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

PLoS Medicine

Volumn 18, Issue 3, 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,g   Tetzlaff, Jennifer M ^h   Akl, Elie A ^i,j   Brennan, Sue E ^a   Chou, Roger ^k   Glanville, Julie ^l   Grimshaw, Jeremy M ^m,n,o   Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn ^p,q   Lalu, Manoj M ^m,o   Li, Tianjing ^r,s   Loder, Elizabeth W ^t,u   Mayo Wilson, Evan ^v   McDonald, Steve ^a   McGuinness, Luke A ^w   Stewart, Lesley A ^x   Thomas, James ^y   Tricco, Andrea C ^z,aa,ab   Welch, Vivian A ^ac   Whiting, Penny ^w   Moher, David ^g,m   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 AMERICAN UNIVERSITY OF BEIRUT   (Lebanon)

^j MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^k OREGON HEALTH AND SCIENCE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^l UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^m OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

ⁿ UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^o UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

^p UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN DENMARK   (Denmark)

^q ODENSE UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL   (Denmark)

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

^s JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

^t HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^u Indiana University School of Public Health Bloomington ^*  (United Kingdom)

^v INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^w UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^x UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^y UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^z ST MICHAEL'S HOSPITAL   (Canada)

^aa UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^ab QUEEN S UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^ac 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; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; PROCEDURES; PUBLISHING;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; PUBLISHING; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC;

EID: 85103745198     PISSN: 15491277     EISSN: 15491676     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/JOURNAL.PMED.1003583     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. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753 PMID: 29517004
2. Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Syst Rev 2019; 8:170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2 PMID: 31307555
3. Moher D. Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers. BMC Med 2018; 16:233. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1226-0 PMID: 30545364
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. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 PMID: 19622511
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 PMID: 19622551
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PMID: 19621072
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 PMID: 19631508
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 PMID: 20171303
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. PMID: 21603045
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. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873 PMID: 19723669
11. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007; 4:e78. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 PMID: 17388659
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 PMID: 19631507
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 PMID: 19622552
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. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 PMID: 19622512
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 PMID: 19621070
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 PMID: 19621070
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 PMID: 27218655
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 PMID: 24386151
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032 PMID: 27112835
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.014 PMID: 31254618
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8 PMID: 29258593
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 PMID: 25588314
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1287 PMID: 29314757
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9 PMID: 31296265
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 https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858 PMID: 30775014
27. Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ 2020; 368:l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890 PMID: 31948937
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898 PMID: 31462531
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 PMID: 27733354
30. Whiting P, Savović 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 PMID: 26092286
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 PMID: 28935701
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006 PMID: 28529184
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-2 PMID: 22587842
34. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Establishing a new journal for systematic review products. Syst Rev 2012; 1:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-1 PMID: 22587946
35. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021; 134:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003 PMID: 33577987
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.017 PMID: 29113936
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.022 PMID: 29203419
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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.010 PMID: 31740319
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 PMID: 23185978
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0 PMID: 30709371
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. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z PMID: 33499930
43. Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al, 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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742 PMID: 30789892
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 PMID: 25554246
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 PMID: 25555855
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. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385 PMID: 26030634
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. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3656 PMID: 25919529
51. Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al; PRISMAHarms Group. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ 2016; 352:i157. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i157 PMID: 26830668
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. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163 PMID: 29362800
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. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 PMID: 30178033
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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 PMID: 23585737
55. Graphics Boers M. and statistics for cardiology: designing effective tables for presentation and publication. Heart 2018; 104:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311581 PMID: 29030423
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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1277 PMID: 29057573
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-54 PMID: 24886533
58. McGuinness LA. mcguinlu/PRISMA-Checklist: Initial release for manuscript submission (Version v1.0.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0772-6 PMID: 31792401
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y PMID: 26370288
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0 PMID: 31744489
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. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2564 PMID: 31486837
63. McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge. Syst Rev 2017; 6:185. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0582-8 PMID: 28886726
64. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010; 7:e1000217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 PMID: 20169112
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-24 PMID: 20420659
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/ bmjopen-2019-035114 PMID: 32198306
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3804 PMID: 24965222
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3 PMID: 31205756
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. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026589 PMID: 31076472
70. Charters E. The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Education Journal 2003; 12. https://doi.org/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. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333 PMID: 23222917
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. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-019-2624-3 PMID: 31405367