Europe PMC

This website requires cookies, and the limited processing of your personal data in order to function. By using the site you are agreeing to this as outlined in our privacy notice and cookie policy.

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

Show less

Author information

Affiliations

  • 1. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
      Authors
    • Page MJ 1
    • McKenzie JE 1
    • Brennan SE 1
    • McDonald S 1
    (4 authors)
  • 2. Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands.
      Authors
    • Bossuyt PM 2
    (1 author)
  • 3. Université de Paris, Centre of Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, F 75004, Paris, France.
      Authors
    • Boutron I 3
    (1 author)
  • 4. Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia.
      Authors
    • Hoffmann TC 4
    (1 author)
  • 5. Annals of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA.
      Authors
    • Mulrow CD 5
    (1 author)
    • Show all (22)

ORCIDs linked to this article

Show all (9)

Systematic Reviews, 29 Mar 2021, 10(1):89
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4 PMID: 33781348 PMCID: PMC8008539

This article is in the Europe PMC Open access subset. Refer to the copyright information in the article for licensing details.
Free full text in Europe PMC

Abstract 

No abstract provided.

Free full text 

Logo of sysrevLink to Publisher's site
Syst Rev. 2021; 10: 89.
Published online 2021 Mar 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
PMCID: PMC8008539
PMID: 33781348

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

Matthew J. Page,corresponding author1 Joanne E. McKenzie,1 Patrick M. Bossuyt,2 Isabelle Boutron,3 Tammy C. Hoffmann,4 Cynthia D. Mulrow,5 Larissa Shamseer,6 Jennifer M. Tetzlaff,7 Elie A. Akl,8 Sue E. Brennan,1 Roger Chou,9 Julie Glanville,10 Jeremy M. Grimshaw,11 Asbjørn Hróbjartsson,12 Manoj M. Lalu,13 Tianjing Li,14 Elizabeth W. Loder,15 Evan Mayo-Wilson,16 Steve McDonald,1 Luke A. McGuinness,17 Lesley A. Stewart,18 James Thomas,19 Andrea C. Tricco,20 Vivian A. Welch,21 Penny Whiting,17 and David Moher22
Author information Article notes Copyright and License information Disclaimer

Associated Data

Supplementary Materials

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 past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and 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. In this article, 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. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on BMJ, PLOS Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and International Journal of Surgery journal websites.

Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers) [1, 2]. To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this [3].

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009) [4–10] is a reporting guideline designed to address poor reporting of systematic reviews [11]. The PRISMA 2009 statement comprised a checklist of 27 items recommended for reporting in systematic reviews and an “explanation and elaboration” paper [12–16] providing additional reporting guidance for each item, along with exemplars of reporting. The recommendations have been widely endorsed and adopted, as evidenced by its co-publication in multiple journals, citation in over 60,000 reports (Scopus, August 2020), endorsement from almost 200 journals and systematic review organisations, and adoption in various disciplines. Evidence from observational studies suggests that use of the PRISMA 2009 statement is associated with more complete reporting of systematic reviews [17–20], although more could be done to improve adherence to the guideline [21].

Many innovations in the conduct of systematic reviews have occurred since publication of the PRISMA 2009 statement. For example, technological advances have enabled the use of natural language processing and machine learning to identify relevant evidence [22–24], methods have been proposed to synthesise and present findings when meta-analysis is not possible or appropriate [25–27], and new methods have been developed to assess the risk of bias in results of included studies [28, 29]. Evidence on sources of bias in systematic reviews has accrued, culminating in the development of new tools to appraise the conduct of systematic reviews [30, 31]. Terminology used to describe particular review processes has also evolved, as in the shift from assessing “quality” to assessing “certainty” in the body of evidence [32]. In addition, the publishing landscape has transformed, with multiple avenues now available for registering and disseminating systematic review protocols [33, 34], disseminating reports of systematic reviews, and sharing data and materials, such as preprint servers and publicly accessible repositories. To capture these advances in the reporting of systematic reviews necessitated an update to the PRISMA 2009 statement.

Summary points
• To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did, and what they found
• The PRISMA 2020 statement provides updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies
• The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews
• We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders

Development of PRISMA 2020

A complete description of the methods used to develop PRISMA 2020 is available elsewhere [35]. We identified PRISMA 2009 items that were often reported incompletely by examining the results of studies investigating the transparency of reporting of published reviews [17, 21, 36, 37]. We identified possible modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement by reviewing 60 documents providing reporting guidance for systematic reviews (including reporting guidelines, handbooks, tools, and meta-research studies) [38]. These reviews of the literature were used to inform the content of a survey with suggested possible modifications to the 27 items in PRISMA 2009 and possible additional items. Respondents were asked whether they believed we should keep each PRISMA 2009 item as is, modify it, or remove it, and whether we should add each additional item. Systematic review methodologists and journal editors were invited to complete the online survey (110 of 220 invited responded). We discussed proposed content and wording of the PRISMA 2020 statement, as informed by the review and survey results, at a 21-member, two-day, in-person meeting in September 2018 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Throughout 2019 and 2020, we circulated an initial draft and five revisions of the checklist and explanation and elaboration paper to co-authors for feedback. In April 2020, we invited 22 systematic reviewers who had expressed interest in providing feedback on the PRISMA 2020 checklist to share their views (via an online survey) on the layout and terminology used in a preliminary version of the checklist. Feedback was received from 15 individuals and considered by the first author, and any revisions deemed necessary were incorporated before the final version was approved and endorsed by all co-authors.

The PRISMA 2020 statement

Scope of the guideline

The PRISMA 2020 statement has been designed primarily for systematic reviews of studies that evaluate the effects of health interventions, irrespective of the design of the included studies. However, the checklist items are applicable to reports of systematic reviews evaluating other interventions (such as social or educational interventions), and many items are applicable to systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (such as evaluating aetiology, prevalence, or prognosis). PRISMA 2020 is intended for use in systematic reviews that include synthesis (such as pairwise meta-analysis or other statistical synthesis methods) or do not include synthesis (for example, because only one eligible study is identified). The PRISMA 2020 items are relevant for mixed-methods systematic reviews (which include quantitative and qualitative studies), but reporting guidelines addressing the presentation and synthesis of qualitative data should also be consulted [39, 40]. PRISMA 2020 can be used for original systematic reviews, updated systematic reviews, or continually updated (“living”) systematic reviews. However, for updated and living systematic reviews, there may be some additional considerations that need to be addressed. Where there is relevant content from other reporting guidelines, we reference these guidelines within the items in the explanation and elaboration paper [41] (such as PRISMA-Search [42] in items 6 and 7, Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline [27] in item 13d). Box 1 includes a glossary of terms used throughout the PRISMA 2020 statement.

PRISMA 2020 is not intended to guide systematic review conduct, for which comprehensive resources are available [43–46]. However, familiarity with PRISMA 2020 is useful when planning and conducting systematic reviews to ensure that all recommended information is captured. PRISMA 2020 should not be used to assess the conduct or methodological quality of systematic reviews; other tools exist for this purpose [30, 31]. Furthermore, PRISMA 2020 is not intended to inform the reporting of systematic review protocols, for which a separate statement is available (PRISMA for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement [47, 48]). Finally, extensions to the PRISMA 2009 statement have been developed to guide reporting of network meta-analyses [49], meta-analyses of individual participant data [50], systematic reviews of harms [51], systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies [52], and scoping reviews [53]; for these types of reviews we recommend authors report their review in accordance with the recommendations in PRISMA 2020 along with the guidance specific to the extension.

How to use PRISMA 2020

The PRISMA 2020 statement (including the checklists, explanation and elaboration, and flow diagram) replaces the PRISMA 2009 statement, which should no longer be used. Box 2 summarises noteworthy changes from the PRISMA 2009 statement. The PRISMA 2020 checklist includes seven sections with 27 items, some of which include sub-items (Table 1). A checklist for journal and conference abstracts for systematic reviews is included in PRISMA 2020. This abstract checklist is an update of the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts statement [54], reflecting new and modified content in PRISMA 2020 (Table 2). A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated (Fig. 1).

Table 1

PRISMA 2020 item checklist

Section and topicItem #Checklist itemLocation where item is reported
Title
Title1Identify the report as a systematic review.
Abstract
Abstract2See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist (Table ​(Table22).
Introduction
Rationale3Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
Objectives4Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.
Methods
Eligibility criteria5Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.
Information sources6Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.
Search strategy7Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.
Selection process8Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Data collection process9Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Data items10aList and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.
10bList and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.
Study risk of bias assessment11Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Effect measures12Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.
Synthesis methods13aDescribe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).
13bDescribe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.
13cDescribe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.
13dDescribe any methods used to synthesise results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.
13eDescribe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression).
13fDescribe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesised results.
Reporting bias assessment14Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).
Certainty assessment15Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.
Results
Study selection16aDescribe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram (see Fig. ​Fig.11).
16bCite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.
Study characteristics17Cite each included study and present its characteristics.
Risk of bias in studies18Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.
Results of individual studies19For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.
Results of syntheses20aFor each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.
20bPresent results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.
20cPresent results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.
20dPresent results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesised results.
Reporting biases21Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.
Certainty of evidence22Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.
Discussion
Discussion23aProvide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.
23bDiscuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.
23cDiscuss any limitations of the review processes used.
23dDiscuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.
Other information
Registration and protocol24aProvide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.
24bIndicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.
24cDescribe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.
Support25Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.
Competing interests26Declare any competing interests of review authors.
Availability of data, code, and other materials27Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.

Table 2

PRISMA 2020 for abstracts checklista

Section and topicItem #Checklist item
Title
Title1Identify the report as a systematic review.
Background
Objectives2Provide an explicit statement of the main objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.
Methods
Eligibility criteria3Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review.
Information sources4Specify the information sources (e.g. databases, registers) used to identify studies and the date when each was last searched.
Risk of bias5Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies.
Synthesis of results6Specify the methods used to present and synthesise results.
Results
Included studies7Give the total number of included studies and participants and summarise relevant characteristics of studies.
Synthesis of results8Present results for main outcomes, preferably indicating the number of included studies and participants for each. If meta-analysis was done, report the summary estimate and confidence/credible interval. If comparing groups, indicate the direction of the effect (i.e. which group is favoured).
Discussion
Limitations of evidence9Provide a brief summary of the limitations of the evidence included in the review (e.g. study risk of bias, inconsistency and imprecision).
Interpretation10Provide a general interpretation of the results and important implications.
Other
Funding11Specify the primary source of funding for the review.
Registration12Provide the register name and registration number.

aThis abstract checklist retains the same items as those included in the PRISMA for Abstracts statement published in 2013 [54], but has been revised to make the wording consistent with the PRISMA 2020 statement and includes a new item recommending authors specify the methods used to present and synthesise results (item #6)

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc. Object name is 13643_2021_1626_Fig1_HTML.jpg

PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template for systematic reviews. The new design is adapted from flow diagrams proposed by Boers [55], Mayo-Wilson et al. [56] and Stovold et al. [57] The boxes in grey should only be completed if applicable; otherwise they should be removed from the flow diagram. Note that a “report” could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report or any other document providing relevant information

We recommend authors refer to PRISMA 2020 early in the writing process, because prospective consideration of the items may help to ensure that all the items are addressed. To help keep track of which items have been reported, the PRISMA statement website (http://www.prisma-statement.org/) includes fillable templates of the checklists to download and complete (also available in Additional file 1). We have also created a web application that allows users to complete the checklist via a user-friendly interface [58] (available at https://prisma.shinyapps.io/checklist/ and adapted from the Transparency Checklist app [59]). The completed checklist can be exported to Word or PDF. Editable templates of the flow diagram can also be downloaded from the PRISMA statement website.

We have prepared an updated explanation and elaboration paper, in which we explain why reporting of each item is recommended and present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations (which we refer to as elements) [41]. The bullet-point structure is new to PRISMA 2020 and has been adopted to facilitate implementation of the guidance [60, 61]. An expanded checklist, which comprises an abridged version of the elements presented in the explanation and elaboration paper, with references and some examples removed, is available in Additional file 2. Consulting the explanation and elaboration paper is recommended if further clarity or information is required.

Journals and publishers might impose word and section limits, and limits on the number of tables and figures allowed in the main report. In such cases, if the relevant information for some items already appears in a publicly accessible review protocol, referring to the protocol may suffice. Alternatively, placing detailed descriptions of the methods used or additional results (such as for less critical outcomes) in supplementary files is recommended. Ideally, supplementary files should be deposited to a general-purpose or institutional open-access repository that provides free and permanent access to the material (such as Open Science Framework, Dryad, figshare). A reference or link to the additional information should be included in the main report. Finally, although PRISMA 2020 provides a template for where information might be located, the suggested location should not be seen as prescriptive; the guiding principle is to ensure the information is reported.

Discussion

Use of PRISMA 2020 has the potential to benefit many stakeholders. Complete reporting allows readers to assess the appropriateness of the methods, and therefore the trustworthiness of the findings. Presenting and summarising characteristics of studies contributing to a synthesis allows healthcare providers and policy makers to evaluate the applicability of the findings to their setting. Describing the certainty in the body of evidence for an outcome and the implications of findings should help policy makers, managers, and other decision makers formulate appropriate recommendations for practice or policy. Complete reporting of all PRISMA 2020 items also facilitates replication and review updates, as well as inclusion of systematic reviews in overviews (of systematic reviews) and guidelines, so teams can leverage work that is already done and decrease research waste [36, 62, 63].

We updated the PRISMA 2009 statement by adapting the EQUATOR Network’s guidance for developing health research reporting guidelines [64]. We evaluated the reporting completeness of published systematic reviews [17, 21, 36, 37], reviewed the items included in other documents providing guidance for systematic reviews [38], surveyed systematic review methodologists and journal editors for their views on how to revise the original PRISMA statement [35], discussed the findings at an in-person meeting, and prepared this document through an iterative process. Our recommendations are informed by the reviews and survey conducted before the in-person meeting, theoretical considerations about which items facilitate replication and help users assess the risk of bias and applicability of systematic reviews, and co-authors’ experience with authoring and using systematic reviews.

Various strategies to increase the use of reporting guidelines and improve reporting have been proposed. They include educators introducing reporting guidelines into graduate curricula to promote good reporting habits of early career scientists [65]; journal editors and regulators endorsing use of reporting guidelines [18]; peer reviewers evaluating adherence to reporting guidelines [61, 66]; journals requiring authors to indicate where in their manuscript they have adhered to each reporting item [67]; and authors using online writing tools that prompt complete reporting at the writing stage [60]. Multi-pronged interventions, where more than one of these strategies are combined, may be more effective (such as completion of checklists coupled with editorial checks) [68]. However, of 31 interventions proposed to increase adherence to reporting guidelines, the effects of only 11 have been evaluated, mostly in observational studies at high risk of bias due to confounding [69]. It is therefore unclear which strategies should be used. Future research might explore barriers and facilitators to the use of PRISMA 2020 by authors, editors, and peer reviewers, designing interventions that address the identified barriers, and evaluating those interventions using randomised trials. To inform possible revisions to the guideline, it would also be valuable to conduct think-aloud studies [70] to understand how systematic reviewers interpret the items, and reliability studies to identify items where there is varied interpretation of the items.

We encourage readers to submit evidence that informs any of the recommendations in PRISMA 2020 (via the PRISMA statement website: http://www.prisma-statement.org/). To enhance accessibility of PRISMA 2020, several translations of the guideline are under way (see available translations at the PRISMA statement website). We encourage journal editors and publishers to raise awareness of PRISMA 2020 (for example, by referring to it in journal “Instructions to authors”), endorsing its use, advising editors and peer reviewers to evaluate submitted systematic reviews against the PRISMA 2020 checklists, and making changes to journal policies to accommodate the new reporting recommendations. We recommend existing PRISMA extensions [47, 49–53, 71, 72] be updated to reflect PRISMA 2020 and advise developers of new PRISMA extensions to use PRISMA 2020 as the foundation document.

Conclusion

We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders. Ultimately, we hope that uptake of the guideline will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making.

Box 1 Glossary of terms

Systematic review—A review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesise findings of studies that address a clearly formulated question [43]

Statistical synthesis—The combination of quantitative results of two or more studies. This encompasses meta-analysis of effect estimates (described below) and other methods, such as combining P values, calculating the range and distribution of observed effects, and vote counting based on the direction of effect (see McKenzie and Brennan [25] for a description of each method)

Meta-analysis of effect estimates—A statistical technique used to synthesise results when study effect estimates and their variances are available, yielding a quantitative summary of results [25]

Outcome—An event or measurement collected for participants in a study (such as quality of life, mortality)

Result—The combination of a point estimate (such as a mean difference, risk ratio, or proportion) and a measure of its precision (such as a confidence/credible interval) for a particular outcome

Report—A document (paper or electronic) supplying information about a particular study. It could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report, or any other document providing relevant information

Record—The title or abstract (or both) of a report indexed in a database or website (such as a title or abstract for an article indexed in Medline). Records that refer to the same report (such as the same journal article) are “duplicates”; however, records that refer to reports that are merely similar (such as a similar abstract submitted to two different conferences) should be considered unique.

Study—An investigation, such as a clinical trial, that includes a defined group of participants and one or more interventions and outcomes. A “study” might have multiple reports. For example, reports could include the protocol, statistical analysis plan, baseline characteristics, results for the primary outcome, results for harms, results for secondary outcomes, and results for additional mediator and moderator analyses

Box 2 Noteworthy changes to the PRISMA 2009 statement

• Inclusion of the abstract reporting checklist within PRISMA 2020 (see item #2 and Box 2).

• Movement of the ‘Protocol and registration’ item from the start of the Methods section of the checklist to a new Other section, with addition of a sub-item recommending authors describe amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol (see item #24a-24c).

• Modification of the ‘Search’ item to recommend authors present full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites searched, not just at least one database (see item #7).

• Modification of the ‘Study selection’ item in the Methods section to emphasise the reporting of how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process (see item #8).

• Addition of a sub-item to the ‘Data items’ item recommending authors report how outcomes were defined, which results were sought, and methods for selecting a subset of results from included studies (see item #10a).

• Splitting of the ‘Synthesis of results’ item in the Methods section into six sub-items recommending authors describe: the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis; any methods required to prepare the data for synthesis; any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses; any methods used to synthesise results; any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (such as subgroup analysis, meta-regression); and any sensitivity analyses used to assess robustness of the synthesised results (see item #13a-13f).

• Addition of a sub-item to the ‘Study selection’ item in the Results section recommending authors cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded (see item #16b).

• Splitting of the ‘Synthesis of results’ item in the Results section into four sub-items recommending authors: briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among studies contributing to the synthesis; present results of all statistical syntheses conducted; present results of any investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results; and present results of any sensitivity analyses (see item #20a-20d).

• Addition of new items recommending authors report methods for and results of an assessment of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome (see items #15 and #22).

• Addition of a new item recommending authors declare any competing interests (see item #26).

• Addition of a new item recommending authors indicate whether data, analytic code and other materials used in the review are publicly available and if so, where they can be found (see item #27).

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this paper to the late Douglas G Altman and Alessandro Liberati, whose contributions were fundamental to the development and implementation of the original PRISMA statement.

We thank the following contributors who completed the survey to inform discussions at the development meeting: Xavier Armoiry, Edoardo Aromataris, Ana Patricia Ayala, Ethan M Balk, Virginia Barbour, Elaine Beller, Jesse A Berlin, Lisa Bero, Zhao-Xiang Bian, Jean Joel Bigna, Ferrán Catalá-López, Anna Chaimani, Mike Clarke, Tammy Clifford, Ioana A Cristea, Miranda Cumpston, Sofia Dias, Corinna Dressler, Ivan D Florez, Joel J Gagnier, Chantelle Garritty, Long Ge, Davina Ghersi, Sean Grant, Gordon Guyatt, Neal R Haddaway, Julian PT Higgins, Sally Hopewell, Brian Hutton, Jamie J Kirkham, Jos Kleijnen, Julia Koricheva, Joey SW Kwong, Toby J Lasserson, Julia H Littell, Yoon K Loke, Malcolm R Macleod, Chris G Maher, Ana Marušic, Dimitris Mavridis, Jessie McGowan, Matthew DF McInnes, Philippa Middleton, Karel G Moons, Zachary Munn, Jane Noyes, Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit, Donald L Patrick, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Ba′ Pham, Bob Phillips, Dawid Pieper, Michelle Pollock, Daniel S Quintana, Drummond Rennie, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Hannah R Rothstein, Maroeska M Rovers, Rebecca Ryan, Georgia Salanti, Ian J Saldanha, Margaret Sampson, Nancy Santesso, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, Jelena Savović, Christopher H Schmid, Kenneth F Schulz, Guido Schwarzer, Beverley J Shea, Paul G Shekelle, Farhad Shokraneh, Mark Simmonds, Nicole Skoetz, Sharon E Straus, Anneliese Synnot, Emily E Tanner-Smith, Brett D Thombs, Hilary Thomson, Alexander Tsertsvadze, Peter Tugwell, Tari Turner, Lesley Uttley, Jeffrey C Valentine, Matt Vassar, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Meera Viswanathan, Cole Wayant, Paul Whaley, and Kehu Yang. We thank the following contributors who provided feedback on a preliminary version of the PRISMA 2020 checklist: Jo Abbott, Fionn Büttner, Patricia Correia-Santos, Victoria Freeman, Emily A Hennessy, Rakibul Islam, Amalia (Emily) Karahalios, Kasper Krommes, Andreas Lundh, Dafne Port Nascimento, Davina Robson, Catherine Schenck-Yglesias, Mary M Scott, Sarah Tanveer and Pavel Zhelnov. We thank Abigail H Goben, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Tanja Rombey, Anna Scott, and Farhad Shokraneh for their helpful comments on the preprints of the PRISMA 2020 papers. We thank Edoardo Aromataris, Stephanie Chang, Toby Lasserson and David Schriger for their helpful peer review comments on the PRISMA 2020 papers.

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public were not involved in this methodological research. We plan to disseminate the research widely, including to community participants in evidence synthesis organisations.

Authors’ contributions

JEM and DM are joint senior authors. MJP, JEM, PMB, IB, TCH, CDM, LS, and DM conceived this paper and designed the literature review and survey conducted to inform the guideline content. MJP conducted the literature review, administered the survey and analysed the data for both. MJP prepared all materials for the development meeting. MJP and JEM presented proposals at the development meeting. All authors except for TCH, JMT, EAA, SEB, and LAM attended the development meeting. MJP and JEM took and consolidated notes from the development meeting. MJP and JEM led the drafting and editing of the article. JEM, PMB, IB, TCH, LS, JMT, EAA, SEB, RC, JG, AH, TL, EMW, SM, LAM, LAS, JT, ACT, PW, and DM drafted particular sections of the article. All authors were involved in revising the article critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the article. MJP is the guarantor of this work. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Funding

There was no direct funding for this research. MJP is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200101618) and was previously supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (1088535) during the conduct of this research. JEM is supported by an Australian NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1143429). TCH is supported by an Australian NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1154607). JMT is supported by Evidence Partners Inc. JMG is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. MML is supported by The Ottawa Hospital Anaesthesia Alternate Funds Association and a Faculty of Medicine Junior Research Chair. TL is supported by funding from the National Eye Institute (UG1EY020522), National Institutes of Health, United States. LAM is supported by a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (DRF-2018-11-ST2–048). ACT is supported by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. DM is supported in part by a University Research Chair, University of Ottawa. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.

Declarations

Competing interests

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ and declare: EL is head of research for the BMJ; MJP is an editorial board member for PLOS Medicine; ACT is an associate editor and MJP, TL, EMW, and DM are editorial board members for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology; DM and LAS were editors in chief, LS, JMT, and ACT are associate editors, and JG is an editorial board member for Systematic Reviews. None of these authors were involved in the peer review process or decision to publish. TCH has received personal fees from Elsevier outside the submitted work. EMW has received personal fees from the American Journal for Public Health, for which he is the editor for systematic reviews. VW is editor in chief of the Campbell Collaboration, which produces systematic reviews, and co-convenor of the Campbell and Cochrane equity methods group. DM is chair of the EQUATOR Network, IB is adjunct director of the French EQUATOR Centre and TCH is co-director of the Australasian EQUATOR Centre, which advocates for the use of reporting guidelines to improve the quality of reporting in research articles. JMT received salary from Evidence Partners, creator of DistillerSR software for systematic reviews; Evidence Partners was not involved in the design or outcomes of the statement, and the views expressed solely represent those of the author.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

1. Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature. 2018;555:175–182. 10.1038/nature25753. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Syst Rev. 2019;8:170. 10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
3. Moher D. Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers. BMC Med. 2018;16:233. 10.1186/s12916-018-1226-0. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–269. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
5. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. 10.1136/bmj.b2535. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
6. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–1012. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
8. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–341. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
9. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3:e123–e130. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
10. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group Reprint--preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther. 2009;89:873–880. 10.1093/ptj/89.9.873. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78. 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, 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:e1–34. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
13. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, 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. 10.1136/bmj.b2700. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, 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:W65–W94. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
15. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting. systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care. interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract]
17. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002028. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
18. 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. 2013;8:e83138. 10.1371/journal.pone.0083138. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Limb C, et al. Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: a before and after study. Int J Surg. 2016;30:169–172. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
20. 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.014. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. 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. Syst Rev. 2017;6:263. 10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. 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. Syst Rev. 2015;4:5. 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. Marshall IJ, Noel-Storr A, Kuiper J, Thomas J, Wallace BC. Machine learning for identifying randomized controlled trials: an evaluation and practitioner’s guide. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9:602–614. 10.1002/jrsm.1287. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2019;8:163. 10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
25. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE, et al. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: Cochrane; 2019. [Google Scholar]
26. Higgins JPT, López-López JA, Becker BJ, et al. Synthesising quantitative evidence in systematic reviews of complex health interventions. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000858. 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890. 10.1136/bmj.l6890. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. 10.1136/bmj.l4898. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. 10.1136/bmj.i4919. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
30. Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, ROBIS group et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–234. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, 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. 10.1136/bmj.j4008. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
32. Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, et al. The GRADE working group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:4–13. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
33. Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2. 10.1186/2046-4053-1-2. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Establishing a new journal for systematic review products. Syst Rev. 2012;1:1. 10.1186/2046-4053-1-1. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;134:103–112. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003. [Abstract]
36. Page MJ, Altman DG, Shamseer L, et al. Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;94:8–18. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.017. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Page MJ, Altman DG, McKenzie JE, 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. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.022. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, 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;118:60–68. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.010. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181. 10.1186/1471-2288-12-181. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
40. France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:25. 10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160. 10.1136/bmj.n160. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S Group PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:39. 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 6.0. London: Cochrane; 2019. [Google Scholar]
44. 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 Med. 2019;16:e1002742. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JV. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2019. [Google Scholar]
46. IOM (Institute of Medicine) Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2011. [Abstract] [Google Scholar]
47. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, PRISMA-P Group et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, PRISMA-P Group et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647. 10.1136/bmj.g7647. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, 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;162:777–784. 10.7326/M14-2385. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
50. Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, PRISMA-IPD Development Group et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA. 2015;313:1657–1665. 10.1001/jama.2015.3656. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al. PRISMAHarms Group PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157. 10.1136/bmj.i157. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, the PRISMA-DTA Group et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA. 2018;319:388–396. 10.1001/jama.2017.19163. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–473. 10.7326/M18-0850. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA for Abstracts Group PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Boers M. Graphics and statistics for cardiology: designing effective tables for presentation and publication. Heart. 2018;104:192–200. 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311581. [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
56. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin K, MUDS investigators Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study) Res Synth Methods. 2018;9:2–12. 10.1002/jrsm.1277. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
57. Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev. 2014;3:54. 10.1186/2046-4053-3-54. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
58. McGuinness LA. mcguinlu/PRISMA-Checklist: Initial release for manuscript submission (Version v1.0.0) Geneva: Zenodo; 2020. [Google Scholar]
59. Aczel B, Szaszi B, Sarafoglou A, et al. A consensus-based transparency checklist. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4:4–6. 10.1038/s41562-019-0772-6. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
60. 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 Med. 2015;13:221. 10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
61. Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Moher 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 Med. 2019;17:205. 10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
62. 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 Oncol. 2019;5:1550–1555. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2564. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
63. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge. Syst Rev. 2017;6:185. 10.1186/s13643-017-0582-8. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
64. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
65. 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 Med. 2010;8:24. 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
66. Speich B, Schroter S, Briel M, 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:e035114. 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035114. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
67. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804. 10.1136/bmj.g3804. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
68. Hair K, Macleod MR, Sena ES, IICARus Collaboration A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus) Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:12. 10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. 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:e026589. 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026589. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
70. Charters E. The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Educ J. 2003;12:68–82. 10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
71. Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group et al. PRISMA-equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001333. 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
72. Wang X, Chen Y, Liu Y, et al. Reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of acupuncture: the PRISMA for acupuncture checklist. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019;19:208. 10.1186/s12906-019-2624-3. [Europe PMC free article] [Abstract] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from Systematic Reviews are provided here courtesy of BMC

Full text links 

Read article at publisher's site: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Read article for free, from open access legal sources, via Unpaywall: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4Unpaywall

Citations & impact 

Impact metrics

3,220
Citations
Jump to Citations

Citations of article over time

Alternative metrics

Altmetric item for https://www.altmetric.com/details/102969283
Altmetric
Discover the attention surrounding your research
https://www.altmetric.com/details/102969283

Smart citations by scite.ai
Smart citations by scite.ai include citation statements extracted from the full text of the citing article. The number of the statements may be higher than the number of citations provided by EuropePMC if one paper cites another multiple times or lower if scite has not yet processed some of the citing articles.
Explore citation contexts and check if this article has been supported or disputed.
https://scite.ai/reports/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Supporting
Mentioning
Contrasting
4
3057
1

Article citations

Go to all (3,220) article citations

Data 

Data behind the article

This data has been text mined from the article, or deposited into data resources.

BioStudies: supplemental material and supporting data

Similar Articles 

To arrive at the top five similar articles we use a word-weighted algorithm to compare words from the Title and Abstract of each citation.

Funding 

Funders who supported this work.

NEI NIH HHS (1)