Cited by 52Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

PRISMA 2020: a reporting guideline for the next generation of systematic reviews

Brennan, Sue E., Munn, Zachary·2021·JBI Evidence Synthesis

Abstract

What better way to mark the coming of age of reporting guidance for systematic reviews than with a major update of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement? Published just over 21 years ago, the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) statement was the predecessor of PRISMA, developed to ensure that the value and rigor of the relatively new form of research known as “meta-analysis” was matched by complete and transparent reporting.1 Providing a complete and accurate account of the purpose, methods, and results of a systematic review is important. Doing so enables those using the review to decide if they can trust and apply the findings, and facilitates replication and updating as new evidence emerges. While the purpose of PRISMA has not changed, the content and format reflect major advances in the way we conduct reviews and improvements in our ability to communicate and disseminate research.2,3 When PRISMA 2009 was published, the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) was yet to be launched,4 many reviews reported on “study quality” rather than “risk of bias,”5 formal assessments of the certainty of evidence were rarely done,6 and the concept of using automation and machine learning in systematic reviews was just beginning to emerge.7 PRISMA 2020 incorporates these advances and the most recent guidance for the conduct of systematic reviews.8 For example, there is more detail to help review au…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.11124/jbies-21-00112

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Brennan, S. E., & Munn, Z.
Affiliations
  • Monash University (AU)
  • The University of Adelaide (AU)
Venue
JBI Evidence Synthesis
Published
2021-05
Volume
19
Issue
5
Pages
906-908
ISSN
2689-8381 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3160269558
Cited by
52
References
16
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 2
FWCI
0.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • JBI Evidence Synthesis (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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, meta-analysis, risk of bias, quality of evidence, heterogeneity, synthesis methods, reporting checklist, Prospero, transparency in research reporting, reproducibility, conflicts of interest
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Checklist

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