Library Research Guides: Research, Statistics, Writing, Dissertation &amp; Publishing: PRISMA

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) The PRISMA 2020 statement comprises a 27-item checklist addressing the introduction, methods, results and discussion sections of a systematic review report.

PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA primarily focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating the effects of interventions, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (e.g. evaluating aetiology, prevalence, diagnosis or prognosis). https://www.prisma-statement.org/

Licensed under Creative Commons for unrestricted use and distribution https://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/CitingAndUsingPRISMA.aspx

PRISMA extensions
PRISMA for Abstracts; PRISMA for Acupuncture; PRISMA for Diagnostic Test Accuracy; PRISMA for EcoEvo; PRISMA Equity; PRISMA Harms (for reviews including Harm outcomes); PRISMA Individual Patient Data; PRISMA for Network Meta-Analyses; PRISMA for Protocols
PRISMA for Scoping Reviews; PRISMA for Searching; Extensions in development

PRISMA seminal research articles

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009) Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their specialty,1 2 and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research,3 and some medical journals are moving in this direction.4 As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers’ ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews. Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987 Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies.5 In 1987 Sacks and colleagues evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains.6 Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean 7.7, standard deviation 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement.7 In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials.8 In this article, we summarise a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews
PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews (2021) The methods and results of systematic reviews should be reported in sufficient detail to allow users to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of the review findings. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement was developed to facilitate transparent and complete reporting of systematic reviews and has been updated (to PRISMA 2020) to reflect recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology. Here, we present the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where we explain why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews. We hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews.

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) expanded checklist

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) expanded checklist

This expanded checklist details elements recommended for reporting for each PRISMA 2020 item. Non-italicized elements are considered ‘essential’ and should be reported in the main report or as supplementary material for all systematic reviews (except for those preceded by “If…”, which should only be reported where applicable). Elements written in italics are ‘additional’, and while not essential, provide supplementary information that may enhance the completeness and usability of systematic review reports. Note that elements presented here are an abridged version of those presented in the explanation and elaboration paper (BMJ 2021;372:n160), with references and some examples removed. Consulting the explanation and elaboration paper is recommended if further clarity or information is required.

PRISMA Flow Diagrams
The flow diagram depicts the flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review. It maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, and the reasons for exclusions. Different templates are available depending on the type of review (new or updated) and sources used to identify studies.
PRISMA2020 R package and ShinyApp
On open source Flow diagram maker based on PRISMA2020.

App link: https://estech.shinyapps.io/prisma_flowdiagram/

PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis (2022). Seminal research article. Reporting standards, such as PRISMA aim to ensure that the methods and results of systematic reviews are described in sufficient detail to allow full transparency. Flow diagrams in evidence syntheses allow the reader to rapidly understand the core procedures used in a review and examine the attrition of irrelevant records throughout the review process. Recent research suggests that use of flow diagrams in systematic reviews is poor and of low quality and called for standardised templates to facilitate better reporting in flow diagrams. The increasing options for interactivity provided by the Internet gives us an opportunity to support easy-to-use evidence synthesis tools, and here we report on the development of a tool for the production of PRISMA 2020-compliant systematic review flow diagrams.