Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, first published in 2009 1, was developed in an attempt to increase the clarity, transparency, quality and value of these reports 2. The 27-item checklist and four-phase flow diagram have become the hallmark of academic rigour in the publication of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, having been cited by over 60,000 papers 3. These are frequently endorsed by journals in their 'Instructions to Authors' 4. Developments in the methodology and terminology used when conducting systematic reviews 5, alongside the identification of limitations responsible for poor adherence, such as the use of ambiguous wording 6, have warranted an update to the PRISMA statement. The PRISMA 2020 statement, therefore, is intended to reflect this recent evolution in the identification, selection, appraisal and synthesis of research 7. Here, we present an interpretive analysis of the updated statement, with a view towards encouraging its adoption by both journals and authors in the pursuit of advancing evidence-based medicine.
Sohrabi et al. (Mon,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: