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

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 me...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Systematic reviews 2021-03, Vol.10 (1), p.89-89, Article 89
Main Authors:	Page, Matthew J, McKenzie, Joanne E, Bossuyt, Patrick M, Boutron, Isabelle, Hoffmann, Tammy C, Mulrow, Cynthia D, Shamseer, Larissa, Tetzlaff, Jennifer M, Akl, Elie A, Brennan, Sue E, Chou, Roger, Glanville, Julie, Grimshaw, Jeremy M, Hróbjartsson, Asbjørn, Lalu, Manoj M, Li, Tianjing, Loder, Elizabeth W, Mayo-Wilson, Evan, McDonald, Steve, McGuinness, Luke A, Stewart, Lesley A, Thomas, James, Tricco, Andrea C, Welch, Vivian A, Whiting, Penny, Moher, David
Format:	Article
Language:	eng
Subjects:	Endorsements Feedback Jargon Meta-analysis Systematic review
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Description
Summary:	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). [...]technological advances have enabled the use of natural language processing and machine learning to identify relevant evidence [22,23,24], methods have been proposed to synthesise and present findings when meta-analysis is not possible or appropriate [25,26,27], and new methods have been developed to assess the risk of bias in results of included studies [28, 29]. [...]the publishing landscape has transformed, with multiple avenues now available for registering and disseminating systematic review protocols [33, 34], disseminating reports of systematic reviews, and sharing data and materials, such as preprint servers and publicly accessible repositories. [...]extensions to the PRISMA 2009 statement have been developed to guide reporting of network meta-analyses [49], meta-analyses of individual participant data [50], systematic reviews of harms [51], systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies [52], and scoping reviews [53]; for these types of reviews we recommend authors report their review in accordance with the recommendations in PRISMA 2020 along with the guidance specific to the extension.
ISSN:	2046-4053 2046-4053