PRISMA Checklist: Standards for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses · Also known as: PRISMA, PRISMA 2020
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) is a 27-item evidence-based checklist published in 2021 (updated from 2009) to standardize reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Endorsed by over 500 journals, PRISMA is the international standard for evidence synthesis reporting, used across healthcare, psychology, education, and social sciences to ensure transparency and reproducibility.
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 is mandatory for systematic review and meta-analysis manuscripts submitted to major journals (BMJ, Lancet, JAMA, etc.). Use when conducting or reviewing systematic reviews, publishing meta-analyses, writing clinical guidelines informed by evidence synthesis, or performing research on systematic review methodology.
Strengths & limitations
- Comprehensive (27 items) yet practical; covers all essential elements from protocol registration to conclusions
- Updated version (PRISMA 2020) incorporates modern standards: protocol registration (PROSPERO), GRADE certainty of evidence, risk of bias visualization, and reporting of certainty assessments
- Design-specific extensions available: PRISMA for network meta-analysis, individual patient data meta-analysis, diagnostic accuracy, scoping reviews, and qualitative synthesis
- Accompanied by detailed explanation and elaboration paper; online portal (prisma-statement.org) hosts tools, case studies, and translations in >50 languages
- Wide adoption (>500 journals); international consensus facilitates consistency in evidence synthesis reporting
- PRISMA is a reporting standard, not a quality standard; a systematic review with flawed methodology (e.g., inadequate search, biased selection) can fully comply with PRISMA
- No enforcement mechanism; many journals claim to require PRISMA but do not systematically verify checklist completion or report it in published papers
- Some items are difficult to assess objectively (e.g., 'comprehensive' search strategy); interpretation varies by field and methodology
- PRISMA does not directly address methodological quality of the systematic review process (e.g., whether searches were sufficiently thorough, whether selection was unbiased); use alongside quality assessment tools (AMSTAR 2)
- Increasing checklist length (27 items vs. original 27, but with more detailed sub-items) may burden authors and reviewers
Frequently asked
Is PRISMA checklist completion mandatory for my systematic review?
Most major journals now require or strongly recommend PRISMA compliance. Even journals not explicitly requiring it benefit from adherence; submitting the completed checklist strengthens credibility. PRISMA is standard practice in evidence synthesis.
Must I register my systematic review protocol before conducting the review?
Yes, prospective registration (PROSPERO or clinicaltrials.gov) is now required or strongly expected. PRISMA Item 2 asks for protocol registration number and date. Prospective registration reduces selective outcome reporting and demonstrates methodological rigor. Retrospective registration is acceptable if prospective registration was not feasible, but disclose the timing.
Can I use PRISMA for scoping reviews?
Use PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews), published 2018. Scoping reviews map literature breadth rather than synthesize evidence; PRISMA-ScR has 22 items tailored to this objective.
What is the relationship between PRISMA and AMSTAR 2?
PRISMA is a reporting checklist (what items should be reported); AMSTAR 2 is a quality assessment tool (how to judge methodological quality). Use both: PRISMA guides manuscript preparation; AMSTAR 2 guides critical appraisal of published reviews. A well-reported review (high PRISMA adherence) can still have methodological limitations (lower AMSTAR 2 score).
Is a meta-analysis always required in a systematic review?
No. A systematic review is a structured, comprehensive literature synthesis; meta-analysis is a statistical pooling of effect estimates. Many systematic reviews are qualitative syntheses without meta-analysis (e.g., due to heterogeneity, inability to extract comparable data). PRISMA accommodates both; report clearly whether meta-analysis was performed and why (or why not).
Sources
- Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., ... & Moher, D. (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 3). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/research-methodology/prisma-checklist
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.
- Cochrane RoB 2.0Research Methodology↔ compare
- CONSORT Reporting ChecklistResearch Methodology↔ compare
- GRADE Evidence ProfilingResearch Methodology↔ compare
- STROBE ChecklistResearch Methodology↔ compare