Examples
Worked examples
- Is an instance
A systematic review of cardiovascular interventions including the full PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.
- Is an instance
A scoping review using the PRISMA-ScR extension.
Counter-examples
Looks similar, but isn't
- Not an instance
A narrative literature review without systematic methods.
- Not an instance
A trial protocol (CONSORT-related).
Editorial commentary
PRISMA 2020 (Page et al., BMJ 2021;372:n71) is the current version of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: a 27-item checklist, with an accompanying flow diagram, specifying what a systematic review report must state to be complete and reproducible — from the search strategy and eligibility criteria through the screening process, risk-of-bias assessment, synthesis method, and, where applicable, certainty-of-evidence rating. It replaces the 2009 PRISMA statement, updating the checklist to reflect a decade of methodological development in evidence synthesis, including how reviews handle multiple information sources, automation in screening, and more systematic risk-of-bias and certainty assessment.
PRISMA 2020 is a reporting guideline, not a method for conducting a review: it does not tell an author how to search, screen, or synthesise, only what must be disclosed about how those steps were actually done, so that a reader (or a later reviewer attempting to check the work) can evaluate and reproduce the process. That is why it sits alongside, rather than replaces, methodological guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook.
Extensions and related reporting standards
The core 27-item checklist has several published extensions for specific review types: PRISMA-P for protocols, PRISMA-ScR for scoping reviews, PRISMA-NMA for network meta-analyses, and extensions covering individual-patient-data reviews and abstract-only reporting. It sits in the same family of study-type-specific reporting checklists as CONSORT 2010 for randomised trials and ARRIVE 2.0 for animal research — each governs reporting completeness for a different study design, and a systematic review of trials would typically cite PRISMA for the review itself and expect the included trials to have followed CONSORT.
Journals and funders increasingly require PRISMA 2020 compliance, or a completed PRISMA checklist, as a condition of considering a systematic review or meta-analysis for publication or funding-report acceptance. For the full methodology comparison between review types, see CASRAI's guide on PRISMA and systematic review methodology.
References
- Page et al., 'The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews' (BMJ, 2021).
- EQUATOR Network, PRISMA resources (equator-network.org).
Also known as
PRISMA · PRISMA statement 2020
Machine-readable encodings
Use in your systems
<role vocab="credit"
vocab-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/"
vocab-term="PRISMA 2020"
vocab-term-identifier="https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/prisma-2020" />{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "DefinedTerm",
"@id": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/prisma-2020",
"name": "PRISMA 2020",
"identifier": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/prisma-2020",
"description": "The 2020 update of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses, a 27-item checklist with accompanying flow diagram for reporting systematic reviews.",
"inDefinedTermSet": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/domain/reproducibility#set",
"url": "https://casrai.org/dictionary/term/prisma-2020",
"alternateName": [
"PRISMA",
"PRISMA statement 2020"
],
"license": "https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/",
"publisher": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#organization"
},
"author": {
"@id": "https://casrai.org/#editorial-team"
},
"datePublished": "2026-05-21T02:22:50",
"dateModified": "2026-09-05T17:31:38",
"inLanguage": "en-GB",
"isAccessibleForFree": true
}
