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

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2021, Pages

  Page, Matthew J ^a   McKenzie, Joanne E ^a   Bossuyt, Patrick M ^b   Boutron, Isabelle ^c   Hoffmann, Tammy C ^d   Mulrow, Cynthia D ^e   Shamseer, Larissa ^f   Tetzlaff, Jennifer M ^g   Akl, Elie A ^h   Brennan, Sue E ^a   Chou, Roger ⁱ   Glanville, Julie ^j   Grimshaw, Jeremy M ^k   Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn ^l   Lalu, Manoj M ^k   Li, Tianjing ^m   Loder, Elizabeth W ⁿ   Mayo Wilson, Evan ^o   McDonald, Steve ^a   McGuinness, Luke A ^p   Stewart, Lesley A ^q   Thomas, James ^r   Tricco, Andrea C ^s   Welch, Vivian A ^f   Whiting, Penny ^p   Moher, David ^k   more..

^a MONASH UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

^c INSERM   (France)

^d BOND UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^e UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO   (United States)

^f UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^g Evidence Partners Corporation   (Canada)

^h AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

ⁱ OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^j UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^k OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^l UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^m UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

ⁿ HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^o INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^p UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^q UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^r UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^s QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CHECKLIST; DATA BASE; DOCUMENTATION; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; MEDICAL RECORD; MORTALITY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY OF LIFE; QUANTITATIVE STUDY; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SOFTWARE; STATISTICAL CONCEPTS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL;

HUMANS; PUBLISHING; QUALITY CONTROL;

EID: 85103303411     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4     Document Type: Article

References (72)

1. Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature. 2018;555:175–82. 10.1038/nature25753. DOI: 10.1038/nature25753
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. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2
3. Moher D. Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers. BMC Med. 2018;16:233. 10.1186/s12916-018-1226-0. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1226-0
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;151:264–9, W64. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2535
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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
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;62:1006–12. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005
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;8:336–41. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
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:e123–30.
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;89:873–80. 10.1093/ptj/89.9.873. DOI: 10.1093/ptj/89.9.873
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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078
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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.b2700
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:W65–94. 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136. DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136
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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100
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.
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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028
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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0083138
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;30:169–72. 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032
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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.014
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. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8
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. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5
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;9:602–14. 10.1002/jrsm.1287. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1287
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. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9
25. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. 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. 10.1002/9781119536604.ch12. DOI: 10.1002/9781119536604.ch12
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l6890
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.l4898
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i4919
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;69:225–34. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j4008
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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006
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. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-2
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. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-1
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.
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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.017
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. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.022
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;118:60–8. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.010. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.010
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. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
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. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n160
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. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
43. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 6.0. London: Cochrane; 2019. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook DOI: 10.1002/9781119536604
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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742
45. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JV. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2019. DOI: 10.7758/9781610448864
46. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2011.
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. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g7647
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;162:777–84. 10.7326/M14-2385. DOI: 10.7326/M14-2385
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;313:1657–65. 10.1001/jama.2015.3656. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.3656
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.i157
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;319:388–96. 10.1001/jama.2017.19163. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2017.19163
53. Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. 10.7326/M18-0850. DOI: 10.7326/M18-0850
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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419
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. DOI: 10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311581
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. DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1277
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. DOI: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-54
58. McGuinness LA. mcguinlu/PRISMA-Checklist: Initial release for manuscript submission (Version v1.0.0). Geneva: Zenodo; 2020. 10.5281/zenodo.3994319. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3994319
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. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-019-0772-6
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. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y
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. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0
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;5:1550–5. 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2564. DOI: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2564
63. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge. Syst Rev. 2017;6:185. 10.1186/s13643-017-0582-8. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0582-8
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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
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. DOI: 10.1186/1741-7015-8-24
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035114
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g3804
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. DOI: 10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3
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. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026589
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. DOI: 10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38
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. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333
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. DOI: 10.1186/s12906-019-2624-3