PRISMA 2020 checklist

Fill it in here and download it as Word or PDF, half done included. Free, no sign-up; your answers never leave the browser.

Review title (optional)

0 of 27 items· 0 of 12 abstract items

Saved in this browser only, as you type.

DownloadWordPDFCSVJSON

DraftCopy as tableOpen a JSONStart over

The Word and PDF files carry a revisia line in the footer; CSV and JSON come out clean. Sign in and it goes away. Log in · Create a free account

PRISMA 2020 checklistTITLEABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONOTHER INFORMATION

PRISMA 2020 for AbstractsTITLEBACKGROUNDMETHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONOTHER

PRISMA 2020 checklist

TITLE

1
Title
Identify the report as a systematic review.
Status of item 1YesNoN/A
Note

ABSTRACT

2
Abstract
See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist.
Status of item 2YesNoN/A
Note

INTRODUCTION

3
Rationale
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
Status of item 3YesNoN/A
Note
4
Objectives
Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.
Status of item 4YesNoN/A
Note

METHODS

5
Eligibility criteria
Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.
Status of item 5YesNoN/A
Note
6
Information sources
Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.
Status of item 6YesNoN/A
Note
7
Search strategy
Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.
Status of item 7YesNoN/A
Note
8
Selection process
Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Status of item 8YesNoN/A
Note
9
Data collection process
Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Status of item 9YesNoN/A
Note
10a
Data items
List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.
Status of item 10aYesNoN/A
Note
10b
List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.
Status of item 10bYesNoN/A
Note
11
Study risk of bias assessment
Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
Status of item 11YesNoN/A
Note
12
Effect measures
Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.
Status of item 12YesNoN/A
Note
13a
Synthesis methods
Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).
Status of item 13aYesNoN/A
Note
13b
Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.
Status of item 13bYesNoN/A
Note
13c
Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.
Status of item 13cYesNoN/A
Note
13d
Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.
Status of item 13dYesNoN/A
Note
13e
Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression).
Status of item 13eYesNoN/A
Note
13f
Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.
Status of item 13fYesNoN/A
Note
14
Reporting bias assessment
Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).
Status of item 14YesNoN/A
Note
15
Certainty assessment
Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.
Status of item 15YesNoN/A
Note

RESULTS

16a
Study selection
Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.
Draw the flow diagram here →
Status of item 16aYesNoN/A
Note
16b
Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.
Draw the flow diagram here →
Status of item 16bYesNoN/A
Note
17
Study characteristics
Cite each included study and present its characteristics.
Status of item 17YesNoN/A
Note
18
Risk of bias in studies
Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.
Status of item 18YesNoN/A
Note
19
Results of individual studies
For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.
Status of item 19YesNoN/A
Note
20a
Results of syntheses
For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.
Status of item 20aYesNoN/A
Note
20b
Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.
Status of item 20bYesNoN/A
Note
20c
Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.
Status of item 20cYesNoN/A
Note
20d
Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.
Status of item 20dYesNoN/A
Note
21
Reporting biases
Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.
Status of item 21YesNoN/A
Note
22
Certainty of evidence
Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.
Status of item 22YesNoN/A
Note

DISCUSSION

23a
Discussion
Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.
Status of item 23aYesNoN/A
Note
23b
Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.
Status of item 23bYesNoN/A
Note
23c
Discuss any limitations of the review processes used.
Status of item 23cYesNoN/A
Note
23d
Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.
Status of item 23dYesNoN/A
Note

OTHER INFORMATION

24a
Registration and protocol
Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.
Status of item 24aYesNoN/A
Note
24b
Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.
Status of item 24bYesNoN/A
Note
24c
Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.
Status of item 24cYesNoN/A
Note
25
Support
Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.
Status of item 25YesNoN/A
Note
26
Competing interests
Declare any competing interests of review authors.
Status of item 26YesNoN/A
Note
27
Availability of data, code and other materials
Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.
Status of item 27YesNoN/A
Note

What it is and why journals ask for it

The PRISMA 2020 checklist is the 27 items a systematic review must report, from the title to data availability. It comes with the PRISMA 2020 statement (Page et al., BMJ 2021), and most health-science journals ask for it completed as a supplementary file: for each item, the page or section of the manuscript where it is reported. Your reviewers use it to find each thing without reading the whole text.

The second table, PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts, does the same for the 12 elements an abstract must have. Item 2 of the main checklist points to it, so the two go together.

How to fill it in

Have the manuscript nearly final: the checklist asks for pages, and pages move.
Mark each item: Yes if it is reported, No if it is missing, N/A if it does not apply (meta-analysis items in a narrative synthesis, the protocol if there was none).
Write where: "p. 4, Methods", "Table 2", "Supplement 1". Typing a location marks the item as reported.
Check the section bar: complete sections carry a tick.
Download as Word or PDF, or hand the JSON to a coauthor.

Item 16a needs the flow diagram: draw it herewith the four official templates.

What the Word and PDF files contain

The four-column table journals expect: Section and Topic,Item #, Checklist item andLocation where item is reported, with section names spanning the table as in the official file. An item marked "Not applicable" or "Not reported" says so in its location column, which is how editors read it. Notes are not printed: they are for your coauthors.

The document downloads with the checklist half done. The official app only hands over the file once every item is answered; here the draft is yours from the first item.

The revisia mark and your data

The Word and PDF files carry a footer line that says "Generated with revisia". Sign in to revisia with a verified email and the line goes away. The account is free. The CSV, the JSON and the copied table never carry a mark.

Nothing is sent to a server: the draft is saved in your browser's storage as you type and the files are generated on your device. Moving to another computer? Take the JSON.

Frequently asked questions

What is the PRISMA 2020 checklist?

It is the 27-item table that comes with the PRISMA 2020 statement (Page et al., BMJ 2021). Each item says what a systematic review paper must report, from the title to data availability. The completed checklist states, for every item, the page or section of the manuscript where it is reported. This tool fills it in and exports it in that format.

Do journals require the completed checklist?

Many do, as a supplementary file. BMJ, PLOS, JAMA Network and most journals that follow ICMJE and EQUATOR recommendations ask for the PRISMA checklist with the location of each item when you submit a systematic review or meta-analysis. Check your journal’s author instructions; the expected format is this table as a Word or PDF file.

How is it different from the abstract checklist, PRISMA-P and PRISMA-ScR?

The main checklist covers the full paper (27 items). The abstract checklist (12 items) covers the abstract only and is what item 2 points to; both are here. PRISMA-P is for the review protocol, before the review is done, and PRISMA-ScR is for scoping reviews, with its own 20 items plus 2 optional ones. This tool covers PRISMA 2020 and PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts.

Can I download it half done?

Yes. The Word, PDF, CSV and JSON buttons work the same with 3 items filled in or 39. A checklist usually passes through several hands before submission, so export the draft as JSON, send it to a coauthor and let them open it here with “Open a JSON”. The official app only downloads once every item is answered; this one does not wait.

Does my data leave the browser?

No. The checklist is saved in your browser’s local storage as you type, and the files are generated on your device. Nothing is sent to a server. If you clear site data or switch browsers the draft will not be there: download it as JSON to keep it.

Why is there a revisia line on the document, and how do I remove it?

The Word and PDF files carry a footer line that says “Generated with revisia”. It is the only thing we ask in return for the tool. It goes away when you sign in to revisia with a verified email; the account is free, and the CSV, the JSON and the copied table never carry a mark.

Is this the official wording?

Yes. The items are copied from the official PRISMA 2020 checklist and PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist files published on prisma-statement.org, which quote Page et al., BMJ 2021;372:n71, under CC BY 4.0. Nothing is paraphrased.

The numbers the checklist asks for come out of your review

revisia records every screening decision, draws the PRISMA 2020 flow diagram from your real counts and exports references, screening, extraction and the audit log. Free to start.

Create a free account

The items reproduce the PRISMA 2020 checklist and the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist from Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. PRISMA materials are used underCC BY 4.0. This tool is independent: it is not affiliated with, endorsed by or maintained by the PRISMA initiative. Your data never leaves your browser.