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. Conducting a Systematic Review provide several important responsibilities. They can provide summaries of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can answer questions that individual studies would otherwise be unable to answer; they can locate imperfections in primary research that should be addressed in future studies, and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. As a result, systematic reviews create varied types of knowledge for various review consumers (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policymakers). To ensure that a systematic review is useful to users, writers should provide a clear, thorough, and accurate description of why the review was conducted, what they did (such as how studies were located and selected), and what they discovered (such as characteristics of contributing studies and results of meta-analyses). Authors can succeed with the help of up-to-date reporting guidelines.

1. The PRISMA 2020
Statement:
An improved reporting guideline for
systematic reviews
An Academic presentation by
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica
Group: www.pubrica.com
Email: sales@pubrica.com

2. TODAY'S DISCUSSION
In Brief
Introduction
Development of PRISMA 2020
Scope of the guideline
Differences between the PRISMA 2009 and 2020 Statement
Conclusion
About Pubrica

3. 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.
IN BRIEF

4. 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 redesigned flow diagrams for original and modified reviews, are all
represented in this blog.

5. INTRODUCTION
Conducting a Systematic Review provide
several important responsibilities. They can
provide summaries of the state of knowledge in
a field, from which future research priorities can
be identified;
As a result, systematic reviews create varied
types of knowledge for various review
consumers (such as patients, healthcare
providers, researchers, and policymakers).
Contd...

6. To ensure that a systematic review is useful to
users, writers should provide a clear, thorough,
and accurate description of why the review was
conducted, what they did (such as how studies
were located and selected), and what they
discovered (such as characteristics of
contributing studies and results of
meta-analyses).
Authors can succeed with the help of up-to-
date reporting guidelines.

7. An initial draft and five versions of the checklist
and explanation and elaboration document to
co-authors for input during 2019 and 2020.
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.
DEVELOPMENT OF PRISMA 2020

8. The PRISMA 2020 declaration was created with
systematic reviews of studies that evaluate the
impact of health treatments in mind, regardless
of the study type.
The checklist items, on the other hand, may be
included in reports of Clinical Trial Systematic
Review Services assessing various treatments
(such as social or educational interventions),
and many of them can be used in systematic
reviews with goals other than evaluating
interventions (such as evaluating aetiology,
prevalence, or prognosis).
SCOPE OF THE GUIDELINE
Contd...

9. PRISMA 2020 is designed for use in systematic reviews that contain or do not
include synthesis (e.g., paired meta analysis or other statistical synthesis
approaches) (for example, because only one eligible study is identified).

10. TABLE 1 PRISMA 2020 FOR ABSTRACT CHECKLIST

11. STEP 1 - Review of
literature to inform the
guideline
Here evaluated 60 publications,
including the PRISMA 2009
statement and its ten expansions,
all additional Writing A Systematic
Review reporting standards
indexed in the EQUATOR Network
collection in March 2018, and other
materials, including conduct
instructions and assessment tools.
STEP 2 - Survey of
systematic review
methodologists and editors
A survey of systematic review
methodologists and journal editors
was conducted to obtain comments
on proposed changes to PRISMA
2009 items and the extra items
gathered and to identify gaps where
new things may be necessary.
1. Procedure
2. Ethics
3. Participants
4. Survey content
5. Analysis

12. STEP 3 - PRISMA
update meeting
In September 2018, a two-day in-
person conference in Edinburgh,
Scotland, was convened to
examine the proposed content
and terminology of the amended
PRISMA statement, which was
informed by the review and survey
findings. Participants were
provided with a report
summarizing the survey findings
and a summary of all de-identified
comments from survey
respondents before the meeting.
STEP 4 - •Post-meeting
activities
The meeting's important decisions
were included in the first edition of
the PRISMA 2020 working paper. The
PRISMA 2020 statement's content
and phrasing (including the
checklists, explanation and
elaboration, and flow diagrams)
were then modified in response to
comments from members of the
authoring team on revisions of the
working document.

13. Fig. 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template for Systematic Reviews

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. REFERENCES
Page, Matthew J., et al. "Updating guidance for reporting
systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020
statement." Journal of clinical epidemiology 134 (2021):
103-112.
Page, Matthew J., et al. "The PRISMA 2020 statement:
an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews."
International Journal of Surgery 88 (2021): 105906.

17. ABOUT PUBRICA
Pubrica's team of researchers and authors creates
scientific and medical research articles that
practitioners and authors may use as a valuable
resource. By presenting the reader to the deficiencies
or gaps in the specified study field, Pubrica Medical
Writers may assist you in writing and editing the
introduction. Our professionals are familiar with the
framework that follows the broad topic, problem, and
background before moving on to a more specific topic
to present the hypothesis.

18. +44 1618186353
UNITED KINGDOM
+91-9884350006
INDIA
EMAIL
sales@pubrica.com
Contact Us