The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J. Page; Joanne E. McKenzie; Patrick M. Bossuyt; Isabelle Boutron; Tammy C. Hoffmann; Cynthia D. Mulrow; Larissa Shamseer; Jennifer M. Tetzlaff; Elie A. Akl; Sue E. Brennan; Roger Chou; Julie Glanville; Jeremy M. Grimshaw; Asbjorn Hrobjartsson; Manoj M. Lalu; Tianjing Li; Elizabeth W. Loder; Evan Mayo-Wilson; Steve McDonald; Luke A. McGuinness; Lesley A. Stewart; James Thomas; Andrea C. Tricco; Vivian A. Welch; Penny Whiting; David Moher

doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Matthew J. Page^*, Joanne E. McKenzie, Patrick M. Bossuyt, Isabelle Boutron, Tammy C. Hoffmann, Cynthia D. Mulrow, Larissa Shamseer, Jennifer M. Tetzlaff, Elie A. Akl, Sue E. Brennan, Roger Chou, Julie Glanville, Jeremy M. Grimshaw, Asbjorn Hrobjartsson, Manoj M. Lalu, Tianjing Li, Elizabeth W. Loder, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Steve McDonald, Luke A. McGuinnessLesley A. Stewart, James Thomas, Andrea C. Tricco, Vivian A. Welch, Penny Whiting, David Moher

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer-review

5311 Citations (Scopus)

447 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

[Extract]
Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers) [1, 2]. To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this [3].

Original language	English
Article number	89
Number of pages	11
Journal	Systematic Reviews
Volume	10
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Publication status	Published - 29 Mar 2021

Access to Document

10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4Licence: CC BY

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviewsFinal published version, 958 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hrobjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., ... Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), Article 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

@article{75adedd53d5c4725902540e4fc497ab2,

title = "The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews",

abstract = "[Extract]Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers) [1, 2]. To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this [3].",

author = "Page, {Matthew J.} and McKenzie, {Joanne E.} and Bossuyt, {Patrick M.} and Isabelle Boutron and Hoffmann, {Tammy C.} and Mulrow, {Cynthia D.} and Larissa Shamseer and Tetzlaff, {Jennifer M.} and Akl, {Elie A.} and Brennan, {Sue E.} and Roger Chou and Julie Glanville and Grimshaw, {Jeremy M.} and Asbjorn Hrobjartsson and Lalu, {Manoj M.} and Tianjing Li and Loder, {Elizabeth W.} and Evan Mayo-Wilson and Steve McDonald and McGuinness, {Luke A.} and Stewart, {Lesley A.} and James Thomas and Tricco, {Andrea C.} and Welch, {Vivian A.} and Penny Whiting and David Moher",

year = "2021",

month = mar,

day = "29",

doi = "10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4",

language = "English",

volume = "10",

journal = "Systematic Reviews",

issn = "2046-4053",

publisher = "BMC",

number = "1",

}

Page, MJ, McKenzie, JE, Bossuyt, PM, Boutron, I, Hoffmann, TC, Mulrow, CD, Shamseer, L, Tetzlaff, JM, Akl, EA, Brennan, SE, Chou, R, Glanville, J, Grimshaw, JM, Hrobjartsson, A, Lalu, MM, Li, T, Loder, EW, Mayo-Wilson, E, McDonald, S, McGuinness, LA, Stewart, LA, Thomas, J, Tricco, AC, Welch, VA, Whiting, P & Moher, D 2021, 'The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews', Systematic Reviews, vol. 10, no. 1, 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

TY - JOUR

T1 - The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

AU - Page, Matthew J.

AU - McKenzie, Joanne E.

AU - Bossuyt, Patrick M.

AU - Boutron, Isabelle

AU - Hoffmann, Tammy C.

AU - Mulrow, Cynthia D.

AU - Shamseer, Larissa

AU - Tetzlaff, Jennifer M.

AU - Akl, Elie A.

AU - Brennan, Sue E.

AU - Chou, Roger

AU - Glanville, Julie

AU - Grimshaw, Jeremy M.

AU - Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn

AU - Lalu, Manoj M.

AU - Li, Tianjing

AU - Loder, Elizabeth W.

AU - Mayo-Wilson, Evan

AU - McDonald, Steve

AU - McGuinness, Luke A.

AU - Stewart, Lesley A.

AU - Thomas, James

AU - Tricco, Andrea C.

AU - Welch, Vivian A.

AU - Whiting, Penny

AU - Moher, David

PY - 2021/3/29

Y1 - 2021/3/29

N2 - [Extract]Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers) [1, 2]. To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this [3].

AB - [Extract]Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers) [1, 2]. To ensure a systematic review is valuable to users, authors should prepare a transparent, complete, and accurate account of why the review was done, what they did (such as how studies were identified and selected) and what they found (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this [3].

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85103303411&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

DO - 10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 33781348

SN - 2046-4053

VL - 10

JO - Systematic Reviews

JF - Systematic Reviews

IS - 1

M1 - 89

ER -

The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

Abstract

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this