PRISMA 2020

A revision of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement is an important event. The PRISMA 2020 has, like its predecessor (now re-referred to as 2009), been published in multiple journals. This paper describes changes that have introduced new checklist [[1]Page MJ McKenzie JE Bossuyt PM Boutron I et al.The statement: An updated guideline reporting systematic reviews.Journal Clinical Epidemiology. 2021; (Volume 0, Issue 0 DOI: https://doi.org/)https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001Abstract Full Text PDF Scopus (251) Google Scholar]. However, June issue JCE we also publish a detailed report describing development process update. [[2]Page MJ. al.Updating guidance reviews: statement.Journal 134 (DOI: https://doi.org/): 103-112https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003Abstract PubMed (325) Scholar] By any measure, papers represent substantial body work major refresh statement. familiar, but detail merits repetition – robustness based on broad search relevant scientific literature, focussing those 2009 items are neglected or problematic, followed by consultation with wide groups interested parties. As authors report, over 200 methodologists editors were invited complete survey, half asked did so. was in-person meeting Edinburgh 2018 further consultations drafting ran through completion. list contributors impressively international multi-professional, although leadership, demonstrated reports’ lead principal sources funding support, shows considerable outstanding Australian influence. One omission, acknowledged authors, absence consumer citizen involvement. represents changing guard from personnel perspective. Some this, sadly inevitably, unavoidable, it good see being dedicated two towering 2009, Doug Altman Alessandro Liberati. That said, includes many members brigade leaders within evidence synthesis community. made between highlight times, both representing content reflects advancement, focus supporting implementation. Although comprises, predecessor, 27 items, this apparent parity somewhat misleading: 6 recent iteration include several sub-items (10, 13, 16, 20, 23 24). well described main paper, some particularly noteworthy. these inevitable consequence success original guideline. Since there extensions refinements aimed at addressing specific areas research activity, such network meta-analysis consideration health equity. cannot replicate update each these, clear intent part be more wide-ranging scope. Noting focussed squarely interventions, aims ensure relevance broader sweep review types questions, including mixed methods reviews, evaluate theories causation, prevalence prognosis do not set out even synthesis. referred above version Abstracts folded into guidelines, which will welcomed whom forest guidelines becoming confusing. Other related simply referenced, hope sit comfortably alongside PRISMA. note may used ‘living’ acknowledge additional considerations apply circumstances. relate amendments methods. These increasing use technologies support study selection data collection, assessment risk bias introduction concept certainty replace expand previous limited measures ‘study quality’. There address sources, example trials registries, websites repositories, known challenges existing unacknowledged protocol registration data, non pre-specified sub-group sensitivity analyses, inadequately strategies, so on. Those who worry only become complicated conduct read, relieved appreciation elements required reasonably cited online supplement open access repository. Importantly, seems surprising addressed checklist, requirement competing influences addition funding. does specifically primary researchers whose studies included reported, disappoint commentators. explicitly covered Item 10b accompanying Explanation Elaboration document. [[4]Page Moher D Hoffmann TC Mulrow CD al.PRISMA explanation elaboration: exemplars reviews.BMJ. 372: n160https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160Crossref (827) remains reporting, indicate, implied expectations. In consistent differs Methodological Expectations Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR), extensive [[3]Higgins JPT Lasserson T Chandler J al.Standards Reviews.in: Higgins Tovey Thomas Flemyng E Churchill R Reviews. Cochrane, LondonFebruary 2021Google similar vein, avoids temptation stray evaluating overall methodological quality review. tools undertake this. [[5]Shea BJ Reeves BC Wells G Thuku M Hamel C Moran al.AMSTAR 2: critical appraisal tool randomised non-randomised healthcare both.BMJ. 2017; 358 (https://doi.org/): j4008https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008Crossref (2521) Scholar,[6]Whiting P Savović JP Caldwell DM Shea B al.ROBIS: assess developed.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 69 225-234https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005Abstract (681) science implementation has developed pace since developed. Despite lament paucity high interventions increase adherence guidelines. Undeterred, mind, reports aids fillable flow diagram templates website ((http://www.prisma-statement.org/), web application facilitate completion (available https://prisma.shinyapps.io/checklist/). can exported Word formats. propose actions undertaken journals publishers: ensuring instructions strong recommendation they preparation prior submission, mandate submission completed appropriate Co-Editors JCE, commit exploring better submitted our journal, conjunction Editorial Board.