CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 916Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 158 of the 158 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

Open access
Page, Matthew James, Moher, David, Bossuyt, Patrick, Boutron, Isabelle, Hoffmann, Tammy, mulrow, cindy, Shamseer, Larissa, Tetzlaff, Jennifer, Akl, Elie, Brennan, Sue E, Chou, Roger, Glanville, Julie, Grimshaw, Jeremy, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Lalu, Manoj Mathew, Li, Tianjing, Loder, Elizabeth, Mayo-Wilson, Evan, McDonald, Steve, McGuinness, Luke A, Stewart, Lesley, Thomas, James, Tricco, Andrea, Welch, Vivian Andrea, Whiting, Penny, McKenzie, Joanne·2020
DOI 10.31222/osf.io/gwdhk
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present exemplars from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.31222/osf.io/gwdhk

Cites

158 of 158 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 157 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 901–915 of 915

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Page, M. J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., mulrow, C., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J., Akl, E., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L. A., Stewart, L., Thomas, J., Tricco, A., Welch, V. A., Whiting, P., & McKenzie, J.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • Monash University (AU)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • University of Southern Denmark (DK)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
Corresponding author
Page, Matthew James
ORCID
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2020-09-14
DOI
10.31222/osf.io/gwdhk
OpenAlex
W4241980133
Cited by
916
References
157
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 65 · 2024: 276 · 2023: 265 · 2022: 194 · 2021: 85 · 2020: 5
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
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, systematic review reporting, reporting guidelines, transparency, reporting items, exemplars, meta-analysis

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