PreprintCited by 5,177Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Open access
Page, Matthew James, McKenzie, Joanne, Bossuyt, Patrick, Boutron, Isabelle, Hoffmann, Tammy, mulrow, cindy, Shamseer, Larissa, Tetzlaff, Jennifer +18 more·2020

Abstract

Background: 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 last decade, there have been many advances in systematic review methodology and terminology, which have necessitated an update to the guideline.Objectives: To develop the PRISMA 2020 statement for reporting systematic reviews.Methods: We reviewed 60 documents with reporting guidance for systematic reviews to generate suggested modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement. We sought feedback on the suggested modifications through an online survey of 110 systematic review methodologists and journal editors. The results of the review and survey were discussed at a 21-member in-person meeting. Following the meeting, drafts of the PRISMA 2020 checklist, abstract checklist, explanation and elaboration and flow diagram were generated and refined iteratively based on feedback from co-authors and a convenience sample of 15 systematic reviewers.Results: In this statement paper, 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. The checklist 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. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement.Conclusions: The PRISMA 2020 statement is intended to facilitate transparent, complete and accurate reporting of systematic reviews. Improved reporting should benefit users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, health care providers, patients and other stakeholders. In order to achieve this, we encourage authors, editors and peer-reviewers to adopt the guideline.

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/v7gm2

Cites

59 of 59 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?

  • Throughout the draft and revision process, several teleconferences were held with the lead of the PRISMA 2020 statement to ensure that the content on search methods was consistent between the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S guidelines.

    “Throughout the draft and revision process, several teleconferences were held with the lead of the PRISMA 2020 statement (M.J.P), as an update of the 2009 PRISMA statement was in development, to ensure that the content on search methods was consistent between the PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA-S guidelines [34, 35].”

    From PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Development of PRISMA 2020 section describes updating the 2009 statement and circulating drafts and revisions during 2019–2020. It does not report teleconferences with the PRISMA-S team or say that the two guidelines’ search-methods content was coordinated. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The study adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for article search and selection to ensure an unbiased comparison between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe.

    “The study adhered to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines for article search and selection to ensure an unbiased comparison between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe.”

    From mHealth in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe: A systematic review comparing the use and availability of mHealth approaches in sub-Saharan Africa and Europe (2023) · cites this paper as [5]

    The PRISMA 2020 checklist includes items for reporting search and study selection (Study selection 16a; Methods 7 Search strategy). But the Scope of the guideline says PRISMA 2020 is not intended to guide review conduct or assess methodological quality. The source therefore does not establish that following it ensured an unbiased comparison between sub-Saharan Africa and Europe. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Recording the flow of citations through the systematic review process is a key component of the PRISMA Statement.

    “Recording the flow of citations through the systematic review process is a key component of the PRISMA Statement [9, 35].”
  • The review was organized following the PRISMA reporting guidelines.

    “The review is organized following the reporting guidelines of the PRISMA statement (Page et al., 2021)”
  • The PRISMA Statement was meticulously followed in this research.

    “Adhering to internationally recognized systematic review guidelines, the PRISMA Statement was meticulously followed in this research [14].”

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: 9

  1. [5]5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
  2. [6]6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. 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, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1006-12.
  4. [10]10. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, 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.
  5. [12]12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine / Public Library of Science. 2009;6(7):e1000100.
  6. [21]21. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Chapter 12: Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook: Cochrane; 2019.
  7. [45]45. Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, Riley RD, Simmonds M, Stewart G, et al. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657-65.
  8. [47]47. McInnes MF, Moher D, Thombs BD, McGrath TA, Bossuyt PM, and the PRISMA-DTA Group. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA. 2018;319(4):388-96.
  9. [64]64. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin K. Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Research synthesis methods. 2018;9(1):2-12.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J., 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., & Moher, D.
Affiliations
  • Queen's University (CA)
  • 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)
  • 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
Published
2020-09-14
OpenAlex
W4236476849
Cited by
5,177
References
59
Citations by year
2026: 295 · 2025: 694 · 2024: 1484 · 2023: 1465 · 2022: 906 · 2021: 300 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2014: 4
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
  • MetArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (DRF-2018-11-ST2-048)
  • Ottawa Hospital Anesthesia Alternate Funds Association
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Medical Research Council
  • Australian Research Council (DE200101618)
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (1088535, 1154607, 1143429)
  • National Eye Institute (UG1EY020522)
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, transparency in research reporting, flowcharts, meta-analysis reporting, peer review

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