AI evidence extraction

PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J. Page, David Moher, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow et al. · BMJ · 2021

AI-generated evidence extraction, verified across multiple analytical personas. Not a substitute for the peer-reviewed original.

5/10

Relevance

1/4

Quality (LMQS)

Evidence

10,956

Citations

596.61

FWCI

Top 10%

Impact

This is an AI analysis. Read the peer-reviewed original at the publisher: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160

Methodology & findings

Study design

Guideline development and explanation through systematic review of reporting standards; iterative consensus-based methodology involving international expert panel; examination of published systematic reviews to identify exemplars of good reporting practices..

Main result

The PRISMA 2020 statement provides "a checklist of 27 items to guide reporting of systematic reviews" and the authors explain "why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews." The authors conclude that "uptake of the PRISMA 2020 statement will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making."

Reports effect sizes.

Research paradigm

Positivist/empiricist

Author conclusions

The authors conclude: "We hope that uptake of the PRISMA 2020 statement will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making." They further state: "we hope that changes to the content and structure of PRISMA 2020 will facilitate uptake of the guideline and lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews."

Open questions raised

The paper identifies that systematic review reporting needs to evolve with advances in methodology and terminology; the authors developed PRISMA 2020 "to ensure currency and relevance and to reflect advances in systematic review methodology and terminology." The document also notes that extensions to PRISMA have been developed for specific review types (network meta-analyses, individual participant data meta-analyses, harms, diagnostic test accuracy, and scoping reviews).
The paper identifies that systematic reviews are "essential for healthcare providers, policy makers, and other decision makers, who would otherwise be confronted by an overwhelming volume of research on which to base their decisions." It notes the need for transparent and complete reporting to "allow others to replicate or update reviews." The authors acknowledge that the PRISMA 2009 statement needed updating "to ensure currency and relevance and to reflect advances in systematic review methodology and terminology."
The paper identifies that the original PRISMA 2009 statement needed updating to "ensure currency and relevance and to reflect advances in systematic review methodology and terminology." The paper also notes extensions are needed for specific review types: "Extensions to the PRISMA 2009 statement have been developed to guide reporting of network meta-analyses, meta-analyses of individual participant data, systematic reviews of harms, systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies, and scoping reviews."
The paper identifies the need for systematic review methodology to evolve with advances in the field. It notes that extensions to PRISMA have been developed for specialized review types: "Extensions to the PRISMA 2009 statement have been developed to guide reporting of network meta-analyses, meta-analyses of individual participant data, systematic reviews of harms, systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies, and scoping reviews." The authors recommend consulting additional guidance for mixed-methods reviews and specialized review types.
The paper identifies that systematic reviews are essential for healthcare providers and decision makers facing "an overwhelming volume of research on which to base their decisions." It indicates a need for improved transparency and completeness in reporting to "allow decision makers to assess the trustworthiness and applicability of review findings" and to "allow others to replicate or update reviews."
The paper identifies that systematic reviews are essential but that reporting quality has been historically variable. It notes the need for "updated guidance" reflecting "recent advances in systematic review methodology and terminology." Extensions to PRISMA 2020 have been developed for specific review types including "network meta-analyses, meta-analyses of individual participant data, systematic reviews of harms, systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies, and scoping reviews."

Extracted from: pdfAgreement 68%

Explore related topics

Scholarly Infrastructure Literature Review