PRISMA 2020 Checklist
The full PRISMA 2020 checklist for systematic reviews, with a box for the page or section where each item is reported, and the 12-item abstract checklist on a switch. Fill it in as you write, then print it for your supplement or copy it as a table. The item wording is the authors' own, reproduced under CC BY 4.0. Runs in your browser. Free, no sign-up.
PRISMA 2020 Checklist
| Section and topic | Item # | Checklist item | Location where item is reported |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | |||
| Title | 1 | Identify the report as a systematic review. | |
| Abstract | |||
| Abstract | 2 | See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist (table 2). | |
| Introduction | |||
| Rationale | 3 | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. | |
| Objectives | 4 | Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. | |
| Methods | |||
| Eligibility criteria | 5 | Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. | |
| Information sources | 6 | Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. | |
| Search strategy | 7 | Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used. | |
| Selection process | 8 | Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | |
| Data collection process | 9 | Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | |
| Data items | 10a | List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. | |
| 10b | List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. | ||
| Study risk of bias assessment | 11 | Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | |
| Effect measures | 12 | Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. | |
| Synthesis methods | 13a | Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). | |
| 13b | Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions. | ||
| 13c | Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. | ||
| 13d | Describe any methods used to synthesise results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used. | ||
| 13e | Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression). | ||
| 13f | Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesised results. | ||
| Reporting bias assessment | 14 | Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). | |
| Certainty assessment | 15 | Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. | |
| Results | |||
| Study selection | 16a | Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram (see fig 1). | |
| 16b | Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. | ||
| Study characteristics | 17 | Cite each included study and present its characteristics. | |
| Risk of bias in studies | 18 | Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. | |
| Results of individual studies | 19 | For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. | |
| Results of syntheses | 20a | For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. | |
| 20b | Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. | ||
| 20c | Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. | ||
| 20d | Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesised results. | ||
| Reporting biases | 21 | Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. | |
| Certainty of evidence | 22 | Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. | |
| Discussion | |||
| Discussion | 23a | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. | |
| 23b | Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. | ||
| 23c | Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. | ||
| 23d | Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. | ||
| Other information | |||
| Registration and protocol | 24a | Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. | |
| 24b | Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. | ||
| 24c | Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. | ||
| Support | 25 | Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. | |
| Competing interests | 26 | Declare any competing interests of review authors. | |
| Availability of data, code, and other materials | 27 | 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. | |
The checklist items are from Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71. Licensed under CC BY 4.0 (creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/); the location and status columns are additions. See prisma-statement.org.
Progress
0
Items filled in
42
Items in this checklist
An item counts as filled in when it has a location or a status. A review is not finished when the checklist is full: the page or section you cite should contain the reporting the item asks for.
How to Use the PRISMA 2020 Checklist
- 1. Describe the review. Add its title, your name and the date. They appear at the top of the printed copy and in the copied table.
- 2. Choose the checklist. The full checklist has 27 items, 42 rows once the lettered sub-items are counted. The abstract checklist has 12 items and applies to the abstract only.
- 3. Fill in the location. For each item, write the page, section or supplement where the manuscript reports it, and pick a status if you like: reported, partly reported, or not applicable.
- 4. Print or copy. Print gives you the checklist as a clean table with the attribution; Copy as table gives tab-separated text to paste into a spreadsheet or Word table. Many journals ask for the completed checklist at submission.
What PRISMA 2020 Is
PRISMA — Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses — is a reporting guideline. It tells authors what a systematic review report should contain so that readers can judge it and others can reproduce it. The 2020 statement, by Page and colleagues, replaced the 2009 version and was published in 2021 in the BMJ and several other journals. It has a 27-item checklist, a flow diagram for the study-selection results, and a separate checklist for abstracts.
PRISMA does not say how to do a review, and it does not grade the quality of one. A review can tick every box and still be weak, or be strong and report poorly. The checklist is also a useful planning tool: working through the Methods items before you start shows you the decisions you need to make and record.
Where to Point the Location Column
| Items | Topic | Usually reported in |
|---|---|---|
| 1–2 | Title and abstract | The title page and the structured abstract (use the abstract checklist for item 2). |
| 3–4 | Rationale and objectives | The end of the Introduction. |
| 5–15 | Eligibility, sources, search, selection, data, risk of bias, synthesis | Methods. The full search strategies (item 7) usually go in a supplement or appendix. |
| 16–22 | Results | Results, with the flow diagram for item 16a and the risk-of-bias figure or table for item 18. |
| 23 | Discussion | Discussion, including limitations of the evidence and of the review. |
| 24–27 | Registration, support, competing interests, data availability | A short “Other information” or declarations section at the end of Methods or after the Discussion. |
Common Mistakes
- Writing “Methods” as the location. A reviewer should be able to find the item in seconds. Give the page, paragraph or supplement table.
- Reporting the search without dates. Item 6 asks for the date each source was last searched, and item 7 for the full strategy of every source — not just the main database.
- Skipping the flow diagram. Item 16a asks for the numbers from records identified to studies included. Use the PRISMA Flow Diagram Generator.
- Treating “not applicable” as a way out. Use it only when the item truly does not apply, such as meta-regression in a review with no meta-analysis, and say why in the text.
- Forgetting the protocol. Items 24a to 24c ask for registration, where the protocol can be seen, and any amendments.
Extensions and Other Checklists
PRISMA has extensions for particular kinds of review and parts of a report. PRISMA-S covers the reporting of literature searches, which expands items 6 and 7, and PRISMA-ScR is for scoping reviews. Check the PRISMA website for the one that matches your design, and use the checklist your journal names.
Source and Licence
The items are from Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71, doi:10.1136/bmj.n71, Tables 1 and 2. The article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (CC BY 4.0), which allows reuse with credit. The wording is reproduced unchanged; the location and status columns are additions. The official checklist, templates and extensions are at prisma-statement.org.
What Is Sent, and Where
Nothing. What you type stays on the page in your browser; it is not sent anywhere and is lost when you close or reload the tab, so print or copy before you leave.
Frequently Asked Questions
- How many items are on the PRISMA 2020 checklist?
- There are 27 numbered items. Several have lettered sub-items — 10a and 10b, 13a to 13f, 16a and 16b, 20a to 20d, 23a to 23d and 24a to 24c — which makes 42 rows. The separate abstract checklist has 12 items.
- Do I have to submit a PRISMA checklist with my systematic review?
- Many journals require it at submission, and some ask for the flow diagram too. Even where it is not required, filling it in before submission is the quickest way to catch what is missing. Follow your target journal's instructions.
- What is the difference between the PRISMA checklist and the PRISMA flow diagram?
- The checklist lists everything a review report should contain. The flow diagram is one item on it, 16a: it shows how many records were identified, screened, assessed and included, and why reports were excluded.
- Is the PRISMA 2020 checklist free to use?
- Yes. The paper that sets out the checklist is published under CC BY 4.0, so you may reproduce and adapt it with attribution to Page and colleagues, as this page does. The authors also host editable copies at prisma-statement.org.
- Which PRISMA checklist should I use for a scoping review?
- PRISMA-ScR, the extension for scoping reviews. The 2020 checklist is written for systematic reviews, with or without meta-analysis. If you are unsure which applies, check your journal's author guidelines.
- What is the PRISMA abstract checklist?
- A 12-item checklist for the abstract alone: title, objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, risk of bias and synthesis methods, included studies, main results, limitations, interpretation, funding and registration. It is item 2 of the full checklist.
- Does completing PRISMA make my review high quality?
- No. PRISMA is about transparent reporting, not about methodological quality. It lets readers see what you did; they then judge whether it was done well.