Abstract
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews.
Highlights
ObjectivesProvide an explicit statement of the main objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses
The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews
We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews
Summary
The PRISMA 2020 statement provides updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. Technological advances have enabled the use of natural language processing and machine learning to identify relevant evidence,[22,23,24] methods have been proposed to synthesise and present findings when meta-analysis is not possible or appropriate,[25,26,27] and new methods have been developed to assess the risk of bias in results of included studies.[28 29] Evidence on sources of bias in systematic reviews has accrued, culminating in the development of new tools to appraise the conduct of systematic reviews.[30 31] Terminology used to describe particular review processes has evolved, as in the shift from assessing “quality” to assessing “certainty” in the body of evidence.[32] In addition, the publishing landscape has transformed, with multiple avenues available for registering and disseminating systematic review protocols,[33 34] disseminating reports of systematic reviews, and sharing data and materials, such as preprint servers and publicly accessible repositories To capture these advances in the reporting of systematic reviews necessitated an update to the PRISMA 2009 statement. Report 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
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
