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

The BMJ

Volumn 372, Issue , 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 ^m   Li, Tianjing ⁿ   Loder, Elizabeth W ^o   Mayo Wilson, Evan ^p   McDonald, Steve ^a   McGuinness, Luke A ^q   Stewart, Lesley A ^r   Thomas, James ^s   Tricco, Andrea C ^t   Welch, Vivian A ^u   Whiting, Penny ^q   Moher, David ^l,v   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 ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^g UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^h Evidence Partners Corporation   (Canada)

ⁱ MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^j OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^l OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^m UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^o UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO   (United States)

^p Brigham and Women's Hospital   (United Kingdom)

^q INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^r UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^s UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^t UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^u ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^v BRUYÈRE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

HUMAN; META ANALYSIS; NOMENCLATURE; PREFERRED REPORTING ITEMS FOR SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AND META-ANALYSES; REVIEW; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; MEDICAL LITERATURE; META ANALYSIS (TOPIC); METHODOLOGY; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PROCEDURES; QUALITY CONTROL; STATISTICS;

HUMANS; MEDICAL WRITING; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; QUALITY CONTROL; RESEARCH DESIGN; STATISTICS AS TOPIC; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 85103451714     PISSN: 09598146     EISSN: 17561833     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71     Document Type: Review

References (72)

1. Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-Analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature 2018;555:175-82. doi:10.1038/nature25753
2. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Syst Rev 2019;8:170. doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2
3. Moher D. Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers. BMC Med 2018;16:233. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. doi: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. 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. 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. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032
20. Leclercq V, Beaudart C, Ajamieh S, Rabenda V, Tirelli E, Bruyere O. Meta-Analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA. J Clin Epidemiol 2019;115:46-54. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions . Cochrane, 2019. 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. 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. doi:10.1136/bmj.l6890
28. Sterne JAC, Savovic J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2019;366: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. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919
30. Whiting P, Savovic J, Higgins JP, et al, ROBIS group. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225-34. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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;S0895-4356(21)00040-8. doi: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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z.
43. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Version 6.0. Cochrane, 2019. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook.
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. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742
45. Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JV, eds. The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-Analysis. Russell Sage Foundation, 2019.
46. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. The National Academies Press, 2011.
47. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-Analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev 2015;4:1. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
48. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, et al, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-Analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;350: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. doi:10.7326/M14-2385
50. Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, et al, PRISMA-IPD Development Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses of individual participant data: The PRISMA-IPD Statement. JAMA 2015;313:1657-65. 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. doi:10.1136/bmj.i157
52. McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, et al, and the PRISMA-DTA Group. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-Analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: The PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA 2018;319:388-96. 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. 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. 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. doi:10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311581
56. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin KMUDS 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. 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. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-54
58. McGuinness LA. mcguinlu/PRISMA-Checklist: Initial release for manuscript submission (Version v1.0.0).Zenodo 10.5281/zenodo.3994319 2020
59. Aczel B, Szaszi B, Sarafoglou A, et al. A consensus-based transparency checklist. Nat Hum Behav 2020;4:4-6. 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. 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. 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. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2564
63. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge. Syst Rev 2017;6:185. 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. 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. 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. 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. doi:10.1136/bmj.g3804
68. Hair K, Macleod MR, Sena ESIICARus Collaboration. A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus). Res Integr Peer Rev 2019;4:12. 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. 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 Education Journal 2003;12. doi:10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38 .
71. Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, et al, PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group. PRISMA-Equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med 2012;9:e1001333. 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. doi:10.1186/s12906-019-2624-3