The DOI matches its Crossref record; 126 of the 128 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
PRISMA-S: An Extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z · Paper page
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite wide usage of the PRISMA Statement reporting guideline by systematic review authors, compliance with its items regarding literature search reporting is suboptimal. We sought to develop an international standard for literature search reporting aligned with the PRISMA Statement to improve the quality and reproducibility of reported literature searches.METHODOLOGY: We formed an executive committee to lead the PRISMA-S extension development. The study protocol was published prior to study inception. To identify potential items for inclusion, we performed a literature search. Identified items were reviewed for overlap and consolidated. We then used a three-step Delphi survey process to assess the items. The first survey asked 163 international experts to rate each item, and the second and third rounds asked respondents to select the 25 most necessary items for a checklist. Potential items moved to rounds 2 and 3 based on pre-specified criteria. Remaining items were discussed at an in-person consensus conference. After the consensus conference, the remaining items were consolidated into a checklist. Executive committee members developed an accompanying explanation and elaboration document. The checklist and documentation were distributed for pilot testing. RESULTS: We identified 405 potential items from 61 sources located through the literature search process. Sources included both explicit reporting guidelines and studies assessing reproducibility of search strategies. These were consolidated into 123 potential items for the Delphi survey. We received 52 responses (32% response rate) to the first survey, and 35 (67% response rate) to both surveys two and three. The results of the Delphi process were reported at the consensus conference meeting in May 2016. Post-consensus conference, 34 items remained. The checklist was finalized into 13 items and 10 sub-items. Pilot testing is underway. This document is the draft for the Explanation & Elaboration for Draft 1, released for review/testing.CONCLUSIONS: The PRISMA-S extension for the PReferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline will provide a consensus-driven international standard for literature search reporting. Using this new reporting guideline may enable librarians and information specialists to produce higher quality, more reproducible, transparent search strategies for systematic reviews and other literature review-based publications.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
1 retracted
Primary prevention for alcohol misuse in young people
FOXCROFT, D. R., Ireland, D., Lowe, G., & Breen, R. (2011) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003024.pub2 · Cited by 164
RetractedThe PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
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., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
Self-citationPRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565
Self-citationLiberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gøtzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Clarke, M., Devereaux, P. J., Kleijnen, J., & Moher, D. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 · Cited by 28,164
Self-citationShamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · Cited by 13,120
Self-citationA typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
Hutton, B., Salanti, G., Caldwell, D. M., Chaimani, A., Schmid, C. H., Cameron, C., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Straus, S., Thorlund, K., Jansen, J. P., et al. (2015) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m14-2385 · Cited by 8,269
Self-citationPRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 · Cited by 5,700
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., Akl, E., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2020) · doi:10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2 · Cited by 5,177
Self-citationThe National Center for Biotechnology Information
Benson, D. A., Boguski, M. S., Lipman, D. J., & Ostell, J. (1990) · Genomics · doi:10.1016/0888-7543(90)90583-g · Cited by 5,109
Flagged first, then by citations
2 of the 128 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 1,001–1,001 of 1,001
Urbanovič, M., & Holubčík, M. (2026) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems14030245 · Cited by 9
Metadata
- Authors
- Rethlefsen, M. L., Kirtley, S., Waffenschmidt, S., Ayala, A. P., Moher, D., Page, M. J., & Koffel, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Florida (US)
- University of Oxford (GB)
- Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (DE)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Ottawa Hospital (CA)
- Monash University (AU)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rethlefsen, Melissa L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Systematic Reviews
- Publisher
- Center for Open Science
- Published
- 2019-03-20
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-39
- ISSN
- 2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7839230
- OpenAlex
- W3123497531
- Cited by
- 3,696
- References
- 128
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1275 · 2025: 695 · 2024: 604 · 2023: 548 · 2022: 399 · 2021: 165 · 2020: 9
- FWCI
- 17.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Locations
- Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- TSpace (University of Toronto) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Adelaide Research & Scholarship (AR&S) (University of Adelaide) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- La Trobe University (cc-by)
- Funders
- Medical Library Association
- Yale University
- University of Minnesota (2017-2018)
- Washington University in St. Louis
- University of Utah (UL1TR002538)
- Carnegie Mellon University
- Dartmouth College
- University of Ottawa
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
- McMaster University
- Kent State University
- National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
- CHEO Research Institute
- Bond University
- Cancer Research UK (27294, 16895, C49297/A27294)
- University of Oxford
- La Trobe University
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR002538)
- University of Colorado Denver
- Medical Research Council (MR/J00488X/1)
- Australian Research Council (DE200101618)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- PRISMA-S, reporting checklist, information sources, reporting guidelines
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Publications, Consensus, Checklist, 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