24c).
• Modification of the ‘Search’ item to recommend authors present full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites searched, not just at least one database (see item #7).
• Modification of the ‘Study selection’ item in the Methods section to emphasise the reporting of how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process (see item #8).
• Addition of a sub-item to the ‘Data items’ item recommending authors report how outcomes were defined, which results were sought, and methods for selecting a subset of results from included studies (see item #10a).
• Splitting of the ‘Synthesis of results’ item in the Methods section into six sub-items recommending authors describe: the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis; any methods required to prepare the data for synthesis; any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses; any methods used to synthesise results; any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (such as subgroup analysis, meta-regression); and any sensitivity analyses used to assess robustness of the synthesised results (see item #13a-13f).
• Addition of a sub-item to the ‘Study selection’ item in the Results section recommending authors cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded (see item #16b).
• Splitting of the ‘Synthesis of results’ item in the Results section into four sub-items recommending authors: briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among studies contributing to the synthesis; present results of all statistical syntheses conducted; present results of any investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results; and present results of any sensitivity analyses (see item #20a-20d).
• Addition of new items recommending authors report methods for and results of an assessment of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome (see items #15 and #22).
• Addition of a new item recommending authors declare any competing interests (see item #26).
• Addition of a new item recommending authors indicate whether data, analytic code and other materials used in the review are publicly available and if so, where they can be found (see item #27).
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements.
We dedicate this paper to the late Douglas G Altman and Alessandro Liberati, whose contributions were fundamental to the development and implementation of the original PRISMA statement.
We thank the following contributors who completed the survey to inform discussions at the development meeting: Xavier Armoiry, Edoardo Aromataris, Ana Patricia Ayala, Ethan M Balk, Virginia Barbour, Elaine Beller, Jesse A Berlin, Lisa Bero, Zhao-Xiang Bian, Jean Joel Bigna, Ferrán Catalá-López, Anna Chaimani, Mike Clarke, Tammy Clifford, Ioana A Cristea, Miranda Cumpston, Sofia Dias, Corinna Dressler, Ivan D Florez, Joel J Gagnier, Chantelle Garritty, Long Ge, Davina Ghersi, Sean Grant, Gordon Guyatt, Neal R Haddaway, Julian PT Higgins, Sally Hopewell, Brian Hutton, Jamie J Kirkham, Jos Kleijnen, Julia Koricheva, Joey SW Kwong, Toby J Lasserson, Julia H Littell, Yoon K Loke, Malcolm R Macleod, Chris G Maher, Ana Marušic, Dimitris Mavridis, Jessie McGowan, Matthew DF McInnes, Philippa Middleton, Karel G Moons, Zachary Munn, Jane Noyes, Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit, Donald L Patrick, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Ba′ Pham, Bob Phillips, Dawid Pieper, Michelle Pollock, Daniel S Quintana, Drummond Rennie, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Hannah R Rothstein, Maroeska M Rovers, Rebecca Ryan, Georgia Salanti, Ian J Saldanha, Margaret Sampson, Nancy Santesso, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, Jelena Savović, Christopher H Schmid, Kenneth F Schulz, Guido Schwarzer, Beverley J Shea, Paul G Shekelle, Farhad Shokraneh, Mark Simmonds, Nicole Skoetz, Sharon E Straus, Anneliese Synnot, Emily E Tanner-Smith, Brett D Thombs, Hilary Thomson, Alexander Tsertsvadze, Peter Tugwell, Tari Turner, Lesley Uttley, Jeffrey C Valentine, Matt Vassar, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Meera Viswanathan, Cole Wayant, Paul Whaley, and Kehu Yang. We thank the following contributors who provided feedback on a preliminary version of the PRISMA 2020 checklist: Jo Abbott, Fionn Büttner, Patricia Correia-Santos, Victoria Freeman, Emily A Hennessy, Rakibul Islam, Amalia (Emily) Karahalios, Kasper Krommes, Andreas Lundh, Dafne Port Nascimento, Davina Robson, Catherine Schenck-Yglesias, Mary M Scott, Sarah Tanveer and Pavel Zhelnov. We thank Abigail H Goben, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Tanja Rombey, Anna Scott, and Farhad Shokraneh for their helpful comments on the preprints of the PRISMA 2020 papers. We thank Edoardo Aromataris, Stephanie Chang, Toby Lasserson and David Schriger for their helpful peer review comments on the PRISMA 2020 papers.
Provenance and peer review
Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Patient and public involvement
Patients and the public were not involved in this methodological research. We plan to disseminate the research widely, including to community participants in evidence synthesis organisations.
Authors’ contributions
JEM and DM are joint senior authors. MJP, JEM, PMB, IB, TCH, CDM, LS, and DM conceived this paper and designed the literature review and survey conducted to inform the guideline content. MJP conducted the literature review, administered the survey and analysed the data for both. MJP prepared all materials for the development meeting. MJP and JEM presented proposals at the development meeting. All authors except for TCH, JMT, EAA, SEB, and LAM attended the development meeting. MJP and JEM took and consolidated notes from the development meeting. MJP and JEM led the drafting and editing of the article. JEM, PMB, IB, TCH, LS, JMT, EAA, SEB, RC, JG, AH, TL, EMW, SM, LAM, LAS, JT, ACT, PW, and DM drafted particular sections of the article. All authors were involved in revising the article critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the article. MJP is the guarantor of this work. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.
There was no direct funding for this research. MJP is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200101618) and was previously supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (1088535) during the conduct of this research. JEM is supported by an Australian NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1143429). TCH is supported by an Australian NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1154607). JMT is supported by Evidence Partners Inc. JMG is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. MML is supported by The Ottawa Hospital Anaesthesia Alternate Funds Association and a Faculty of Medicine Junior Research Chair. TL is supported by funding from the National Eye Institute (UG1EY020522), National Institutes of Health, United States. LAM is supported by a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (DRF-2018-11-ST2–048). ACT is supported by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. DM is supported in part by a University Research Chair, University of Ottawa. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.
Declarations
All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ and declare: EL is head of research for the BMJ ; MJP is an editorial board member for PLOS Medicine ; ACT is an associate editor and MJP, TL, EMW, and DM are editorial board members for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology ; DM and LAS were editors in chief, LS, JMT, and ACT are associate editors, and JG is an editorial board member for Systematic Reviews . None of these authors were involved in the peer review process or decision to publish. TCH has received personal fees from Elsevier outside the submitted work. EMW has received personal fees from the American Journal for Public Health , for which he is the editor for systematic reviews. VW is editor in chief of the Campbell Collaboration, which produces systematic reviews, and co-convenor of the Campbell and Cochrane equity methods group. DM is chair of the EQUATOR Network, IB is adjunct director of the French EQUATOR Centre and TCH is co-director of the Australasian EQUATOR Centre, which advocates for the use of reporting guidelines to improve the quality of reporting in research articles. JMT received salary from Evidence Partners, creator of DistillerSR software for systematic reviews; Evidence Partners was not involved in the design or outcomes of the statement, and the views expressed solely represent those of the author.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
The flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions. Different templates are available depending on the type of review (new or updated) and sources used to identify studies: PRISMA 2020 flow ...
To document your grey literature search, download the flow diagram template version 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, ... If you are updating an existing review, use one of these PRISMA 2020 Updated Review templates, which feature an additional box for the number of studies and reports ...
A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated . Box 2 Noteworthy changes to the PRISMA 2009 statement. ... MJP conducted the literature review, administered the survey and analysed the data for both. MJP prepared all materials for the development meeting.
Resource link. This tool, developed by PRISMA, can be used to develop a PRISMA flow diagram in order to report on systematic reviews. The flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions.
PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template for systematic reviews (adapted from flow diagrams proposed by Boers 131 and Mayo-Wilson et al. 65 and Stovold et al. 132). The boxes in grey should only be completed if applicable; otherwise they should be removed from the flow diagram.
If you are updating an existing review, use one of these PRISMA 2020 Updated Review templates, which feature an additional box for the number of studies and reports of studies included in the previous search iterations. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for updated systematic reviews- databases and registers only
The PRISMA 2020 Statement was published in 2021. It consists of a checklist and a flow diagram, and is intended to be accompanied by the PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration document. In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA 2020 Statement, it has been published in several journals.
Documenting grey literature and/or hand searches. If you have also searched additional sources, such as professional organization websites, cited or citing references, etc., document your grey literature search using the flow diagram template version 1 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for new systematic reviews which included searches of databases, registers and other sources or the version 2 PRISMA ...
Download these for your own use - a downloadable blank PRISMA you can use in your literature review and a worked example: The diagram below explains the steps you need work through to complete your PRISMA. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews, Page et al. 2021.
A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated (fig 1). Box 2. Noteworthy changes to the PRISMA 2009 statement. ... MJP conducted the literature review, administered the survey and analysed the data for both. MJP prepared all materials for the development meeting.
Here you can access information about the PRISMA reporting guidelines, which are designed to help authors transparently report why their systematic review was done, what methods they used, and what they found. The main PRISMA reporting guideline (the PRISMA 2020 statement) primarily provides guidance for the reporting of systematic reviews ...
This abstract checklist is an update of the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts statement , reflecting new and modified content in PRISMA 2020 (Table 2). A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated (Fig. 1).
A PRISMA flow diagram is an image that shows the flow of information in a systematic review or meta-analysis. PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, which is an evidence-based set of reporting guidelines developed to improve the transparency and quality of reporting in these types of studies.
A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated (Fig. 1). Table 1. PRISMA 2020 item checklist. ... MJP conducted the literature review, administered the survey and analysed the data for both. MJP prepared all materials for the development meeting.
PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting Instrument for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. It is intended to show the research process from search to abstract review to full text selection. Those reading an article should pay attention to inclusion and exclusion criteria, and how authors determined articles for inclusion in their final research.
Your systematic review can be documented using the PRISMA Flow Diagram: The PRISMA flow diagram visually summarises the screening process. It initially records the number of articles found and then makes the selection process transparent by reporting on decisions made at various stages of the systematic review.
It is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The PRISMA statement consists of a 27-item checklist and a 4-phase flow diagram. These items have been adapted for use by students conducting systematic reviews as part of the course requirements for KIN 4400.
Examples of flow diagrams from published systematic reviews (see the PRISMA Flow Diagram for a template). You will see the information recorded can differ even in Cochrane Reviews but the flow diagram can be a useful place to summarise what databases and other resources have been searched and the reasons why full text articles which were assessed have been excluded (as recommended by PRISMA).
content in PRISMA 2020 (table 2). A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated (fig 1). We recommend authors refer to PRISMA 2020 early in the writing process, because prospective consideration of the items may help to ensure that all the items are addressed.
This abstract checklist is an update of the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts statement , reflecting new and modified content in PRISMA 2020 (Table 2). A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated (Fig. 1).