The PRISMA 2020 statement: An improved reporting guideline for systematic reviews
In brief
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) report was published in 2009 to aid Systematic Review Writing in publicly reporting why the review was undertaken, what the authors did, and what they discovered. Over the previous decade, advances in systematic review methodologies and language have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement supersedes the PRISMA 2009 statement and includes updated reporting requirements that take into account changes in research methodology for identifying, selecting, assessing, and synthesizing. The structure and demonstration of the items have been altered to make implementation easier. The PRISMA 2020 abstract-item checklist, which contains reporting suggestions for each item and the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist and redesigned flow diagrams for original and modified reviews, are all represented in this blog.
Development of PRISMA 2020
We circulated an initial draft and five versions of the checklist and explanation and elaboration document to co-authors for input during 2019 and 2020. We contacted 22 Systematic review writing services who had indicated an interest in providing comments on the PRISMA 2020 checklist to give their thoughts on the form and terminology used in an early version of the checklist (through an online survey) in April 2020. 15 people provided feedback, which the initial author examined, and any required adjustments were made before the final version was authorized and endorsed by all co-authors.
Differences between the PRISMA 2009 and 2020 statement
In some areas, the PRISMA 2020 statement varies from the PRISMA 2009 statement (a list of changes to each item with rationale is provided and the alignment of the checklist items between statements is presented). All checklist items have had their wording changed to accommodate reporting guidance for new and updated methods, to improve author clarity, to facilitate replicability of reviews, to facilitate assessments of the validity and applicability of systematic review specialists, to ensure the item applies to a larger population of studies, to remove redundancy across items, or for any other reason.
Conclusion
The implementation of PRISMA 2020 can benefit a wide range of stakeholders. Complete reporting helps readers assess the methodology’s appropriateness and, as a result, the findings’ credibility. The capacity to evaluate the application of the findings to their situation is made possible by presenting and summarizing aspects of research contributing to a synthesis. Policymakers, managers, and other decision-makers should be able to construct suitable recommendations for practice or policy by describing the certainty of a result in the body of evidence and the consequences of the findings.
For More Article: https://bit.ly/3n1uSRu
