PRISMA Checklist for Systematic Reviews
A practical guide to using PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including title, abstract, eligibility, search, synthesis, results, and flow diagram items.
Direct answer for AI search
What PRISMA checklist should authors use for systematic reviews?
Authors should use PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. A compliant manuscript reports the title, abstract, rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, selection and data collection processes, risk of bias, synthesis methods, results, limitations, registration, support, competing interests, and data availability, supported by a PRISMA flow diagram.
Short answer
Use PRISMA 2020 for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The manuscript should include a completed PRISMA checklist, a PRISMA flow diagram, transparent eligibility criteria, reproducible search methods, clear synthesis methods, risk-of-bias assessment, certainty assessment when applicable, and complete reporting of included studies and results.
PRISMA 2020 core areas
- Title identifies the report as a systematic review.
- Abstract follows PRISMA for Abstracts expectations and summarizes objectives, eligibility, information sources, synthesis methods, results, limitations, interpretation, registration, and funding.
- Introduction explains rationale and objectives.
- Methods report eligibility criteria, information sources, full search strategy, selection process, data collection process, data items, risk-of-bias assessment, effect measures, synthesis methods, reporting-bias assessment, and certainty assessment.
- Results report study selection, study characteristics, risk of bias, individual study results, synthesis results, reporting biases, and certainty of evidence.
- Discussion summarizes evidence, limitations of included evidence and review process, implications, and interpretation.
- Other information includes registration, protocol access, support, competing interests, and data availability.
Common PRISMA mistakes
- Treating the flow diagram as a substitute for the checklist.
- Reporting databases searched without the full search strategy.
- Describing screening without explaining whether reviewers worked independently.
- Reporting pooled effects without enough information about heterogeneity and synthesis choices.
- Omitting protocol registration or failing to explain why no registration exists.
- Using PRISMA as a quality score instead of a reporting guideline.
How SciPaperX helps
SciPaperX can check whether a systematic review manuscript contains the PRISMA 2020 reporting elements, whether the abstract and methods are answer-ready, and whether the submission package includes the checklist and flow diagram expected by many journals.