Cited by 3,490Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement

Open access
Page, Matthew J, McKenzie, Joanne E, Bossuyt, Patrick M, Boutron, Isabelle, Hoffmann, Tammy C, Mulrow, Cynthia D, Shamseer, Larissa, Tetzlaff, Jennifer M +1 more·2021·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Objectives To describe the processes used to update the PRISMA 2009 statement for reporting systematic reviews, present results of a survey conducted to inform the update, summarize decisions made at the PRISMA update meeting, and describe and justify changes made to the guideline.Methods We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We invited 220 systematic review methodologists and journal editors to complete a survey about the suggested modifications. The results of these projects were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, we drafted the PRISMA 2020 statement and refined it based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers.Results The review of 60 documents revealed that all topics addressed by the PRISMA 2009 statement could be modified. Of the 110 survey respondents, more than 66% recommended keeping six of the original checklist items as they were and modifying 15 of them using wording suggested by us. Attendees at the in-person meeting supported the revised wording for several items but suggested rewording for most to enhance clarity, and further refinements were made over six drafts of the guideline.Conclusions The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews. We hope that providing this detailed description of the development process will enhance the acceptance and uptake of the guideline and assist those developing and updating future reporting guidelines.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003

Cites

52 of 52 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • PRISMA 2020 is published as a suite of three papers: a statement paper, a development paper, and this explanation and elaboration paper.

    “PRISMA 2020 is published as a suite of three papers: a statement paper (consisting of the 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagram23); a development paper (which outlines the steps taken to update the PRISMA 2009 statement and provides rationale for modifications to the original”

    From PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [24]

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • This umbrella review was conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines.

    “This umbrella review was conducted following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 [21] guidelines to ensure a rigorous and transparent approach.”
  • The systematic review was preregistered (PROSPERO CRD42022313034) and reported according to the PRISMA checklist.

    “This preregistered systematic review with meta-analysis (International prospective register of systematic reviews [PROSPERO], no.CRD42022313034) was reported in accord with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist ( 16).”
  • The development of PRISMA 2020 included surveying systematic review methodologists and journal editors for their views on how to revise the original PRISMA statement.

    “surveyed systematic review methodologists and journal editors for their views on how to revise the original PRISMA statement [35]”
  • The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 statement.

    “This systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement55.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. [1]1. 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 and David Schriger for their helpful peer review comments on the PRISMA 2020 development paper. References
  2. [5]5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine / Public Library of Science. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
  3. [7]7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. Open Med. 2009;3(3):e123-30.
  4. [37]37. Rethlefsen M, Koffel J, Kirtley S. PRISMA-Search: guidelines for reporting systematic review literature searches (registered 17 February 2016) http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development/#57 [accessed 16 August 2017].
  5. [38]38. Bian Z. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of traditional Chinese medicine: the PRISMA-TCM Statement (registered 18 August 2016) http://www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under- development/#65 [accessed 16 August 2017].

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., & Moher, D.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Amsterdam University Medical Centers (NL)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
Corresponding author
Page, Matthew J
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-06
Volume
134
Pages
103-112
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3126226315
Cited by
3,490
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 683 · 2025: 831 · 2024: 718 · 2023: 552 · 2022: 463 · 2021: 233 · 2020: 4 · 2012: 2
FWCI
19.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Bond University Research Portal (Bond University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • HAL (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1088535, 1143429, 1154607)
  • Australian Research Council (DE200101618)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
PRISMA 2020, reporting guidelines, systematic reviews, reporting checklist, guideline development
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Guidelines as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine, Guideline Adherence, Consensus, Research Report

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review