PRISMA-based Review — Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-based Review · Also known as: PRISMA review, PRISMA-guided systematic review, PRISMA 2020 review, PRISMA-compliant review
A PRISMA-based review is a systematic literature review conducted and reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Originally published by Moher et al. in 2009 and updated as PRISMA 2020 by Page et al., the framework specifies a 27-item checklist and a four-phase flow diagram covering identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion — ensuring full transparency and reproducibility in the review process.
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.
+3 more
When to use it
Use a PRISMA-based review when you are conducting a systematic review or meta-analysis intended for peer-reviewed publication in a health, social-science, education, or management journal, as most major journals in these fields now mandate PRISMA reporting. It is the appropriate framework when the goal is an exhaustive, reproducible synthesis of existing evidence on a focused question. Do not use PRISMA when you are conducting a rapid or narrative review where exhaustive searching and dual screening are not feasible, or when you are writing a scoping review — use PRISMA-ScR (the scoping review extension) instead. PRISMA alone does not guarantee review quality; poor execution of underlying steps (e.g., inadequate search strategy, single-reviewer screening) will still produce a biased review despite PRISMA compliance.
Strengths & limitations
- Maximises transparency: every retrieval, exclusion, and synthesis decision is documented and verifiable.
- Widely endorsed: required or strongly recommended by leading journals including Lancet, BMJ, and Cochrane.
- Reduces selective reporting bias by anchoring methods to a pre-registered protocol.
- Modular extension statements (PRISMA-P, PRISMA-ScR, PRISMA-IPD, PRISMA-NMA) accommodate diverse review types.
- The standardised flow diagram facilitates rapid appraisal by editors, reviewers, and readers.
- PRISMA governs reporting, not execution quality — a poorly designed search or biased extraction can still be PRISMA-compliant.
- Full compliance is resource-intensive: dual screening, dual extraction, and protocol registration add substantial time.
- Not suitable as a standalone framework for scoping, rapid, or narrative reviews without the relevant extension.
- Checklist completion can become a box-ticking exercise if reviewers do not engage substantively with each item.
Frequently asked
Is PRISMA a methodology or just a reporting guideline?
PRISMA is a reporting guideline, not a methodology in itself. The underlying methodology is the systematic review (or meta-analysis). PRISMA specifies what must be reported and documented — it does not prescribe how to conduct a search, assess risk of bias, or synthesise evidence. Those methodological choices are governed by separate frameworks such as Cochrane Handbook guidance or SWiM for narrative synthesis.
Do I need to register my protocol before starting?
PRISMA 2020 strongly recommends pre-registration of the protocol in a public registry such as PROSPERO before data collection begins. Many journals now require evidence of registration. While PRISMA does not technically prohibit unregistered reviews, absence of registration is increasingly considered a transparency deficiency by peer reviewers.
Can I use PRISMA for a scoping review?
Not the standard PRISMA checklist. Scoping reviews follow PRISMA-ScR (PRISMA extension for Scoping Reviews), which modifies several items to reflect the broader, less restrictive scope of a scoping review. Using the standard checklist for a scoping review will result in inapplicable items and mislead readers about the review type.
What software supports PRISMA flow diagram generation?
The PRISMA 2020 website (prisma-statement.org) provides an interactive flow diagram generator. Covidence, Rayyan, and Distiller SR also produce PRISMA-compatible flow diagrams automatically from screening records. For manual construction, the exact record counts at each phase must be documented throughout the screening process.
How is PRISMA 2020 different from PRISMA 2009?
PRISMA 2020 added items for methods automation, living reviews, and certainty-of-evidence assessment; reorganised the checklist into abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion, and other sections; and updated the flow diagram to separately track database records from other sources. The core logic remains the same, but 2020 is more granular about modern practices such as deduplication methods and searching of preprint servers.
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 ↗
- Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & PRISMA Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 ↗
How to cite this page
ScholarGate. (2026, June 3). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses-based Review. ScholarGate. https://scholargate.app/en/scientometrics/prisma-based-review
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.
- Integrative ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Rapid ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Scoping ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Systematic Literature ReviewScientometrics↔ compare
- Umbrella ReviewEvidence Synthesis↔ compare