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

Matthew J Page*, Joanne E McKenzie, Patrick M Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C Hoffmann, Cynthia D Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M Tetzlaff, Elie A Akl, Sue E Brennan, Roger Chou, Julie Glanville, Jeremy M Grimshaw, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson, Manoj M Lalu, Tianjing Li, Elizabeth W Loder, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Steve McDonald, Luke A McGuinnessLesley A Stewart, James Thomas, Andrea C Tricco, Vivian A Welch, Penny Whiting, David Moher

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

9 Downloads (Pure)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Article number105906
Number of pages9
JournalInternational Journal of Surgery
Volume88
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 29 Mar 2021

Bibliographical note

Copyright © 2021 IJS Publishing Group Ltd. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords

  • Checklist
  • Guidelines as Topic
  • Humans
  • Publishing
  • Research Report/standards
  • Systematic Reviews as Topic

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this