All reporting guidelines
Check your manuscript against PRISMA.
- Guideline
- PRISMA 2020
- Items
- 27
- Criteria
- 42
- Sections
- 7
- Applies to
- systematic review or meta-analysis
Systematic reviews of any question type, with or without meta-analysis. Twenty-seven items run to forty-two rows because half of them carry sub-items.
Required or recommended by most journals publishing systematic reviews and by Cochrane. Often requested alongside the flow diagram and the registration record.
PRISMA 2020 · Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
What comes back42 criteria
Showing all 42 criteria.
Title
- Title1Title1Identify the report as a systematic review.
Abstract
- Abstract2Abstract2See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist.
Introduction
- Rationale3Rationale3Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
- Objectives4Objectives4Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.
Methods
- Eligibility criteria5Eligibility criteria5Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.
- Information sources6Information 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 strategy7Search strategy7Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.
- Selection process8Selection 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 process9Data 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 items10aData 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.
- 10b10bList 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 assessment11Study 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 measures12Effect measures12Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.
- Synthesis methods13aSynthesis 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).
- 13b13bDescribe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.
- 13c13cDescribe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.
- 13d13dDescribe any methods used to synthesize 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.
- 13e13eDescribe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression).
- 13f13fDescribe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.
- Reporting bias assessment14Reporting bias assessment14Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).
- Certainty assessment15Certainty assessment15Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.
Results
- Study selection16aStudy 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.
- 16b16bCite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.
- Study characteristics17Study characteristics17Cite each included study and present its characteristics.
- Risk of bias in studies18Risk of bias in studies18Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.
- Results of individual studies19Results of individual studies19For all outcomes, present, for each study: summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.
- Results of syntheses20aResults of syntheses20aFor each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.
- 20b20bPresent 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.
- 20c20cPresent results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.
- 20d20dPresent results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.
- Reporting biases21Reporting biases21Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.
- Certainty of evidence22Certainty of evidence22Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.
Discussion
- Discussion23aDiscussion23aProvide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.
- 23b23bDiscuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.
- 23c23cDiscuss any limitations of the review processes used.
- 23d23dDiscuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.
Other information
- Registration and protocol24aRegistration and protocol24aProvide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.
- 24b24bIndicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.
- 24c24cDescribe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.
- Support25Support25Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.
- Competing interests26Competing interests26Declare any competing interests of review authors.
- Availability of data, code and other materials27Availability 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.
PRISMA 2020 checklist items reproduced from the published guideline. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. CC BY 4.0.
What comes back
See one item in fullThe same form, marked against your own manuscript.
The sample above is an illustration. On your manuscript, all 42 criteria come back marked, and the ones that fall short raise a mark in the margin of the paper itself.
- Met, partly met, not met or not applicable, for every item
- Each item highlighted in your text, ready to amend
- What is missing, how to fix it, and where in the paper it belongs
- The whole form, downloadable as a marked spreadsheet
Working on something else?
All guidelines