CoChat
Sign Up
PreprintCited by 8,090Meta-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
DOI 10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2_v1
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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_v1

Cites

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?

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

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 58

  1. Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature. 2018;555(7695):175-82.
  2. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Systematic reviews. 2019;8(1):170.
  3. Moher D. Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers. BMC medicine. 2018;16(1):233.
  4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, Group P. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):264-9, W64.
  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.
  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.
  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.
  8. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS medicine. 2007;4:e78.
  9. 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. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):e1-34.
  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.
  11. 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. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(4):W65- 94.
  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.
  13. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, et al. Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS medicine. 2016;13(5):e1002028.
  14. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS ONE [Electronic Resource]. 2013;8(12):e83138.
  15. Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Limb C, Whitehurst K, Coe R, Sagoo H, et al. Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: A before and after study. International Journal Of Surgery. 2016;30:169-72.
  16. Leclercq V, Beaudart C, Ajamieh S, Rabenda V, Tirelli E, Bruyère O. Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;115:46-54.
  17. Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review. Systematic reviews. 2017;6(1):263.
  18. O'Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Systematic reviews. 2015;4:5.
  19. Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Systematic reviews. 2019;8(1):163.
  20. 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.
  21. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, Katikireddi SV, Brennan SE, Ellis S, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890.
  22. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898.
  23. Sterne JA, Hernan MA, Reeves BC, Savovic J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919.
  24. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, Caldwell DM, Reeves BC, Shea B, et al. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225-34.
  25. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, Thuku M, Hamel C, Moran J, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008.
  26. Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, Treweek S, Mustafa RA, Iorio A, et al. The GRADE Working Group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:4-13.
  27. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Systematic reviews. 2012;1:2.
  28. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Establishing a new journal for systematic review products. Systematic reviews. 2012;1:1.
  29. Page MJ, Altman DG, Shamseer L, McKenzie JE, Ahmadzai N, Wolfe D, et al. Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;94:8-18.
  30. Page MJ, Altman DG, McKenzie JE, Shamseer L, Ahmadzai N, Wolfe D, et al. Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:7-18.
  31. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann T, Mulrow CD, et al. Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;118:60-8.
  32. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC medical research methodology. 2012;12:181.
  33. France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, Uny I, Duncan EAS, Jepson RG, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC medical research methodology. 2019;19(1):25.
  34. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, Ayala AP, Moher D, Page MJ, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/sfc38. OSF Preprints 2020. · DOI · Paper page
  35. Dekkers OM, Vandenbroucke JP, Cevallos M, Renehan AG, Altman DG, Egger M. COSMOS-E: Guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology. PLoS medicine. 2019;16(2):e1002742.
  36. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
  37. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, Chaimani A, Schmid CH, Cameron C, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta- analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(11):777-84.
  38. 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.
  39. Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, Golder S, Santaguida P, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157.
  40. 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.
  41. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, O'Brien KK, Colquhoun H, Levac D, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): Checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169(7):467- 73.
  42. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Bastian H, Chalmers I, et al. PRISMA for Abstracts: Reporting Systematic Reviews in Journal and Conference Abstracts. PLoS medicine. 2013;10:e1001419.
  43. Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC medicine. 2015;13:221.
  44. Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Moher D, Schriger D, Hopewell S, Shanahan D, et al. Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross- sectional diagnostic study. BMC medicine. 2019;17(1):205.
  45. Wayant C, Page MJ, Vassar M. Evaluation of Reproducible Research Practices in Oncology Systematic Reviews With Meta-analyses Referenced by National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. JAMA oncology. 2019;5(11):1550-5.
  46. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge. Systematic reviews. 2017;6(1):185.
  47. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS medicine. 2010;7(2):e1000217.
  48. Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC medicine. 2010;8:24.
  49. Speich B, Schroter S, Briel M, Moher D, Puebla I, Clark A, et al. Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10(3):e035114.
  50. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, Yazdi F, Turner L, Thielman J, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804.
  51. Blanco D, Altman D, Moher D, Boutron I, Kirkham JJ, Cobo E. Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research. BMJ Open. 2019;9(5):e026589.
  52. Charters E. The Use of Think-aloud Methods in Qualitative Research An Introduction to Think-aloud Methods. Brock Education Journal. 2003;12.
  53. Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, Moher D, O'Neill J, Waters E, et al. PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS medicine. 2012;9(10):e1001333.
  54. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic reviews. 2015;4:1.
  55. Wang X, Chen Y, Liu Y, Yao L, Estill J, Bian Z, et al. Reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of acupuncture: the PRISMA for acupuncture checklist. BMC complementary and alternative medicine. 2019;19(1):208.
  56. Boers M. Graphics and statistics for cardiology: designing effective tables for presentation and publication. Heart. 2018;104(3):192-200.
  57. 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.
  58. Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Systematic reviews. 2014;3:54.

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
  • Monash University (AU)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • Bond University (AU)
  • The University of Texas at San Antonio Health Science Center (US)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • American University of Beirut (LB)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • BMJ Group (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Odense University Hospital (DK)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
  • Ottawa Hospital (CA)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Indiana University Bloomington (US)
  • University of Bristol (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
  • St. Michael's Hospital (CA)
  • Bruyère (CA)
ORCID
Publisher
Center for Open Science
Published
2020-09-14
DOI
10.31222/osf.io/v7gm2_v1
OpenAlex
W4409152208
Cited by
8,090
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 221 · 2025: 2433 · 2024: 2539 · 2023: 1543 · 2022: 1150 · 2021: 203 · 2020: 1
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Funders
  • National Institute for Health and Care Research (DRF-2018-11-ST2-048)
  • 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