PRISMA Statement

PRISMA Statement
Name	PRISMA Statement
Established	2009
Discipline	Reporting guidelines

PRISMA Statement The PRISMA Statement is an evidence-based reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses developed to improve transparency and completeness of reporting in health and allied research. It was produced through collaboration between methodologists, journal editors, and organizations to standardize reporting practices across diverse fields including medicine, public health, and social science. The statement complements initiatives in research reporting and peer review championed by major journals and institutions.

Background

The initiative emerged from methodological discussions at meetings involving figures and organizations such as David Moher-associated groups, Cochrane Collaboration, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, World Health Organization, and editorial teams from journals like The Lancet, BMJ, and JAMA. Early antecedents included reporting standards arising from conferences linked to Oxford University research groups, McMaster University evidence synthesis centres, and workshops funded by agencies including National Institutes of Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and European Commission programs. Influences also drew on prior reporting frameworks developed by networks including EQUATOR Network, CONSORT, and panels convened by organizations such as Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and Cochrane Methodology Review Group.

Development and Versions

Initial development followed systematic consensus methods used in guideline creation, with contributors from institutions such as University of Toronto, Queen's University, Harvard School of Public Health, Stanford University, and editorial representatives from New England Journal of Medicine. Subsequent revisions incorporated input from meetings hosted by groups like Institute of Medicine and workshops attended by stakeholders from National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, World Bank health teams, and funding bodies such as Wellcome Trust and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Major version updates were promulgated after consultations that included editors from PLOS Medicine, Nature Medicine, European Respiratory Journal, and methodologists associated with Cochrane Library and Campbell Collaboration.

PRISMA Checklist and Flow Diagram

The core outputs include a structured checklist and a flow diagram, tools analogous to those used by CONSORT proponents and adopted by editorial policies at journals like BMJ Open, PLOS ONE, Annals of Internal Medicine, and The Lancet Global Health. The checklist items reflect stages familiar to systematic review conduct discussed at seminars held at Johns Hopkins University, University College London, Yale University, and Karolinska Institutet. The flow diagram visualizes study identification, screening, eligibility, and inclusion steps paralleling reporting elements emphasized by NIH training modules, European Medicines Agency guidance sessions, and workshops at World Health Organization regional offices.

Implementation and Use

Adoption has been promoted by publishers and editorial boards including Elsevier, Springer Nature, Wiley-Blackwell, and societies like American Medical Association, Royal Society of Medicine, and European Society of Cardiology. Implementation often occurs via journal submission checklists used by staff at The Cochrane Collaboration editorial centres, peer reviewers trained under programs at Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, and librarians at institutions such as Columbia University and University of Melbourne. Training and endorsement efforts have engaged professional organizations including Society for Epidemiologic Research, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, and regulatory agencies like Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency.

Extensions and Adaptations

Field-specific extensions and adaptations have been developed for domains including network meta-analysis, individual participant data meta-analysis, and diagnostic test accuracy reviews, with contributors from groups such as International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Cochrane Diagnostic Test Accuracy Group, and research centres at Imperial College London and McGill University. Extensions parallel initiatives in other reporting standards created by teams connected to EQUATOR Network, CONSORT extension developers, and specialist consortia including STROBE and TRIPOD working groups. Adaptations for policy and guideline development have been discussed in forums hosted by World Health Organization, OECD, and national guideline bodies like National Institute for Health and Care Excellence.

Impact and Criticism

The statement has influenced editorial policies at major journals including BMJ, PLOS Medicine, and JAMA Internal Medicine and informed methodological training at universities like Harvard, Cambridge University, and University of Toronto, yet it has faced critique from scholars at institutions such as University College London and McMaster University regarding implementation fidelity, reporting burden, and applicability across disciplines. Debates have involved stakeholders from Cochrane Collaboration, EQUATOR Network, and funding agencies like NIH and Wellcome Trust, with calls for empirical evaluation by research groups at Stanford, Yale, and Karolinska Institutet and proposals to integrate the guideline with data sharing mandates from agencies including European Commission programs and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation grant policies.

Category:Reporting guidelines