PRISMA: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
PRISMA Systematic Review Reporting · Also known as: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, PRISMA 2020, PRISMA checklist, Sistematik Derleme Raporlama Kılavuzu
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is a standardized reporting guideline designed to improve the transparency and completeness of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Introduced in its current form by Page et al. in 2021 as PRISMA 2020, it provides a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram that together ensure every stage of a review — from database searching through final inclusion — is documented and reproducible.
Read the full method
Sign in with a free account to read this section.
Method map
The neighbourhood of related methods — select a node to explore.
When to use it
PRISMA should be followed whenever a study is reported as a systematic review or meta-analysis, regardless of topic domain. It is mandatory or strongly recommended by the majority of high-impact journals in medicine, public health, psychology, and education. It is not applicable to narrative reviews or scoping reviews (which have their own frameworks, PRISMA-ScR). Reviewers should apply PRISMA prospectively from protocol registration, not retrospectively after data collection.
Strengths & limitations
- Increases transparency by requiring explicit documentation of every search and exclusion decision.
- Facilitates replication and updating of reviews by future researchers.
- Widely endorsed by journals and funding bodies, enhancing publication likelihood.
- PRISMA 2020 extensions cover specialized designs such as network meta-analyses, diagnostic accuracy reviews, and scoping reviews.
- Describes what to report, not how to conduct the review — methodological quality depends on researcher judgment.
- Completing the 27-item checklist can be time-consuming, especially for large multi-database searches.
- Does not assess or guarantee the validity of included studies; risk-of-bias tools are needed alongside it.
- Extensions and adaptations (PRISMA-P, PRISMA-NMA, etc.) introduce additional complexity that can overwhelm novice reviewers.
Frequently asked
Is PRISMA 2020 mandatory, or just recommended?
Over 1,000 journals formally require PRISMA compliance as a condition of submission. Major bodies such as the Cochrane Collaboration, EQUATOR Network, and the BMJ group treat it as obligatory. Even where not formally required, adherence signals methodological rigor and is strongly associated with acceptance at high-impact journals.
What is the difference between PRISMA and PRISMA-P?
PRISMA covers reporting of a completed systematic review. PRISMA-P (Protocol) is a 17-item checklist for reporting the review protocol before data collection begins. Pre-registering a protocol with PROSPERO and reporting it per PRISMA-P is best practice because it prevents post hoc outcome switching and strengthens the credibility of the final review.
Can PRISMA be used for scoping reviews?
Not directly. The PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) was developed specifically for that design and includes items on the rationale for a scoping rather than systematic approach, charting methods, and summarizing the nature of evidence. Using standard PRISMA for a scoping review would misrepresent the methodological intent of the work.
Sources
- Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.n71 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 2). PRISMA Systematic Review Reporting. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/meta-analysis/prisma
Which method?
Set this method beside its closest kin and read them side by side — the library lays the books on the table; the choice is yours.
- Network Meta-AnalysisEvidence Synthesis↔ compare
- Publication Bias AnalysisMeta Analysis↔ compare