Academia and Clinic18 August 2009

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

    Author, Article, and Disclosure Information

    Editor's Note: In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA Statement, this article is freely accessible on the Annals of Internal Medicine Web site ( and will be also published in PLOS Medicine, BMJ, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, and Open Medicine. The authors jointly hold the copyright of this article. For details on further use, see the PRISMA Web site (

    Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become increasingly important in health care. Clinicians read them to keep up to date with their field (1, 2), and they are often used as a starting point for developing clinical practice guidelines. Granting agencies may require a systematic review to ensure there is justification for further research (3), and some health care journals are moving in this direction (4). As with all research, the value of a systematic review depends on what was done, what was found, and the clarity of reporting. As with other publications, the reporting quality of systematic reviews varies, limiting readers' ability to assess the strengths and weaknesses of those reviews.

    Several early studies evaluated the quality of review reports. In 1987, Mulrow examined 50 review articles published in four leading medical journals in 1985 and 1986 and found that none met all eight explicit scientific criteria, such as a quality assessment of included studies (5). In 1987, Sacks and colleagues (6) evaluated the adequacy of reporting of 83 meta-analyses on 23 characteristics in six domains. Reporting was generally poor; between one and 14 characteristics were adequately reported (mean = 7.7; standard deviation = 2.7). A 1996 update of this study found little improvement (7).

    In 1996, to address the suboptimal reporting of meta-analyses, an international group developed a guidance called the QUOROM Statement (QUality Of Reporting Of Meta-analyses), which focused on the reporting of meta-analyses of randomized, controlled trials (8). In this article, we summarize a revision of these guidelines, renamed PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses), which have been updated to address several conceptual and practical advances in the science of systematic reviews (Box 1).

    Box 1. Conceptual Issues in the Evolution From QUOROM to PRISMA


    The terminology used to describe a systematic review and meta-analysis has evolved over time. One reason for changing the name from QUOROM to PRISMA was the desire to encompass both systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have adopted the definitions used by the Cochrane Collaboration (9). A systematic review is a review of a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant research, and to collect and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review. Statistical methods (meta-analysis) may or may not be used to analyze and summarize the results of the included studies. Meta-analysis refers to the use of statistical techniques in a systematic review to integrate the results of included studies.

    Developing the PRISMA Statement

    A three-day meeting was held in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, in June 2005 with 29 participants, including review authors, methodologists, clinicians, medical editors, and a consumer. The objective of the Ottawa meeting was to revise and expand the QUOROM checklist and flow diagram, as needed.

    The executive committee completed the following tasks, prior to the meeting: a systematic review of studies examining the quality of reporting of systematic reviews, and a comprehensive literature search to identify methodological and other articles that might inform the meeting, especially in relation to modifying checklist items. An international survey of review authors, consumers, and groups commissioning or using systematic reviews and meta-analyses was completed, including the International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) and the Guidelines International Network (GIN). The survey aimed to ascertain views of QUOROM, including the merits of the existing checklist items. The results of these activities were presented during the meeting and are summarized on the PRISMA Web site (

    Only items deemed essential were retained or added to the checklist. Some additional items are nevertheless desirable, and review authors should include these, if relevant (10). For example, it is useful to indicate whether the systematic review is an update (11) of a previous review, and to describe any changes in procedures from those described in the original protocol.

    Shortly after the meeting a draft of the PRISMA checklist was circulated to the group, including those invited to the meeting but unable to attend. A disposition file was created containing comments and revisions from each respondent, and the checklist was subsequently revised 11 times. The group approved the checklist, flow diagram, and this summary paper.

    Although no direct evidence was found to support retaining or adding some items, evidence from other domains was believed to be relevant. For example, Item 5 asks authors to provide registration information about the systematic review, including a registration number, if available. Although systematic review registration is not yet widely available (12, 13), the participating journals of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) (14) now require all clinical trials to be registered in an effort to increase transparency and accountability (15). Those aspects are also likely to benefit systematic reviewers, possibly reducing the risk of an excessive number of reviews addressing the same question (16, 17) and providing greater transparency when updating systematic reviews.

    The PRISMA Statement

    The PRISMA Statement consists of a 27-item checklist (Table 1; see also Table S1, for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use) and a four-phase flow diagram (Figure 1; see also Figure S1, for a downloadable Word template for researchers to re-use). The aim of the PRISMA Statement is to help authors improve the reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We have focused on randomized trials, but PRISMA can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions. PRISMA may also be useful for critical appraisal of published systematic reviews. However, the PRISMA checklist is not a quality assessment instrument to gauge the quality of a systematic review.

    Table 1. Checklist of Items to Include When Reporting a Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis

    Table 1.
    Figure 1. Flow of information through the different phases of a systematic review.


    The new PRISMA checklist differs in several respects from the QUOROM checklist, and the substantive specific changes are highlighted in Table 2. Generally, the PRISMA checklist “decouples” several items present in the QUOROM checklist and, where applicable, several checklist items are linked to improve consistency across the systematic review report.

    Table 2. Substantive Specific Changes Between the QUOROM Checklist and the PRISMA Checklist

    Table 2.

    The flow diagram has also been modified. Before including studies and providing reasons for excluding others, the review team must first search the literature. This search results in records. Once these records have been screened and eligibility criteria applied, a smaller number of articles will remain. The number of included articles might be smaller (or larger) than the number of studies, because articles may report on multiple studies and results from a particular study may be published in several articles. To capture this information, the PRISMA flow diagram now requests information on these phases of the review process.


    The PRISMA Statement should replace the QUOROM Statement for those journals that have endorsed QUOROM. We hope that other journals will support PRISMA; they can do so by registering on the PRISMA Web site. To underscore to authors, and others, the importance of transparent reporting of systematic reviews, we encourage supporting journals to reference the PRISMA Statement and include the PRISMA Web address in their instructions to authors. We also invite editorial organizations to consider endorsing PRISMA and encourage authors to adhere to its principles.

    The PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration Paper

    In addition to the PRISMA Statement, a supporting Explanation and Elaboration document has been produced (18) following the style used for other reporting guidelines (19–21). The process of completing this document included developing a large database of exemplars to highlight how best to report each checklist item, and identifying a comprehensive evidence base to support the inclusion of each checklist item. The Explanation and Elaboration document was completed after several face-to-face meetings and numerous iterations among several meeting participants, after which it was shared with the whole group for additional revisions and final approval. Finally, the group formed a dissemination subcommittee to help disseminate and implement PRISMA.


    The quality of reporting of systematic reviews is still not optimal (22–27). In a recent review of 300 systematic reviews, few authors reported assessing possible publication bias (22), even though there is overwhelming evidence both for its existence (28) and its impact on the results of systematic reviews (29). Even when the possibility of publication bias is assessed, there is no guarantee that systematic reviewers have assessed or interpreted it appropriately (30). Although the absence of reporting such an assessment does not necessarily indicate that it was not done, reporting an assessment of possible publication bias is likely to be a marker of the thoroughness of the conduct of the systematic review.

    Several approaches have been developed to conduct systematic reviews on a broader array of questions. For example, systematic reviews are now conducted to investigate cost-effectiveness (31), diagnostic (32) or prognostic questions (33), genetic associations (34), and policy making (35). The general concepts and topics covered by PRISMA are all relevant to any systematic review, not just those whose objective is to summarize the benefits and harms of a health care intervention. However, some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances. For example, assessing the risk of bias is a key concept, but the items used to assess this in a diagnostic review are likely to focus on issues such as the spectrum of patients and the verification of disease status, which differ from reviews of interventions. The flow diagram will also need adjustments when reporting individual patient data meta-analysis (36).

    We have developed an explanatory document (18) to increase the usefulness of PRISMA. For each checklist item, this document contains an example of good reporting, a rationale for its inclusion, and supporting evidence, including references, whenever possible. We believe this document will also serve as a useful resource for those teaching systematic review methodology. We encourage journals to include reference to the explanatory document in their Instructions to Authors.

    Like any evidence-based endeavor, PRISMA is a living document. To this end we invite readers to comment on the revised version, particularly the new checklist and flow diagram, through the PRISMA Web site. We will use such information to inform PRISMA's continued development.


    • 1. Oxman ADCook DJGuyatt GHUsers' guides to the medical literature. VI. How to use an overview. Evidence-Based Medicine Working Group. JAMA1994;272:1367-71. [PMID: 7933399] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2. Swingler GHVolmink JIoannidis JPNumber of published systematic reviews and global burden of disease: database analysis. BMJ2003;327:1083-4. [PMID: 14604930] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Canadian Institutes of Health Research. Randomized controlled trials registration/application checklist. December 2006. Accessed at on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar
    • 4. Young CHorton RPutting clinical trials into context. Lancet2005;366:107-8. [PMID: 16005318] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Mulrow CDThe medical review article: state of the science. Ann Intern Med1987;106:485-8. [PMID: 3813259] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Sacks HSBerrier JReitman DAncona-Berk VAChalmers TCMeta-analyses of randomized controlled trials. N Engl J Med1987;316:450-5. [PMID: 3807986] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7. Sacks HSReitman DPagano DKupelnick BMeta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J Med1996;63:216-24. [PMID: 8692168] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8. Moher DCook DJEastwood SOlkin IRennie DStroup DFImproving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet1999;354:1896-900. [PMID: 10584742] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Green S, Higgins J, eds. Glossary. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2005. Accessed at on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar
    • 10. Strech DTilburt JValue judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol2008;61:521-4. [PMID: 18471654] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 11. Moher DTsertsvadze ASystematic reviews: when is an update an update? Lancet2006;367:881-3. [PMID: 16546523] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 12. University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2009. Accessed at on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar
    • 13. The Joanna Briggs Institute protocols & work in progress. 2009. Accessed at on 19 May 2009. Google Scholar
    • 14. De Angelis CDrazen JMFrizelle FAHaug CHoey JHorton Ret alInternational Committee of Medical Journal EditorsClinical trial registration: a statement from the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors [Editorial]. CMAJ2004;171:606-7. [PMID: 15367465] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Whittington CJKendall TFonagy PCottrell DCotgrove ABoddington ESelective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet2004;363:1341-5. [PMID: 15110490] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16. Bagshaw SMMcAlister FAManns BJGhali WAAcetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy: a case study of the pitfalls in the evolution of evidence. Arch Intern Med2006;166:161-6. [PMID: 16432083] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Biondi-Zoccai GGLotrionte MAbbate ATesta LRemigi EBurzotta Fet alCompliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ2006;332:202-9. [PMID: 16415336] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Liberati AAltman DGTetzlaff JMulrow CGøtzsche PIoannidis JPet alThe PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2009;151:W-65-94. LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 19. Altman DGSchulz KFMoher DEgger MDavidoff FElbourne Det alCONSORT GROUP (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials)The revised CONSORT statement for reporting randomized trials: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2001;134:663-94. [PMID: 11304107] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Bossuyt PMReitsma JBBruns DEGatsonis CAGlasziou PPIrwig LMet alStandards for Reporting of Diagnostic AccuracyThe STARD statement for reporting studies of diagnostic accuracy: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2003;138:W1-12. [PMID: 12513067] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 21. Vandenbroucke JPvon Elm EAltman DGGøtzsche PCMulrow CDPocock SJet alSTROBE InitiativeStrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med2007;147:W163-94. [PMID: 17938389] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 22. Moher DTetzlaff JTricco ACSampson MAltman DGEpidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med2007;4:78. [PMID: 17388659] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 23. Bhandari MMorrow FKulkarni AVTornetta PMeta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery. A systematic review of their methodologies. J Bone Joint Surg Am2001;83-A:15-24. [PMID: 11205853] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24. Kelly KDTravers ADorgan MSlater LRowe BHEvaluating the quality of systematic reviews in the emergency medicine literature. Ann Emerg Med2001;38:518-26. [PMID: 11679863] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. Richards DThe quality of systematic reviews in dentistry. Evid Based Dent2004;5:17. [PMID: 15238972] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26. Choi PTHalpern SHMalik NJadad ARTramèr MRWalder BExamining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg2001;92:700-9. [PMID: 11226105] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 27. Delaney ABagshaw SMFerland AManns BLaupland KBDoig CJA systematic evaluation of the quality of meta-analyses in the critical care literature. Crit Care2005;9:R575-82. [PMID: 16277721] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 28. Dickersin KPublication bias: recognizing the problem, understanding its origins and scope, and preventing harm.. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis—Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: J Wiley; 2005:11-33. Google Scholar
    • 29. Sutton AJEvidence concerning the consequences of publication and related biases.. In: Rothstein HR, Sutton AJ, Borenstein M, eds. Publication Bias in Meta-Analysis—Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments. Chichester, UK: J Wiley; 2005:175-92. Google Scholar
    • 30. Lau JIoannidis JPTerrin NSchmid CHOlkin IThe case of the misleading funnel plot. BMJ2006;333:597-600. [PMID: 16974018] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 31. Ladabaum UChopra CLHuang GScheiman JMChernew MEFendrick AMAspirin as an adjunct to screening for prevention of sporadic colorectal cancer. A cost-effectiveness analysis. Ann Intern Med2001;135:769-81. [PMID: 11694102] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 32. Deeks JJSystematic reviews in health care: Systematic reviews of evaluations of diagnostic and screening tests. BMJ2001;323:157-62. [PMID: 11463691] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 33. Altman DGSystematic reviews of evaluations of prognostic variables. BMJ2001;323:224-8. [PMID: 11473921] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 34. Ioannidis JPNtzani EETrikalinos TAContopoulos-Ioannidis DGReplication validity of genetic association studies. Nat Genet2001;29:306-9. [PMID: 11600885] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Lavis JDavies HOxman ADenis JLGolden-Biddle KFerlie ETowards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy2005;10 Suppl 1 35-48. [PMID: 16053582] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 36. Stewart LAClarke MJPractical methodology of meta-analyses (overviews) using updated individual patient data. Cochrane Working Group. Stat Med1995;14:2057-79. [PMID: 8552887] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Moja LPTelaro ED'Amico RMoschetti ICoe LLiberati AAssessment of methodological quality of primary studies by systematic reviews: results of the metaquality cross sectional study. BMJ2005;330:1053. [PMID: 15817526] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 38. Guyatt GHOxman ADVist GEKunz RFalck-Ytter YAlonso-Coello Pet alGRADE Working GroupGRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ2008;336:924-6. [PMID: 18436948] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 39. Schünemann HJJaeschke RCook DJBria WFEl-Solh AAErnst Aet alATS Documents Development and Implementation CommitteeAn official ATS statement: grading the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations in ATS guidelines and recommendations. Am J Respir Crit Care Med2006;174:605-14. [PMID: 16931644] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 40. Chan AWHróbjartsson AHaahr MTGøtzsche PCAltman DGEmpirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA2004;291:2457-65. [PMID: 15161896] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 41. Chan AWKrleza-Jerić KSchmid IAltman DGOutcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ2004;171:735-40. [PMID: 15451835] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 42. Silagy CAMiddleton PHopewell SPublishing protocols of systematic reviews: comparing what was done to what was planned. JAMA2002;287:2831-4. [PMID: 12038926] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar


    Sign In to Submit A Comment