metode prisma literature review

Systematic Literature Review (SLR)

♨️ a step-by-step process.

Using the PRISMA 2020 (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines involves a step-by-step process to ensure that your systematic review or meta-analysis is reported transparently and comprehensively. Below are the key steps to follow when using PRISMA 2020:

1. Understand the PRISMA 2020 Checklist: Familiarize yourself with the PRISMA 2020 Checklist and its 27 essential items. You can access the checklist and an explanation of each item from the official PRISMA website or publication.

2. Plan Your Systematic Review: Before starting your review, clearly define your research question, objectives, and inclusion/exclusion criteria for selecting studies. Ensure that your research question aligns with the PRISMA 2020 framework.

3. Develop a Protocol: Create a systematic review protocol that outlines the methodology you'll use, including search strategies, data extraction methods, and the approach to assessing risk of bias (if applicable). Register your protocol on a relevant platform like PROSPERO.

4. Conduct the Literature Search: Search for relevant studies using a systematic and comprehensive approach. Document the search strategy, databases used, search terms, and any filters applied. Ensure that your search covers the time period and study designs specified in your protocol.

5. Study Selection: Implement your inclusion/exclusion criteria to screen and select studies. Maintain detailed records of the screening process, including reasons for exclusion.

6. Data Extraction: Extract data from the selected studies using a predefined template. Include information on study characteristics, outcomes, and any other relevant data points. Ensure that your data extraction process is consistent and well-documented.

7. Risk of Bias Assessment: If applicable, assess the risk of bias in the included studies. Use appropriate tools or criteria and clearly report the results of the assessment.

8. Data Synthesis and Meta-Analysis: If relevant, conduct data synthesis and meta-analysis. Follow established statistical methods and guidelines for pooling data, calculating effect sizes, and assessing heterogeneity.

9. Report According to PRISMA 2020: When writing your systematic review or meta-analysis manuscript, ensure that you follow the PRISMA 2020 Checklist. Address each of the 27 items in the checklist in your manuscript. This includes providing clear information on your research question, search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, data extraction process, risk of bias assessment, and results.

10. Transparency and Supplementary Materials: Provide supplementary materials such as a PRISMA flow diagram showing the study selection process and a summary table of included studies. These add to the transparency of your review.

11. Peer Review and Revision: Submit your manuscript to a peer-reviewed journal that accepts systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Be prepared to respond to reviewers' comments and make necessary revisions to adhere to PRISMA 2020.

12. Publish and Share: Once your systematic review or meta-analysis is accepted and published, consider sharing it on platforms like PROSPERO or other relevant databases for greater visibility.

Throughout the process, maintaining transparency, consistency, and adherence to the PRISMA 2020 guidelines will help ensure that your systematic review or meta-analysis is of high quality and can be effectively used by researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in your field.

Last updated 11 months ago

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Turk Arch Otorhinolaryngol
• v.57(1); 2019 Mar

A Guide for Systematic Reviews: PRISMA

Dear Editor,

In Turkish Otorhinolaryngology publications reviews are often written in the form of an account, and systematic reviews and meta analyses are rarely performed ( 1 – 4 ). A systematic approach to a review, however, will minimize bias and maximize its contribution to science. Including meta-analysis in a review will carry the publication to the highest level of evidence. This will also significantly increase the citability of the report.

As the Turkish Archives of Otorhinolaryngology is the scientific open access journal of our society, this scientific letter aims to reach our colleagues who plan on writing reviews in the field of otorhinolaryngology with the use of PRISMA guidelines for the purpose of standardizing systematic review writing.

According to the common opinion, a review type article is the interpretation, synthesis and assessment of the scientific reports and studies printed in scientific publications by authors experienced in the area ( 5 ). Reviews written with an analogous approach cannot go beyond an account of what has been already done: They cover a wide range of topics within a given subject; may be useful in understanding new concepts, but are rarely comprehensive; rarely give details about the methods; are likely to be written in line with the opinions of the author; quality differences between the studies are rarely considered; and as a result, can be misinterpreted and lead to inadvertent bias.

To avoid these issues in systematic review writing, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) group, which mainly consists of Cochrane authors, has developed the PRISMA guidelines in 2009 ( 6 ). A systematic review will extensively scan all reports published on the subject to find the answers to a clearly defined research question, and to that end will use various inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify the reports to be included in the review, and then synthesize the findings. Using statistical methods for the interpretation of the results implies a systematic review containing meta-analysis ( 6 ).

The PRISMA guidelines consist of a four-phase flow diagram and a 27-item checklist. The flow diagram describes the identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion criteria of the reports that fall under the scope of a review. The checklist includes a 27-item recommendation list on topics such as title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and financing. With this flow diagram and checklist, PRISMA items serve as a guide for authors, reviewers and editors.

PRISMA extensions can be reached at their website: www.prisma-statement.org ( 7 ). The Turkish translations of the flow diagram and the checklist can also be found here. The website also includes a scientific report authored by the PRISMA group that gives examples to a systematic review in line with the guidelines, as well as detailed explanations and descriptions ( 8 ). All content related to the PRISMA guidelines are open access for the purposes of disseminating its utilization.

Full compliance with the checklist items will facilitate clarity and transparency in reporting; and thereby enable a structured report that well-defines the study question, clearly states its title and objectives, benefits from a comprehensive strategy for identifying all relevant study reports, clearly and justifiably indicates inclusion and exclusion criteria, critically and accurately prioritizes the reviewed study reports, provides a clear analysis of the eligible study reports based on qualitative and—where applicable in relation to the data—quantitative (meta-analysis) content.

As stated in the ‘Instructions for Authors’ page of your journal, the PRISMA items are the recommended reporting method to be adopted in order to avoid the basic mistakes in systematic review and meta-analysis reports. I believe that wider adoption of these guidelines in our country will significantly contribute to the otorhinolaryngology reports published in Turkey.

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Prof. Cenk Ecevit, MD for raising my awareness on this issue, hence causing me to write this scientific letter.

This study was presented at the A to Z Scientific Study Planning, Writing and Publishing Processes Meeting in Health Sciences, January 9 2019, Sivas, Turkey.

Peer-review: Externally peer-reviewed.

Conflict of Interest: The author has no conflicts of interest to declare.

Financial Disclosure: The author declared that this study has received no financial support.

Literature Reviews: systematic searching at various levels

• for assignments
• for dissertations / theses
• Search strategy and searching
• Boolean Operators
• Search strategy template
• Screening & critiquing
• Citation Searching
• Google Scholar (with Lean Library)
• Resources for literature reviews
• Adding a referencing style to EndNote
• Exporting from different databases

PRISMA Flow Diagram

• Grey Literature
• What is the PRISMA Flow Diagram?
• How should I use it?
• When should I use it?
• PRISMA Links

The PRISMA Flow Diagram is a tool that can be used to record different stages of the literature search process--across multiple resources--and clearly show how a researcher went from, 'These are the databases I searched for my terms', to, 'These are the papers I'm going to talk about'.

PRISMA is not inflexible; it can be modified to suit the research needs of different people and, indeed, if you did a Google images search for the flow diagram you would see many different versions of the diagram being used. It's a good idea to have a look at a couple of those examples, and also to have a look at a couple of the articles on the PRISMA website to see how it has--and can--be used.

The PRISMA 2020 Statement was published in 2021. It consists of a  checklist  and a  flow diagram , and is intended to be accompanied by the PRISMA 2020 Explanation and Elaboration document.

In order to encourage dissemination of the PRISMA 2020 Statement, it has been published in several journals.

• How to use the PRISMA Flow Diagram for literature reviews A PDF [3.81MB] of the PowerPoint used to create the video. Each slide that has notes has a callout icon on the top right of the page which can be toggled on or off to make the notes visible.

There is also a PowerPoint version of the document but the file size is too large to upload here.

If you would like a copy, please email the Academic Librarians' mailbox from your university account to ask for it to be sent to you.

This is an example of how you  could  fill in the PRISMA flow diagram when conducting a new review. It is not a hard and fast rule but it should give you an idea of how you can use it.

For more detailed information, please have a look at this article:

Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting,P. & Moher, D. (2021) 'The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews',  BMJ 372:(71). doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 .

• Example of PRISMA 2020 diagram This is an example of *one* of the PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams you can use when reporting on your research process. There is more than one form that you can use so for other forms and advice please look at the PRISMA website for full details.

Start using the flow diagram as you start searching the databases you've decided upon. 

Make sure that you record the number of results that you found per database (before removing any duplicates) as per the filled in example. You can also do a Google images search for the PRISMA flow diagram to see the different ways in which people have used them to express their search processes.

• Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) PRISMA is an evidence-based minimum set of items for reporting in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA focuses on the reporting of reviews evaluating randomized trials, but can also be used as a basis for reporting systematic reviews of other types of research, particularly evaluations of interventions.
• Prisma Flow Diagram This link will take you to downloadable Word and PDF copies of the flow diagram. These are modifiable and act as a starting point for you to record the process you engaged in from first search to the papers you ultimately discuss in your work. more... less... Do an image search on the internet for the flow diagram and you will be able to see all the different ways that people have modified the diagram to suit their personal research needs.

You can access the various checklists via the Equator website and the articles explaining PRISMA and its various extensions are available via PubMed.

Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021) ' The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,'  BMJ .  Mar 29; 372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 .

Page, M.J., Moher, D., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting, P., & McKenzie, J.E. (2021)  'PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews',  BMJ, Mar 29; 372:n160. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n160 .

Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T.C., Mulrow, C.D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J.M., Akl, E.A., Brennan, S.E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J.M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M.M., Li, T., Loder, E.W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., McGuinness, L.A., Stewart, L.A., Thomas, J., Tricco, A.C., Welch, V.A., Whiting, P., & Moher, D. (2021) ' The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews,'  Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, June; 134:178-189. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.03.001 . 

• << Previous: Exporting from different databases
• Next: Grey Literature >>
• Last Updated: Jul 17, 2024 4:10 PM
• URL: https://libguides.derby.ac.uk/literature-reviews

• Open access
• Published: 08 April 2024

Systematic literature review using PRISMA: exploring the influence of service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue relationship

• Budiarto Tedja   ORCID: orcid.org/0009-0001-1025-6945 1 ,
• Mochammad Al Musadieq 1 ,
• Andriani Kusumawati 1 &
• Edy Yulianto 1  

Future Business Journal volume  10 , Article number:  39 ( 2024 ) Cite this article

1756 Accesses

Metrics details

This study aims to develop a systematic review of the influence of Service Quality and Perceived Value on Satisfaction and Intention to Continue the Relationship from an international and empirical perspective. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyzes (PRISMA) is used as a guideline for systematic literature review to collect data. The selected journal timeframe is from 2008 to 2024, with 22 chosen articles meeting the criteria. Analysis of the selected primary studies reveals that the concepts of Service Quality and Perceived Value can be associated with Satisfaction and Intention to Continue the Relationship. However, an inconsistency was found that there was a significant and insignificant relationship between Perceived Value and Intention to Continue the Relationship, indicating the need for further development to be scientifically verified and to serve as a gap and reference for future researchers to investigate in different research settings. Novelty: Studies related to Intention to Continue the Relationship measured based on Service Quality, Perceived Value, and Satisfaction have been limited. Additionally, this study attempts to develop a more comprehensive concept or model of Intention to Continue the Relationship involving Service Quality, Perceived Value, and Satisfaction.

Introduction

In the business context, a company’s partners who have decided to continue a relationship are highly valuable for any business [ 3 ]. Izquierdo et al. [ 21 ] argue that the benefits and value of a relationship can only be obtained if distributors and customers intend to continue a relationship that they consider valuable and loyal to each other. The intention to continue a relationship has been defined by many researchers in various forms, such as repeat purchases, positive disposition, extended commitment, loyalty, conveying positive recommendations, unlikely to switch behavior, or a combination of these factors [ 18 ].

Continuing relationships with others are crucial, requiring maximum effort to maintain them [ 44 ]. One key to keeping customer and company relationships is offering high satisfaction [ 19 , 29 , 33 , 59 ]. Business satisfaction prevents relationship termination and consolidates the intention to continue the relationship [ 26 , 35 ]. Similarly, Jones et al. [ 22 ] argue that customer satisfaction is crucial to customer retention. Therefore, satisfaction can be an antecedent to the intention to continue the relationship.

Satisfaction can be described as a measure of how the results or services received compare to consumer expectations [ 9 ], where the obtained results or services should at least meet consumer expectations, if not exceed them [ 4 ]. Based on the Expectation-Confirmation Theory, previous satisfaction greatly influences the intention to repurchase, while the level of satisfaction itself is obtained from disconfirmation and expectations of service for a product or system [ 30 ]. The most important factor in creating satisfaction is the performance of the agent, usually interpreted as the quality of the agent [ 28 ]. Quality service and products are crucial to customer satisfaction [ 24 ]. The higher the quality of the products and services provided, the higher the satisfaction perceived by customers.

According to Gi Park et al. [ 14 ], service quality is a well-established concept where consumer happiness is the most crucial aspect of business success. Companies have thus focused on improving service standards and ensuring consumer satisfaction. Maintaining strong customer relationships is essential for service providers, as loyal customers are vital assets to every company [ 36 ].

Consumers tend to be more satisfied when the perceived value of a product or service exceeds their initial expectations [ 12 ]. This can increase consumer loyalty [ 31 ], trigger positive recommendations to others, and strengthen the relationship between consumers and service providers. Thus, creating and maintaining a high level of perceived value can be an effective strategy for gaining trust and customer satisfaction [ 13 , 37 , 42 , 46 , 47 ].

Based on Social Exchange theory, the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction can be explained through the social exchange mechanism between customers and the company [ 56 ]. Stable relationships are formed through generalized exchanges, where trade balance can be achieved over time [ 41 ]. By understanding this social exchange mechanism, companies can direct their efforts to enhance customer satisfaction by improving perceived value.

In addition, perceived value plays an important role in influencing the intention to continue the relationship. From the customer's perspective, perceived value refers to how important a product or service is to the customer, considering the benefits received and the sacrifices made to obtain the product or service [ 48 , 58 ]. Customers who perceive the service as beneficial and enhancing their productivity also consider the cost of leaving the relationship too high. Therefore, they want to remain committed continuously [ 48 ].

From a practical perspective, these findings hold value for the lubricant industry. The lubricant market is currently fiercely competitive in winning over consumers. Competition extends beyond pricing to encompass product quality, brand image, and easy access to products and services.

Lubricant companies that market and distribute lubricants to consumers are supported by distributors. Changes in the business environment and levels of competition, as well as regeneration within distributor organizations, influence distributor relationships, loyalty, and perceptions of lubricant companies as suppliers. Therefore, conducting a comprehensive literature review is very important to explore the impact of service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship, especially from an international perspective. This effort aims to provide valuable insights for decision makers, academics, and practitioners, enabling them to improve product/service quality and customer satisfaction. Ultimately, these improvements are expected to foster long-term customer relationships in a business context. Based on this, the Research Questions (RQ) to be answered in this study are as follows:

Is there an influence of Service Quality and Perceived Value on Satisfaction and Intention to Continue Relationship that can be identified through empirical research?

Research methods

The research method followed PRISMA guidelines [ 52 ] to produce a systematic review. PRISMA provides a standard methodology that contributes to the quality assurance of the revision and replication process. A systematic review was developed by explaining the article selection criteria, search strategy, data extraction, and data analysis procedures. In general, the PRISMA method is divided into several steps as follows:

Determine the source of information

Study selection

Data collection process

Determine eligibility criteria

Selection of data items

Resources and study selection

Information searches were carried out on online databases with large academic study repositories, namely Elsevier (SCOPUS), which encompasses over 23,500 peer-reviewed journals. Articles that could not be fully accessed were also excluded in this study.

Studies were selected through three steps, namely:

Enter search keywords based on the research objective to find the influence of service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship. The search keywords entered are: ("service quality*" OR "perceived value*" OR "satisfaction*" OR "intention*" OR "intention to continue relationship*" OR "marketing relations*" OR "effect of service quality on satisfaction*" OR "effect service quality on intention to continue relationship*" OR "effect of perceived value on satisfaction*" OR "effect perceived value on intention to continue relationship*" OR "effect satisfaction on intention to continue relationship*") AND ("quantitative*" OR "qualitative*" OR "mix method*").

Explore and select the title, abstract, and keywords based on eligibility criteria.

All papers not eliminated in the previous selection will be explored and selected by thoroughly reading the entire article based on the eligibility criteria.

Data collection and eligibility criteria

The data collection process was carried out manually by extracting data based on content analysis such as article type, journal name, year of publication, topic, title, research methodology, relationship between variables, indicators and research results in the form of the influence of service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship.

The inclusion criteria (IC) that guide the preparation of this systematic literature review are explained as follows:

IC1: all original and peer-reviewed literature is written in English.

IC2: research aims to determine the effect of service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship.

IC3: research uses quantitative, qualitative or both methods, namely mixed methods (qualitative and quantitative).

For IC1, only studies written in English were selected because English is the language commonly used by researchers. Meanwhile, in IC2, we want to know the influence of service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship, where this variable is important to research as an implementation of Marketing Management Theory, which emphasizes that quality service products have an important role in shaping customer satisfaction [ 24 ]. The higher the quality of the products and services provided, the higher customer satisfaction. If customer satisfaction increases, it can generate profits for the business entity. Satisfied customers will continue to make purchases from the business entity. For IC3, this research focuses on quantitative, qualitative, or mixed methods papers.

Data items extracted from each article are summarized into the following categories: year of publication, researcher, research method, research variables, and research results on the influence of service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship. The steps for the systematic literature review process are presented in full in Fig.  1 below.

Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (Adoption of PRISMA) Source: Researcher Process (2024)

The initial sample was 263 scientific articles based on previously determined keywords. Next, articles were selected based on title, abstract, and keywords, so 111 relevant empirical studies were found. Among the 111 empirical studies, 22 were identified as appropriate to the selection criteria after thoroughly reviewing their entire content based on criteria 2 and 3. The total number of articles used in this systematic literature review is 22 empirical research articles used to discuss the relationship between service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship.

After conducting an academic literature search, the researchers obtained 22 articles. Researchers found that articles discussing the relationship between service quality and satisfaction were 4 articles out of 22 articles, the relationship between perceived value and satisfaction was 9 articles out of 22 articles, the relationship between perceived value and intention to continue the relationship was 5 articles out of 22 articles, and the relationship between satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship was 9 articles out of 22 articles. This shows that research related to the relationship between service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship is still relevant in recent years, so the empirical evidence is sufficient to discuss this relationship. However, there is still a gap in the research development that discusses service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship simultaneously, because it is still rare to examine these four variables together (Table  1 ).

Furthermore, 22 relevant articles based on the selection results to discuss the relationship between service quality, perceived value, satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship are presented as follows.

Based on Table  2 , a quantitative approach was predominantly used out of the 22 selected articles in this study. Rarely do studies employ a qualitative or mixed-method approach to investigate the influence of service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship. However, there are differing research findings by Amoako et al. [ 3 ], Rahardja et al. [ 32 ], Chen and Lin [ 8 ] indicating a significant positive influence between Perceived Value and Intention to Continue Relationship, whereas the studies conducted by Zhang et al. [ 60 ] and Yang et al. [ 55 ] suggest otherwise, stating that the relationship is not significant. These results contribute to the literature, indicating the need for further development for scientific verification and serving as a gap and reference for future researchers to explore in different research settings.

The relationship between service quality, perceived value, satisfaction, and intention to continue relationship

Several empirical studies with a quantitative approach indicate a significant positive relationship between service quality and satisfaction [ 6 , 23 , 25 , 39 ]. Kim [ 23 ] asserts that service quality influences the intention to continue smart-working through perceived value and satisfaction. Kumari and Biswas [ 25 ] revealed that perceived value co-creation participation, service quality, and cognitive processing amplify user satisfaction, significantly increasing the intention for continued usage of M-payment.

Research findings indicate that passengers are satisfied with the service and system attributes, and a further improvement in such dimensions of service quality would help enhance travelers' satisfaction with ride-hailing services [ 39 ]. Key service attributes contributing to passenger satisfaction include safety, price, service convenience, information and communications technology (ICT), and comfort [ 39 ]. The SERVQUAL framework, consisting of five dimensions (tangibility, reliability, responsiveness, assurance, and empathy), is frequently used to measure service quality [ 1 ]. Banki et al. [ 6 ] utilized the SERVQUAL model to develop construct measurement variables, as this model is the most widely accepted among all service quality measurement models, and the items on the constructs used have high reliability and validity [ 16 , 34 , 57 ]. Quality hotel service offerings are often necessary to provide higher value and customer satisfaction [ 6 ]. Therefore, in today's intensely competitive world, managers should focus on enhancing customer satisfaction through continuous monitoring of the service provision process to ensure that customers can access satisfactory services at all times.

Studies also highlight the importance of perceived value in shaping customer satisfaction [ 6 , 13 , 23 , 25 , 37 , 42 , 43 , 46 , 47 ]. These findings indicate that the perceived value perceived by customers plays a crucial role in increasing their satisfaction levels with a product or service. Consistently, these studies have revealed that when customers feel they are getting value for what they pay, they tend to be more satisfied with their experience. Factors such as service quality, product attributes, and user experience can influence how customers assess the value of a product or service. A deep understanding of perceived value and its relationship with customer satisfaction can aid companies in developing more effective marketing strategies [ 27 ].

The relationship between perceived value and satisfaction is complex, with various models and theories proposed to explain it. Gotlieb et al. [ 17 ] suggest that disconfirmation of expectations, perceived quality, satisfaction, and perceived situational control play a role in this relationship. Eggert and Ulaga [ 11 ], Whittaker et al. [ 51 ] both argue that perceived value and satisfaction are distinct but complementary constructs, with the former potentially being a better predictor of behavioral outcomes. These findings indicate that the perceived value perceived by customers plays a crucial role in increasing their satisfaction levels with a product or service. Consistently, these studies have revealed that when customers feel they are getting value for what they pay, they tend to be more satisfied with their experience.

Analysis results suggest a significant positive influence between perceived value and intention to continue the relationship [ 3 , 8 , 32 ]. However, findings from Zhang et al. [ 60 ] and Yang et al. [ 55 ] suggest this relationship may not always be significant, sparking discussions on potential contextual factors influencing this relationship. One possible reason for the differing results may lie in the different study contexts, research methods used, or additional variables influencing the relationship between perceived value and intention to continue the relationship.

From the journal synthesis results, it is found that satisfaction has a significant positive influence on the intention to continue the relationship [ 3 , 5 , 7 , 10 , 15 , 20 , 32 , 50 , 53 ]. This underscores the importance of customer satisfaction as a contributing factor to sustaining and prolonging business relationships.

According to Social Exchange theory, satisfaction is a key element in social exchange, influencing customer dependence on the company [ 38 , 40 , 54 ]. This theory highlights the importance of mutually beneficial interactions and trust in building long-term relationships. Trust, social bonds, and relationship duration are crucial in enhancing satisfaction in business-to-business relationships [ 40 ].

Theoretical implications

The theories underlying this research are Social Exchange Theory and Expectation-Confirmation Theory. Social Exchange theory has been influential in explaining social behavior as exchange, emphasizing interdependence, relationships, and the norms that govern contractual relationships [ 49 ]. The greater the benefits of the relationship, the more likely the relationship will continue. Social exchange theory includes basic concepts, exchange rules, and evolving dimensions of exchange relationships [ 2 ]. The most basic assumption of this theory is that people are motivated by personal interests [ 45 ]. In other words, social exchange assumes that individuals want to maximize their benefits with minimal sacrifice in a relationship. By showing that service quality and perceived value positively influence satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship, this research confirms that individuals tend to maintain relationships that provide positive benefits and value.

The Expectation-Confirmation Theory (ECT), proposed by Oliver [ 30 ], involves patterns of customer behavior commonly used to determine and predict satisfaction and intentions for repeat purchases. In Oliver's [ 30 ] opinion, repurchase intentions are highly dependent on previous satisfaction, while the level of satisfaction itself is obtained from disconfirmation and expectations of service in a product or system. Disconfirmation has the most direct and consequential influence on satisfaction. The concept of satisfaction occupies a central position in marketing thinking and practice. This research supports the Expectation-Confirmation Theory by showing that customer satisfaction and intention to maintain the relationship are influenced by confirmation or disconfirmation of the customer’s initial expectations of the service or product.

Based on the theoretical viewpoint as described and the results of previous empirical research, the following is a research conceptual framework that can be used as a reference for future researchers. There are differences in research results from perceived value to intention to continue the relationship, so it can be used as a research gap for future researchers who intend to retest and reanalyze this relationship in a different research context (Fig.  2 ).

Research conceptual framework

The systematic literature review provided a comprehensive overview of the relationship between service quality and perceived value, as well as satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship. By applying the eligibility criteria established in this study, 22 articles were selected for analysis. Examination of these primary studies indicates that service quality and perceived value are closely associated with satisfaction and intention to continue the relationship. However, the analysis reveals inconsistencies in the research results. While some studies demonstrate a significant positive relationship between perceived value and intention to continue the relationship, others suggest otherwise. Hence, further research is essential to validate the scientific findings of this systematic literature review. Moreover, these findings serve as a research gap and provide valuable insights for future researchers to explore various research settings.

Practical implications

The findings of this research hold practical significance, particularly in a business-to-business (B2B) context. Companies operating in B2B markets can prioritize enhancing their service quality to cater to the needs of their customers. Implementing relationship marketing initiatives and enhancing perceived value can be instrumental in fortifying relationships with B2B clientele. Moreover, with a deeper understanding of the factors influencing satisfaction and intention to continue business relationships, companies can devise tailored approaches to bolster service quality, reinforce the value proposition, and ensure the longevity of mutually beneficial partnerships.

Availability of data and materials

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

Inclusion criteria

Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyzes

Research question

Significant

Ali N, Javid MA, Campisi T, Chaiyasarn K, Saingam P (2022) Measuring customers’ satisfaction and preferences for ride-hailing services in a developing country. Sustainability 14(22):15484. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142215484

Article   Google Scholar  

Ahmad R, Nawaz MR, Ishaq MI, Khan MM, Ashraf HA (2023) Social exchange theory: systematic review and future directions. Front Psychol 13:1015921. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1015921

Amoako GK, Adams GB, Doe JK (2020) Intention to continue relationship in B to B setting–case of Guinness Ghana breweries–some preliminary findings. J Bus Bus Mark 27(1):81–94. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2020.1713563

Azhar ME, Jufrizen J, Prayogi MA, Sari M (2019) The role of marketing mix and service quality on tourist satisfaction and loyalty at Samosir. Independ J Manag Prod 10(5):1662–1678

Bahri-Ammari N, Van Niekerk M, Ben Khelil H, Chtioui J (2016) The effects of brand attachment on behavioral loyalty in the luxury restaurant sector. Int J Contemp Hosp Manag 28(3):559–585. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-10-2014-0508

Banki MB, Ismail HNB, Danladi MH, Dalil M (2016) Measuring hotels service quality in Nigeria: a case study of Minna township. J Qual Assur Hosp Tour 17(1):71–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/1528008X.2016.1099997

Cassia F, Haugland SA, Magno F (2021) Fairness and behavioral intentions in discrete B2B transactions: a study of small business firms. J Bus Ind Market 36(13):129–141. https://doi.org/10.1108/JBIM-12-2019-0538

Chen SC, Lin CP (2015) The impact of customer experience and perceived value on sustainable social relationship in blogs: an empirical study. Technol Forecast Soc Chang 96:40–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2014.11.011

Desianti LC, Nurlaila H, Tukiran M (2021) Managing parent satisfaction of public elementary school on effect of expectation and perceived value. J Ind Eng Manag Res 2(4):251–265. https://doi.org/10.7777/jiemar.v2i4.181

Dimitriadis S (2010) Testing perceived relational benefits as satisfaction and behavioral outcomes drivers. Int J Bank Market 28(4):297–313. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321011054981

Eggert A, Ulaga W (2002) Customer perceived value: a substitute for satisfaction in business markets? J Bus Ind Market 17(2/3):107–118. https://doi.org/10.1108/08858620210419754

Fu X, Liu S, Fang B, Luo XR, Cai S (2020) How do expectations shape consumer satisfaction? An empirical study on knowledge products. J Electron Commer Res 21(1):1–20

Google Scholar  

Ghorbanzadeh D, Shabbir MS, Mahmood A, Kazemi E (2021) Investigating the role of experience quality in predicting destination image, perceived value, satisfaction, and behavioural intentions: a case of war tourism. Curr Issue Tour 24(21):3090–3106. https://doi.org/10.1080/13683500.2020.1863924

Gi Park S, Kim K, O’Neill M (2014) Complaint behavior intentions and expectation of service recovery in individualistic and collectivistic cultures. Int J Cult, Tour Hospit Res 8(3):255–271. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCTHR-12-2013-0084

Goel P, Parayitam S, Sharma A, Rana NP, Dwivedi YK (2022) A moderated mediation model for e-impulse buying tendency, customer satisfaction and intention to continue e-shopping. J Bus Res 142:1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2021.12.041

González MEA, Brea JAF (2005) An investigation of the relationship among service quality, customer satisfaction and behavioural intentions in Spanish health spas. J Hosp Leis Mark 13(2):67–90. https://doi.org/10.1300/J150v13n02_06

Gotlieb JB, Grewal D, Brown SW (1994) Consumer satisfaction and perceived quality: complementary or divergent constructs? J Appl Psychol 79(6):875. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.875

Hammervoll T (2009) Value-creation logic in supply chain relationships. J Business-to-Business Mark 16(3):220–241

Hassan RS, Nawaz A, Lashari MN, Zafar F (2015) Effect of customer relationship management on customer satisfaction. Procedia Econ Finan 23:563–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2212-5671(15)00513-4

Hoffmann AO, Birnbrich C (2012) The impact of fraud prevention on bank-customer relationships: an empirical investigation in retail banking. Int J Bank Market 30(5):390–407. https://doi.org/10.1108/02652321211247435

Izquierdo C, Gutiérrez-Cillán J, Gutierrez SMS (2005) The impact of customer relationship marketing on the firm performance: a Spanish case. J Serv Mark 19(4):234–244. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040510605262

Jones MA, Mothersbaugh DL, Beatty SE (2002) Why customers stay: measuring the underlying dimensions of services switching costs and managing their differential strategic outcomes. J Bus Res 55(6):441–450. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0148-2963(00)00168-5

Kim SS (2023) Quality of smart-work support service, perceived value and intention to continue smart-work: empirical evidence from Korea. Inf Technol People 36(5):2137–2160. https://doi.org/10.1108/ITP-08-2020-0544

Kotler P, Armstrong G (1996) Principles of marketing. EngleWoodCliffs, NJ

Kumari N, Biswas A (2023) Does M-payment service quality and perceived value co-creation participation magnify M-payment continuance usage intention? Moderation of usefulness and severity. Int J Bank Market 41(6):1330–1359. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-11-2022-0500

Mahmoud MA, Hinson RE, Adika MK (2018) The effect of trust, commitment, and conflict handling on customer retention: the mediating role of customer satisfaction. J Relation Market 17(4):257–276. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332667.2018.1440146

Misra S, Pedada K, Sinha A (2022) A theory of marketing’s contribution to customers’ perceived value. J Creat Value 8(2):219–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/23949643221118152

Mowen JC (1995) Consumer behavior, 4th edn. Prentice Hall, New Jersey

Murali S, Pugazhendhi S, Muralidharan C (2016) Modelling and investigating the relationship of after sales service quality with customer satisfaction, retention and loyalty–a case study of home appliances business. J Retail Consum Serv 30:67–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2016.01.001

Oliver RL (1980) A cognitive model of the antecedents and consequences of satisfaction decisions. J Mark Res 17(4):460–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378001700405

Parasuraman A, Zeithaml VA, Berry L (1988) SERVQUAL: a multiple-item scale for measuring consumer perceptions of service quality. J Retail 64(1):12–40

Rahardja U, Hongsuchon T, Hariguna T, Ruangkanjanases A (2021) Understanding impact sustainable intention of s-commerce activities: the role of customer experiences, perceived value, and mediation of relationship quality. Sustainability 13(20):11492. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132011492

Ramanathan U, Subramanian N, Parrott G (2017) Role of social media in retail network operations and marketing to enhance customer satisfaction. Int J Oper Prod Manag 37(1):105–123. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJOPM-03-2015-0153

Ramzi M, Mohamed B (2010) Customer loyalty and the impacts of service quality: the case of five star hotels in Jordan. Int J Econ Manag Eng 4(7):1702–1708. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1331937

Ranaweera C, Prabhu J (2003) The influence of satisfaction, trust and switching barriers on customer retention in a continuous purchasing setting. Int J Serv Ind Manag 14(4):374–395. https://doi.org/10.1108/09564230310489231

Razak FZA, Mokhtar AE, Rahman AA, Abidin MZZ (2021) Service quality, satisfaction and users’ continuance intention to use e-campus: a mediation analysis. J Phys: Conf Series. 1793(1):012019. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1793/1/012019

Samudro A, Sumarwan U, Simanjuntak M, Yusuf E (2020) Assessing the effects of perceived quality and perceived value on customer satisfaction. Manag Sci Lett 10(5):1077–1084. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.msl.2019.11.001

Schiele H, Veldman J, Hüttinger L, Pulles N (2012) toward a social exchange theory perspective on preferred customership—concept and practice. Supply Manag Res: Aktuelle Forschungsergebnisse 2012:133–151. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-8349-3928-9_6

Shah SAH, Kubota H (2022) Passenger’s satisfaction with service quality of app-based ride hailing services in developing countries: case of Lahore. Pakistan Asian Transport Studies 8:100076. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eastsj.2022.100076

Shanka MS, Buvik A (2019) When does relational exchange matters? Social bond, trust and satisfaction. J Bus Bus Mark 26(1):57–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/1051712X.2019.1565137

Shiau WL, Luo MM (2012) Factors affecting online group buying intention and satisfaction: a social exchange theory perspective. Comput Hum Behav 28(6):2431–2444. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.07.030

Slack N, Singh G, Sharma S (2020) Impact of perceived value on the satisfaction of supermarket customers: developing country perspective. Int J Retail Distrib Manag 48(11):1235–1254. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRDM-03-2019-0099

Sreelakshmi CC, Prathap SK (2023) Effect of COVID-19 health threat on consumer’s perceived value toward mobile payments in India: a means-end model. J Finan Serv Market. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41264-023-00233-9

Tegambwage AG, Kasoga PS (2022) Loan repayment among group borrowers in Tanzania: the role of relationship quality. Fut Bus J 8(1):37. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-022-00151-7

Thibaut JW, Kelley HH (1959) The social psychology of groups. Wiley, New York

Tran VD, Le NMT (2020) Impact of service quality and perceived value on customer satisfaction and behavioral intentions: evidence from convenience stores in Vietnam. J Asian Finance, Econ Bus 7(9):517–526. https://doi.org/10.13106/jafeb.2020.vol7.no9.517

Uzir MUH, Al Halbusi H, Thurasamy R, Hock RLT, Aljaberi MA, Hasan N, Hamid M (2021) The effects of service quality, perceived value and trust in home delivery service personnel on customer satisfaction: evidence from a developing country. J Retail Consum Serv 63:102721. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2021.102721

Van Tonder E, Petzer DJ, Van Vuuren N, De Beer LT (2018) Perceived value, relationship quality and positive WOM intention in banking. Int J Bank Market 36(7):1347–1366. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJBM-08-2017-0171

Varey RJ (2015) Social exchange (theory). Wiley encyclopedia of management. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 1–3

Victoria Bordonaba-Juste M, Polo-Redondo Y (2008) Differences between short and long-term relationships: an empirical analysis in franchise systems. J Strateg Mark 16(4):327–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/09652540802264033

Whittaker G, Ledden L, Kalafatis SP (2007) A re-examination of the relationship between value, satisfaction and intention in business services. J Serv Mark 21(5):345–357. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876040710773651

Wittorski R (2012) La professionnalisation de l’offre de formation universitaire: quelques spécificités. Revue internationale de pédagogie de l’enseignement supérieur. https://doi.org/10.4000/ripes.580

Yan X, Lim C-K (2022) The effect of supplier selection factors on relationship satisfaction and intention to continue a relationship: focused on global suppliers. J Logist, Inform Serv Sci 9(4):223–242. https://doi.org/10.33168/LISS.2022.0415

Yanamandram VK, White L (2012) Why do some business relationships persist despite dissatisfaction? A social exchange review. Asia Pacific Manag Rev, 17(3):301–319 https://ro.uow.edu.au/commpapers/3186

Yang C, Chen X, Sun J, Gu C (2022) The impact of alternative foods on consumers’ continuance intention from an innovation perspective. Foods 11(8):1167. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods11081167

Yi Y, Gong T (2009) An integrated model of customer social exchange relationship: the moderating role of customer experience. Serv Ind J 29(11):1513–1528. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060902793474

Yilmaz I (2009) Measurement of service quality in the hotel industry. Anatolia 20(2):375–386. https://doi.org/10.1080/13032917.2009.10518915

Zeithaml VA (1988) Consumer perceptions of price, quality, and value: a means-end model and synthesis of evidence. J Mark 52(3):2–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224298805200302

Zeithaml VA (2000) Service quality, profitability, and the economic worth of customers: what we know and what we need to learn. J Acad Mark Sci 28(1):67–85. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092070300281007

Zhang CB, Li YN, Wu B, Li DJ (2017) How WeChat can retain users: roles of network externalities, social interaction ties, and perceived values in building continuance intention. Comput Hum Behav 69:284–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.069

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their sincere gratitude for the support and resources provided during the course of this research. We acknowledge that this study was self-funded, and we are grateful for the opportunity to independently conduct this research. We would also like to extend our appreciation to the participants and researchers whose work contributed to the studies included in this systematic review. Your contributions have been invaluable in shaping the insights presented in this paper.

This research was conducted independently and self-funded by the authors. No external funding or financial support was received for the completion of this systematic literature review.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Brawijaya University, Malang City, East Java, Indonesia

Budiarto Tedja, Mochammad Al Musadieq, Andriani Kusumawati & Edy Yulianto

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

BT conceptualized the research, designed the methodology, analyzed data, and was the primary contributor in drafting and revising the manuscript as the Corresponding Author. MAM contributed to the research design, data analysis, interpretation, and manuscript revision. AK contributed to the study design, literature review, data collection, manuscript drafting, and revision. EY contributed to the study design, data acquisition, interpretation, and manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Budiarto Tedja .

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate, consent for publication.

The authors guaranteed that this manuscript is not published or not under consideration with any other journal, and the manuscript is original and is their own work.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Tedja, B., Al Musadieq, M., Kusumawati, A. et al. Systematic literature review using PRISMA: exploring the influence of service quality and perceived value on satisfaction and intention to continue relationship. Futur Bus J 10 , 39 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00326-4

Download citation

Received : 09 January 2024

Accepted : 31 March 2024

Published : 08 April 2024

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s43093-024-00326-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Service quality
• Perceived value
• Satisfaction
• Intention to continue relationship
• Systematic literature review

To read this content please select one of the options below:

Please note you do not have access to teaching notes, prisma for review of management literature – method, merits, and limitations – an academic review.

Advancing Methodologies of Conducting Literature Review in Management Domain

ISBN : 978-1-80262-372-7 , eISBN : 978-1-80262-371-0

Publication date: 24 November 2023

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) is a widely accepted guideline for performing a systematic review (SR) in clinical journals. It not only helps an author to improve the reporting but also assists reviewers and editors in the critical appraisal of available SR. These tools help in achieving reproducibility in research, a major concern in contemporary academic research. But there is a lack of awareness about the approach among management researchers. This chapter attempts to fill this gap using a narrative review of reliable online resources and peer-reviewed articles to discuss the PRISMA guidelines and recent amendments. The chapter further points out the limitations of PRISMA in the review of management literature and suggests measures to overcome that. This piece of literature introduces a reader to the basics of a systematic review using PRISMA as an instrument. One of the significant contributions is to delineate a seven-step strategy to attain reproducibility in the systematic review. The chapter is useful for researchers and academicians in the field of social science and management.

• Systematic review
• Review methods
• PRISMA extensions
• Reproducibility
• Literature review

Mishra, V. and Mishra, M.P. (2023), "PRISMA for Review of Management Literature – Method, Merits, and Limitations – An Academic Review", Rana, S. , Singh, J. and Kathuria, S. (Ed.) Advancing Methodologies of Conducting Literature Review in Management Domain ( Review of Management Literature, Vol. 2 ), Emerald Publishing Limited, Leeds, pp. 125-136. https://doi.org/10.1108/S2754-586520230000002007

Emerald Publishing Limited

Copyright © 2024 Vinaytosh Mishra and Monu Pandey Mishra. Published under exclusive licence by Emerald Publishing Limited

All feedback is valuable

Please share your general feedback

Report an issue or find answers to frequently asked questions

Contact Customer Support

Publikasi Jurnal Ilmiah News – HM Publisher

Publisher Jurnal Ilmiah & Buku

PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)

• Publikasi Ilmiah

PRISMA merupakan alat dan panduan yang digunakan untuk melakukan penilaian terhadap sebuah systematic reviews dan atau meta analysis. PRISMA membantu para penulis dan peneliti dalam menyusun sebuah systematic review dan meta analysis yang berkualitas. PRISMA tersusun atas checklist yang berisikan panduan item apa saja yang harus ada dan dijelaskan secara cermat pada sebuah systematic review dan meta analysis.

Selanjutnya, mari kita pelajari satu persatu checklist yang ada di PRISMA sebagai panduan menyusun sebuah systematic review dan atau meta analysis.

1. Judul —> pastikan judul dari tulisan kita dilengkapi dengan pernyataan tegas, apakah ini sebuah systematic literature review dan atau sebuah meta analysis.

2. Abstrak —> abstrak dibuat secara terstruktur, yakni ada background, methods, results dan Conclusion. Background berisi –> urgensi dari systematic reviews atau meta analysis serta tujuan dari systematic reviews atau meta analysis dilakukan. Methods berisi –> uraikan kriteria inklusi dan eksklusi dari review yang dilakukan, uraikan bagaimana proses pencarian literature, menggunakan search enggine apa, uraikan metode menilai risiko bias dan metode dalam interpretasi data. Results berisi —> uraikan jumlah studi yang diikutsertakan dengan jumlah partisipan serta uraikan outcome utama dari tiap studi serta nilai effect size (apabila merupakan meta analysis). Conclusion —> kesimpulan dari systematic review atau meta analysis yang dibuat secara singkat.

3. Introduction —> Pada bagian ini uraikan urgensi systematic reviews atau meta analysis serta tujuan dari systematic reviews atau meta analysis dilakukan.

4. Methods —> Uraikan bagaimana melakukan proses searching literature, jelaskan sumber portal searching literature, uraikan kriteria inklusi dan eksklusi dari article atau studi, uraikan jumlah artikel yang didapatkan waktu searching awal, kemudian alasan di-eksklusi, sehingga dapat naskah sejumlah berapa. Artikel yang dijadikan acuan systematic review atau meta analysis utamanya ialah hasil penelitian dan bukan review article–> karena systematic review dan meta analysis bukanlah narrative review. Jelaskan pula bagaimana proses seleksi dan penilaian naskah, apakah dilakukan oleh author A dan B, atau oleh pihak selain author dan independen, serta jelaskan bagaimana proses seleksi dan penilaian naskah dilakukan. Buat list penilaian dari tiap studi atau naskah yang dinilai berupa outcome yang dinilai apa, apa yang ada dan apa yang tidak ada. Selanjutnya, uraikan bagaimana proses melakukan penilaian bias. Khusus untuk meta analysis ditambahkan bagaimana proses analisis data, bagaimana menilai effect size dan heterogenity.

5.Results —> uraikan dengan diagram proses seleksi dari artikel, beraya yang dieksklusi, berapa yang diinklusikan serta alasannya apa. Jelaskan karakteristik temuan tiap studi, jelaskan respondennya apa, apa yang dinilai, bagaimana menilainya, dan outcome nya apa. Tampilkan hasil analisis bias terhadap studi yang dinilai.

6. Discussion —> bagian yang paling menarik karena dibagian ini kekuatan sebuah systematic review atau meta analysis terlihat. Jelaskan keterkaitan dan biological plausibility dari temuan. Jelaskan keterbatasan yang dijumpai mulai dari proses seleksi studi hingga keterbatasan dalam proses penilaian bias dari tiap studi.

7. Conclusion —> jelaskan temuan dari systematic review dan atau meta analysis secara singkat, padat dan jelas.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Related Stories

Cara Critical Appraisal Jurnal

Cara Menilai Effect Size dari Meta Analysis

Cara Mudah Menyusun Meta Analysis

You may have missed.

• Cara Buat Kuisioner Penelitian

Tutorial Cara Mudah Uji Coba dan Revisi Kuisioner

Cara Merancang Struktur Kuisioner yang Baik

Teknik Penulisan Pertanyaan Kuisioner yang Efektif

Cara mudah pahami jenis pertanyaan kuisioner.

• Open access
• Published: 29 March 2021

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

• Matthew J. Page   ORCID: orcid.org/0000-0002-4242-7526 1 ,
• Joanne E. McKenzie 1 ,
• Patrick M. Bossuyt 2 ,
• Isabelle Boutron 3 ,
• Tammy C. Hoffmann 4 ,
• Cynthia D. Mulrow 5 ,
• Larissa Shamseer 6 ,
• Jennifer M. Tetzlaff 7 ,
• Elie A. Akl 8 ,
• Sue E. Brennan 1 ,
• Roger Chou 9 ,
• Julie Glanville 10 ,
• Jeremy M. Grimshaw 11 ,
• Asbjørn Hróbjartsson 12 ,
• Manoj M. Lalu 13 ,
• Tianjing Li 14 ,
• Elizabeth W. Loder 15 ,
• Evan Mayo-Wilson 16 ,
• Steve McDonald 1 ,
• Luke A. McGuinness 17 ,
• Lesley A. Stewart 18 ,
• James Thomas 19 ,
• Andrea C. Tricco 20 ,
• Vivian A. Welch 21 ,
• Penny Whiting 17 &
• David Moher 22  

Systematic Reviews volume  10 , Article number:  89 ( 2021 ) Cite this article

327k Accesses

3854 Citations

112 Altmetric

Metrics details

An Editorial to this article was published on 19 April 2021

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, published in 2009, was designed to help systematic reviewers transparently report why the review was done, what the authors did, and what they found. Over the past decade, advances in systematic review methodology and terminology have necessitated an update to the guideline. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaces the 2009 statement and includes new reporting guidance that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies. The structure and presentation of the items have been modified to facilitate implementation. In this article, we present the PRISMA 2020 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and the revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on BMJ, PLOS Medicine, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology and International Journal of Surgery journal websites.

Systematic reviews serve many critical roles. They can provide syntheses of the state of knowledge in a field, from which future research priorities can be identified; they can address questions that otherwise could not be answered by individual studies; they can identify problems in primary research that should be rectified in future studies; and they can generate or evaluate theories about how or why phenomena occur. Systematic reviews therefore generate various types of knowledge for different users of reviews (such as patients, healthcare providers, researchers, and policy makers) [ 1 , 2 ]. 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). Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving this [ 3 ].

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 (hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009) [ 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 ] is a reporting guideline designed to address poor reporting of systematic reviews [ 11 ]. The PRISMA 2009 statement comprised a checklist of 27 items recommended for reporting in systematic reviews and an “explanation and elaboration” paper [ 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 ] providing additional reporting guidance for each item, along with exemplars of reporting. The recommendations have been widely endorsed and adopted, as evidenced by its co-publication in multiple journals, citation in over 60,000 reports (Scopus, August 2020), endorsement from almost 200 journals and systematic review organisations, and adoption in various disciplines. Evidence from observational studies suggests that use of the PRISMA 2009 statement is associated with more complete reporting of systematic reviews [ 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 ], although more could be done to improve adherence to the guideline [ 21 ].

Many innovations in the conduct of systematic reviews have occurred since publication of the PRISMA 2009 statement. For example, 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 ]. Evidence on sources of bias in systematic reviews has accrued, culminating in the development of new tools to appraise the conduct of systematic reviews [ 30 , 31 ]. Terminology used to describe particular review processes has also evolved, as in the shift from assessing “quality” to assessing “certainty” in the body of evidence [ 32 ]. In addition, 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. To capture these advances in the reporting of systematic reviews necessitated an update to the PRISMA 2009 statement.

Development of PRISMA 2020

A complete description of the methods used to develop PRISMA 2020 is available elsewhere [ 35 ]. We identified PRISMA 2009 items that were often reported incompletely by examining the results of studies investigating the transparency of reporting of published reviews [ 17 , 21 , 36 , 37 ]. We identified possible modifications to the PRISMA 2009 statement by reviewing 60 documents providing reporting guidance for systematic reviews (including reporting guidelines, handbooks, tools, and meta-research studies) [ 38 ]. These reviews of the literature were used to inform the content of a survey with suggested possible modifications to the 27 items in PRISMA 2009 and possible additional items. Respondents were asked whether they believed we should keep each PRISMA 2009 item as is, modify it, or remove it, and whether we should add each additional item. Systematic review methodologists and journal editors were invited to complete the online survey (110 of 220 invited responded). We discussed proposed content and wording of the PRISMA 2020 statement, as informed by the review and survey results, at a 21-member, two-day, in-person meeting in September 2018 in Edinburgh, Scotland. Throughout 2019 and 2020, we circulated an initial draft and five revisions of the checklist and explanation and elaboration paper to co-authors for feedback. In April 2020, we invited 22 systematic reviewers who had expressed interest in providing feedback on the PRISMA 2020 checklist to share their views (via an online survey) on the layout and terminology used in a preliminary version of the checklist. Feedback was received from 15 individuals and considered by the first author, and any revisions deemed necessary were incorporated before the final version was approved and endorsed by all co-authors.

The PRISMA 2020 statement

Scope of the guideline.

The PRISMA 2020 statement has been designed primarily for systematic reviews of studies that evaluate the effects of health interventions, irrespective of the design of the included studies. However, the checklist items are applicable to reports of systematic reviews evaluating other interventions (such as social or educational interventions), and many items are applicable to systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (such as evaluating aetiology, prevalence, or prognosis). PRISMA 2020 is intended for use in systematic reviews that include synthesis (such as pairwise meta-analysis or other statistical synthesis methods) or do not include synthesis (for example, because only one eligible study is identified). The PRISMA 2020 items are relevant for mixed-methods systematic reviews (which include quantitative and qualitative studies), but reporting guidelines addressing the presentation and synthesis of qualitative data should also be consulted [ 39 , 40 ]. PRISMA 2020 can be used for original systematic reviews, updated systematic reviews, or continually updated (“living”) systematic reviews. However, for updated and living systematic reviews, there may be some additional considerations that need to be addressed. Where there is relevant content from other reporting guidelines, we reference these guidelines within the items in the explanation and elaboration paper [ 41 ] (such as PRISMA-Search [ 42 ] in items 6 and 7, Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) reporting guideline [ 27 ] in item 13d). Box 1 includes a glossary of terms used throughout the PRISMA 2020 statement.

PRISMA 2020 is not intended to guide systematic review conduct, for which comprehensive resources are available [ 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ]. However, familiarity with PRISMA 2020 is useful when planning and conducting systematic reviews to ensure that all recommended information is captured. PRISMA 2020 should not be used to assess the conduct or methodological quality of systematic reviews; other tools exist for this purpose [ 30 , 31 ]. Furthermore, PRISMA 2020 is not intended to inform the reporting of systematic review protocols, for which a separate statement is available (PRISMA for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement [ 47 , 48 ]). Finally, 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.

How to use PRISMA 2020

The PRISMA 2020 statement (including the checklists, explanation and elaboration, and flow diagram) replaces the PRISMA 2009 statement, which should no longer be used. Box  2 summarises noteworthy changes from the PRISMA 2009 statement. The PRISMA 2020 checklist includes seven sections with 27 items, some of which include sub-items (Table  1 ). A checklist for journal and conference abstracts for systematic reviews is included in PRISMA 2020. This abstract checklist is an update of the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts statement [ 54 ], reflecting new and modified content in PRISMA 2020 (Table  2 ). A template PRISMA flow diagram is provided, which can be modified depending on whether the systematic review is original or updated (Fig.  1 ).

 PRISMA 2020 flow diagram template for systematic reviews. The new design is adapted from flow diagrams proposed by Boers [ 55 ], Mayo-Wilson et al. [ 56 ] and Stovold et al. [ 57 ] The boxes in grey should only be completed if applicable; otherwise they should be removed from the flow diagram. Note that a “report” could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report or any other document providing relevant information

We recommend authors refer to PRISMA 2020 early in the writing process, because prospective consideration of the items may help to ensure that all the items are addressed. To help keep track of which items have been reported, the PRISMA statement website ( http://www.prisma-statement.org/ ) includes fillable templates of the checklists to download and complete (also available in Additional file 1 ). We have also created a web application that allows users to complete the checklist via a user-friendly interface [ 58 ] (available at https://prisma.shinyapps.io/checklist/ and adapted from the Transparency Checklist app [ 59 ]). The completed checklist can be exported to Word or PDF. Editable templates of the flow diagram can also be downloaded from the PRISMA statement website.

We have prepared an updated explanation and elaboration paper, in which we explain why reporting of each item is recommended and present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations (which we refer to as elements) [ 41 ]. The bullet-point structure is new to PRISMA 2020 and has been adopted to facilitate implementation of the guidance [ 60 , 61 ]. An expanded checklist, which comprises an abridged version of the elements presented in the explanation and elaboration paper, with references and some examples removed, is available in Additional file 2 . Consulting the explanation and elaboration paper is recommended if further clarity or information is required.

Journals and publishers might impose word and section limits, and limits on the number of tables and figures allowed in the main report. In such cases, if the relevant information for some items already appears in a publicly accessible review protocol, referring to the protocol may suffice. Alternatively, placing detailed descriptions of the methods used or additional results (such as for less critical outcomes) in supplementary files is recommended. Ideally, supplementary files should be deposited to a general-purpose or institutional open-access repository that provides free and permanent access to the material (such as Open Science Framework, Dryad, figshare). A reference or link to the additional information should be included in the main report. Finally, although PRISMA 2020 provides a template for where information might be located, the suggested location should not be seen as prescriptive; the guiding principle is to ensure the information is reported.

Use of PRISMA 2020 has the potential to benefit many stakeholders. Complete reporting allows readers to assess the appropriateness of the methods, and therefore the trustworthiness of the findings. Presenting and summarising characteristics of studies contributing to a synthesis allows healthcare providers and policy makers to evaluate the applicability of the findings to their setting. Describing the certainty in the body of evidence for an outcome and the implications of findings should help policy makers, managers, and other decision makers formulate appropriate recommendations for practice or policy. Complete reporting of all PRISMA 2020 items also facilitates replication and review updates, as well as inclusion of systematic reviews in overviews (of systematic reviews) and guidelines, so teams can leverage work that is already done and decrease research waste [ 36 , 62 , 63 ].

We updated the PRISMA 2009 statement by adapting the EQUATOR Network’s guidance for developing health research reporting guidelines [ 64 ]. We evaluated the reporting completeness of published systematic reviews [ 17 , 21 , 36 , 37 ], reviewed the items included in other documents providing guidance for systematic reviews [ 38 ], surveyed systematic review methodologists and journal editors for their views on how to revise the original PRISMA statement [ 35 ], discussed the findings at an in-person meeting, and prepared this document through an iterative process. Our recommendations are informed by the reviews and survey conducted before the in-person meeting, theoretical considerations about which items facilitate replication and help users assess the risk of bias and applicability of systematic reviews, and co-authors’ experience with authoring and using systematic reviews.

Various strategies to increase the use of reporting guidelines and improve reporting have been proposed. They include educators introducing reporting guidelines into graduate curricula to promote good reporting habits of early career scientists [ 65 ]; journal editors and regulators endorsing use of reporting guidelines [ 18 ]; peer reviewers evaluating adherence to reporting guidelines [ 61 , 66 ]; journals requiring authors to indicate where in their manuscript they have adhered to each reporting item [ 67 ]; and authors using online writing tools that prompt complete reporting at the writing stage [ 60 ]. Multi-pronged interventions, where more than one of these strategies are combined, may be more effective (such as completion of checklists coupled with editorial checks) [ 68 ]. However, of 31 interventions proposed to increase adherence to reporting guidelines, the effects of only 11 have been evaluated, mostly in observational studies at high risk of bias due to confounding [ 69 ]. It is therefore unclear which strategies should be used. Future research might explore barriers and facilitators to the use of PRISMA 2020 by authors, editors, and peer reviewers, designing interventions that address the identified barriers, and evaluating those interventions using randomised trials. To inform possible revisions to the guideline, it would also be valuable to conduct think-aloud studies [ 70 ] to understand how systematic reviewers interpret the items, and reliability studies to identify items where there is varied interpretation of the items.

We encourage readers to submit evidence that informs any of the recommendations in PRISMA 2020 (via the PRISMA statement website: http://www.prisma-statement.org/ ). To enhance accessibility of PRISMA 2020, several translations of the guideline are under way (see available translations at the PRISMA statement website). We encourage journal editors and publishers to raise awareness of PRISMA 2020 (for example, by referring to it in journal “Instructions to authors”), endorsing its use, advising editors and peer reviewers to evaluate submitted systematic reviews against the PRISMA 2020 checklists, and making changes to journal policies to accommodate the new reporting recommendations. We recommend existing PRISMA extensions [ 47 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 71 , 72 ] be updated to reflect PRISMA 2020 and advise developers of new PRISMA extensions to use PRISMA 2020 as the foundation document.

We anticipate that the PRISMA 2020 statement will benefit authors, editors, and peer reviewers of systematic reviews, and different users of reviews, including guideline developers, policy makers, healthcare providers, patients, and other stakeholders. Ultimately, we hope that uptake of the guideline will lead to more transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews, thus facilitating evidence based decision making.

Box 1 Glossary of terms

Systematic review —A review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesise findings of studies that address a clearly formulated question [ 43 ]

Statistical synthesis —The combination of quantitative results of two or more studies. This encompasses meta-analysis of effect estimates (described below) and other methods, such as combining P values, calculating the range and distribution of observed effects, and vote counting based on the direction of effect (see McKenzie and Brennan [ 25 ] for a description of each method)

Meta-analysis of effect estimates —A statistical technique used to synthesise results when study effect estimates and their variances are available, yielding a quantitative summary of results [ 25 ]

Outcome —An event or measurement collected for participants in a study (such as quality of life, mortality)

Result —The combination of a point estimate (such as a mean difference, risk ratio, or proportion) and a measure of its precision (such as a confidence/credible interval) for a particular outcome

Report —A document (paper or electronic) supplying information about a particular study. It could be a journal article, preprint, conference abstract, study register entry, clinical study report, dissertation, unpublished manuscript, government report, or any other document providing relevant information

Record —The title or abstract (or both) of a report indexed in a database or website (such as a title or abstract for an article indexed in Medline). Records that refer to the same report (such as the same journal article) are “duplicates”; however, records that refer to reports that are merely similar (such as a similar abstract submitted to two different conferences) should be considered unique.

Study —An investigation, such as a clinical trial, that includes a defined group of participants and one or more interventions and outcomes. A “study” might have multiple reports. For example, reports could include the protocol, statistical analysis plan, baseline characteristics, results for the primary outcome, results for harms, results for secondary outcomes, and results for additional mediator and moderator analyses

Box 2 Noteworthy changes to the PRISMA 2009 statement

• Inclusion of the abstract reporting checklist within PRISMA 2020 (see item #2 and Box 2 ).

• Movement of the ‘Protocol and registration’ item from the start of the Methods section of the checklist to a new Other section, with addition of a sub-item recommending authors describe amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol (see item #24a-24c).

• Modification of the ‘Search’ item to recommend authors present full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites searched, not just at least one database (see item #7).

• Modification of the ‘Study selection’ item in the Methods section to emphasise the reporting of how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process (see item #8).

• Addition of a sub-item to the ‘Data items’ item recommending authors report how outcomes were defined, which results were sought, and methods for selecting a subset of results from included studies (see item #10a).

• Splitting of the ‘Synthesis of results’ item in the Methods section into six sub-items recommending authors describe: the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis; any methods required to prepare the data for synthesis; any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses; any methods used to synthesise results; any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (such as subgroup analysis, meta-regression); and any sensitivity analyses used to assess robustness of the synthesised results (see item #13a-13f).

• Addition of a sub-item to the ‘Study selection’ item in the Results section recommending authors cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded (see item #16b).

• Splitting of the ‘Synthesis of results’ item in the Results section into four sub-items recommending authors: briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among studies contributing to the synthesis; present results of all statistical syntheses conducted; present results of any investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results; and present results of any sensitivity analyses (see item #20a-20d).

• Addition of new items recommending authors report methods for and results of an assessment of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome (see items #15 and #22).

• Addition of a new item recommending authors declare any competing interests (see item #26).

• Addition of a new item recommending authors indicate whether data, analytic code and other materials used in the review are publicly available and if so, where they can be found (see item #27).

Gurevitch J, Koricheva J, Nakagawa S, Stewart G. Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature. 2018;555:175–82. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Gough D, Thomas J, Oliver S. Clarifying differences between reviews within evidence ecosystems. Syst Rev. 2019;8:170. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1089-2 .

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moher D. Reporting guidelines: doing better for readers. BMC Med. 2018;16:233. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-018-1226-0 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9, W64. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 .

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2535 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1006–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8:336–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007 .

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Open Med. 2009;3:e123–30.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group. Reprint--preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Phys Ther. 2009;89:873–80. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/89.9.873 .

Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007;4:e78. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078 .

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.006 .

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339:b2700. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.b2700 .

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:W65–94. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00136 .

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 .

Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting. systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care. interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100 .

Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13:e1002028. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 .

Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8:e83138. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083138 .

Article   CAS   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Limb C, et al. Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: a before and after study. Int J Surg. 2016;30:169–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsu.2016.04.032 .

Leclercq V, Beaudart C, Ajamieh S, Rabenda V, Tirelli E, Bruyère O. Meta-analyses indexed in PsycINFO had a better completeness of reporting when they mention PRISMA. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;115:46–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.014 .

Page MJ, Moher D. Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) statement and extensions: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2017;6:263. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0663-8 .

O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 .

Marshall IJ, Noel-Storr A, Kuiper J, Thomas J, Wallace BC. Machine learning for identifying randomized controlled trials: an evaluation and practitioner’s guide. Res Synth Methods. 2018;9:602–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1287 .

Marshall IJ, Wallace BC. Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis. Syst Rev. 2019;8:163. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1074-9 .

McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Synthesizing and presenting findings using other methods. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. London: Cochrane; 2019. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119536604.ch12 .

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Higgins JPT, López-López JA, Becker BJ, et al. Synthesising quantitative evidence in systematic reviews of complex health interventions. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(Suppl 1):e000858. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2018-000858 .

Campbell M, McKenzie JE, Sowden A, et al. Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ. 2020;368:l6890. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890 .

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l4898 .

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i4919 .

Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, ROBIS group, et al. ROBIS: a new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;69:225–34. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 .

Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017;358:j4008. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j4008 .

Hultcrantz M, Rind D, Akl EA, et al. The GRADE working group clarifies the construct of certainty of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;87:4–13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.05.006 .

Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, et al. The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register of systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2012;1:2. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-2 .

Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. Establishing a new journal for systematic review products. Syst Rev. 2012;1:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-1 .

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement. J Clin Epidemiol 2021;134:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.02.003 .

Page MJ, Altman DG, Shamseer L, et al. Reproducible research practices are underused in systematic reviews of biomedical interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;94:8–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.017 .

Page MJ, Altman DG, McKenzie JE, et al. Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;95:7–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.11.022 .

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. Mapping of reporting guidance for systematic reviews and meta-analyses generated a comprehensive item bank for future reporting guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;118:60–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.11.010 .

Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181 .

France EF, Cunningham M, Ring N, et al. Improving reporting of meta-ethnography: the eMERGe reporting guidance. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19:25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0600-0 .

Page MJ, Moher D, Bossuyt PM, et al. PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n160. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n160 .

Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S Group PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z .

Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions: version 6.0. London: Cochrane; 2019. Available from https://training.cochrane.org/handbook

Book   Google Scholar  

Dekkers OM, Vandenbroucke JP, Cevallos M, Renehan AG, Altman DG, Egger M. COSMOS-E: guidance on conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies of etiology. PLoS Med. 2019;16:e1002742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002742 .

Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JV. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2019.

IOM (Institute of Medicine). Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, D.C.: The National Academies Press; 2011.

Google Scholar  

Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, PRISMA-P Group, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 .

Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, PRISMA-P Group, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;350:g7647. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g7647 .

Hutton B, Salanti G, Caldwell DM, et al. The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162:777–84. https://doi.org/10.7326/M14-2385 .

Stewart LA, Clarke M, Rovers M, PRISMA-IPD Development Group, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA. 2015;313:1657–65. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2015.3656 .

Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, et al. PRISMAHarms Group PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i157 .

McInnes MDF, Moher D, Thombs BD, the PRISMA-DTA Group, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy studies: the PRISMA-DTA statement. JAMA. 2018;319:388–96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.19163 .

Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-SCR): checklist and explanation. Ann Intern Med. 2018;169:467–73. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850 .

Beller EM, Glasziou PP, Altman DG, et al. PRISMA for Abstracts Group PRISMA for Abstracts: reporting systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts. PLoS Med. 2013;10:e1001419. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001419 .

Boers M. Graphics and statistics for cardiology: designing effective tables for presentation and publication. Heart. 2018;104:192–200. https://doi.org/10.1136/heartjnl-2017-311581 .

Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin K, MUDS investigators. Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Res Synth Methods. 2018;9:2–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1277 .

Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev. 2014;3:54. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-54 .

McGuinness LA. mcguinlu/PRISMA-Checklist: Initial release for manuscript submission (Version v1.0.0). Geneva: Zenodo; 2020. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3994319 .

Aczel B, Szaszi B, Sarafoglou A, et al. A consensus-based transparency checklist. Nat Hum Behav. 2020;4:4–6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-019-0772-6 .

Barnes C, Boutron I, Giraudeau B, Porcher R, Altman DG, Ravaud P. Impact of an online writing aid tool for writing a randomized trial report: the COBWEB (Consort-based WEB tool) randomized controlled trial. BMC Med. 2015;13:221. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0460-y .

Chauvin A, Ravaud P, Moher D, et al. Accuracy in detecting inadequate research reporting by early career peer reviewers using an online CONSORT-based peer-review tool (COBPeer) versus the usual peer-review process: a cross-sectional diagnostic study. BMC Med. 2019;17:205. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-019-1436-0 .

Wayant C, Page MJ, Vassar M. Evaluation of reproducible research practices in oncology systematic reviews with meta-analyses referenced by national comprehensive cancer network guidelines. JAMA Oncol. 2019;5:1550–5. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.2564 .

Article   PubMed Central   PubMed   Google Scholar  

McKenzie JE, Brennan SE. Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge. Syst Rev. 2017;6:185. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0582-8 .

Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000217. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 .

Simera I, Moher D, Hirst A, Hoey J, Schulz KF, Altman DG. Transparent and accurate reporting increases reliability, utility, and impact of your research: reporting guidelines and the EQUATOR Network. BMC Med. 2010;8:24. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-24 .

Speich B, Schroter S, Briel M, et al. Impact of a short version of the CONSORT checklist for peer reviewers to improve the reporting of randomised controlled trials published in biomedical journals: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e035114. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035114 .

Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, et al. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ. 2014;348:g3804. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g3804 .

Hair K, Macleod MR, Sena ES, IICARus Collaboration. A randomised controlled trial of an Intervention to Improve Compliance with the ARRIVE guidelines (IICARus). Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0069-3 .

Blanco D, Altman D, Moher D, Boutron I, Kirkham JJ, Cobo E. Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e026589. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026589 .

Charters E. The use of think-aloud methods in qualitative research: an introduction to think-aloud methods. Brock Educ J. 2003;12:68–82. https://doi.org/10.26522/brocked.v12i2.38 .

Article   Google Scholar  

Welch V, Petticrew M, Tugwell P, PRISMA-Equity Bellagio group, et al. PRISMA-equity 2012 extension: reporting guidelines for systematic reviews with a focus on health equity. PLoS Med. 2012;9:e1001333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001333 .

Wang X, Chen Y, Liu Y, et al. Reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses of acupuncture: the PRISMA for acupuncture checklist. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2019;19:208. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-019-2624-3 .

Download references

Acknowledgements

We dedicate this paper to the late Douglas G Altman and Alessandro Liberati, whose contributions were fundamental to the development and implementation of the original PRISMA statement.

We thank the following contributors who completed the survey to inform discussions at the development meeting: Xavier Armoiry, Edoardo Aromataris, Ana Patricia Ayala, Ethan M Balk, Virginia Barbour, Elaine Beller, Jesse A Berlin, Lisa Bero, Zhao-Xiang Bian, Jean Joel Bigna, Ferrán Catalá-López, Anna Chaimani, Mike Clarke, Tammy Clifford, Ioana A Cristea, Miranda Cumpston, Sofia Dias, Corinna Dressler, Ivan D Florez, Joel J Gagnier, Chantelle Garritty, Long Ge, Davina Ghersi, Sean Grant, Gordon Guyatt, Neal R Haddaway, Julian PT Higgins, Sally Hopewell, Brian Hutton, Jamie J Kirkham, Jos Kleijnen, Julia Koricheva, Joey SW Kwong, Toby J Lasserson, Julia H Littell, Yoon K Loke, Malcolm R Macleod, Chris G Maher, Ana Marušic, Dimitris Mavridis, Jessie McGowan, Matthew DF McInnes, Philippa Middleton, Karel G Moons, Zachary Munn, Jane Noyes, Barbara Nußbaumer-Streit, Donald L Patrick, Tatiana Pereira-Cenci, Ba′ Pham, Bob Phillips, Dawid Pieper, Michelle Pollock, Daniel S Quintana, Drummond Rennie, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Hannah R Rothstein, Maroeska M Rovers, Rebecca Ryan, Georgia Salanti, Ian J Saldanha, Margaret Sampson, Nancy Santesso, Rafael Sarkis-Onofre, Jelena Savović, Christopher H Schmid, Kenneth F Schulz, Guido Schwarzer, Beverley J Shea, Paul G Shekelle, Farhad Shokraneh, Mark Simmonds, Nicole Skoetz, Sharon E Straus, Anneliese Synnot, Emily E Tanner-Smith, Brett D Thombs, Hilary Thomson, Alexander Tsertsvadze, Peter Tugwell, Tari Turner, Lesley Uttley, Jeffrey C Valentine, Matt Vassar, Areti Angeliki Veroniki, Meera Viswanathan, Cole Wayant, Paul Whaley, and Kehu Yang. We thank the following contributors who provided feedback on a preliminary version of the PRISMA 2020 checklist: Jo Abbott, Fionn Büttner, Patricia Correia-Santos, Victoria Freeman, Emily A Hennessy, Rakibul Islam, Amalia (Emily) Karahalios, Kasper Krommes, Andreas Lundh, Dafne Port Nascimento, Davina Robson, Catherine Schenck-Yglesias, Mary M Scott, Sarah Tanveer and Pavel Zhelnov. We thank Abigail H Goben, Melissa L Rethlefsen, Tanja Rombey, Anna Scott, and Farhad Shokraneh for their helpful comments on the preprints of the PRISMA 2020 papers. We thank Edoardo Aromataris, Stephanie Chang, Toby Lasserson and David Schriger for their helpful peer review comments on the PRISMA 2020 papers.

Provenance and peer review

Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Patient and public involvement

Patients and the public were not involved in this methodological research. We plan to disseminate the research widely, including to community participants in evidence synthesis organisations.

There was no direct funding for this research. MJP is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery Early Career Researcher Award (DE200101618) and was previously supported by an Australian National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Early Career Fellowship (1088535) during the conduct of this research. JEM is supported by an Australian NHMRC Career Development Fellowship (1143429). TCH is supported by an Australian NHMRC Senior Research Fellowship (1154607). JMT is supported by Evidence Partners Inc. JMG is supported by a Tier 1 Canada Research Chair in Health Knowledge Transfer and Uptake. MML is supported by The Ottawa Hospital Anaesthesia Alternate Funds Association and a Faculty of Medicine Junior Research Chair. TL is supported by funding from the National Eye Institute (UG1EY020522), National Institutes of Health, United States. LAM is supported by a National Institute for Health Research Doctoral Research Fellowship (DRF-2018-11-ST2–048). ACT is supported by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. DM is supported in part by a University Research Chair, University of Ottawa. The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, interpretation of data, writing of the report, or decision to submit the article for publication.

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

Matthew J. Page, Joanne E. McKenzie, Sue E. Brennan & Steve McDonald

Department of Clinical Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Amsterdam University Medical Centres, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Patrick M. Bossuyt

Université de Paris, Centre of Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, F 75004, Paris, France

Isabelle Boutron

Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Gold Coast, Australia

Tammy C. Hoffmann

Annals of Internal Medicine, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, San Antonio, Texas, USA

Cynthia D. Mulrow

Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Larissa Shamseer

Evidence Partners, Ottawa, Canada

Jennifer M. Tetzlaff

Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Elie A. Akl

Department of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA

York Health Economics Consortium (YHEC Ltd), University of York, York, UK

Julie Glanville

Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Jeremy M. Grimshaw

Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine Odense (CEBMO) and Cochrane Denmark, Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, JB Winsløwsvej 9b, 3rd Floor, 5000 Odense, Denmark; Open Patient data Exploratory Network (OPEN), Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark

Asbjørn Hróbjartsson

Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, The Ottawa Hospital, Ottawa, Canada; Clinical Epidemiology Program, Blueprint Translational Research Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; Regenerative Medicine Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

Manoj M. Lalu

Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, Colorado, United States; Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA

Tianjing Li

Division of Headache, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA; Head of Research, The BMJ, London, UK

Elizabeth W. Loder

Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, Indiana, USA

Evan Mayo-Wilson

Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK

Luke A. McGuinness & Penny Whiting

Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK

Lesley A. Stewart

EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK

James Thomas

Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St. Michael’s Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Epidemiology Division of the Dalla Lana School of Public Health and the Institute of Health Management, Policy, and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Queen’s Collaboration for Health Care Quality Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada

Andrea C. Tricco

Methods Centre, Bruyère Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

Vivian A. Welch

Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

David Moher

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Contributions

JEM and DM are joint senior authors. MJP, JEM, PMB, IB, TCH, CDM, LS, and DM conceived this paper and designed the literature review and survey conducted to inform the guideline content. MJP conducted the literature review, administered the survey and analysed the data for both. MJP prepared all materials for the development meeting. MJP and JEM presented proposals at the development meeting. All authors except for TCH, JMT, EAA, SEB, and LAM attended the development meeting. MJP and JEM took and consolidated notes from the development meeting. MJP and JEM led the drafting and editing of the article. JEM, PMB, IB, TCH, LS, JMT, EAA, SEB, RC, JG, AH, TL, EMW, SM, LAM, LAS, JT, ACT, PW, and DM drafted particular sections of the article. All authors were involved in revising the article critically for important intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of the article. MJP is the guarantor of this work. The corresponding author attests that all listed authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Matthew J. Page .

Ethics declarations

Competing interests.

All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at http://www.icmje.org/conflicts-of-interest/ and declare: EL is head of research for the BMJ ; MJP is an editorial board member for PLOS Medicine ; ACT is an associate editor and MJP, TL, EMW, and DM are editorial board members for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology ; DM and LAS were editors in chief, LS, JMT, and ACT are associate editors, and JG is an editorial board member for Systematic Reviews . None of these authors were involved in the peer review process or decision to publish. TCH has received personal fees from Elsevier outside the submitted work. EMW has received personal fees from the American Journal for Public Health , for which he is the editor for systematic reviews. VW is editor in chief of the Campbell Collaboration, which produces systematic reviews, and co-convenor of the Campbell and Cochrane equity methods group. DM is chair of the EQUATOR Network, IB is adjunct director of the French EQUATOR Centre and TCH is co-director of the Australasian EQUATOR Centre, which advocates for the use of reporting guidelines to improve the quality of reporting in research articles. JMT received salary from Evidence Partners, creator of DistillerSR software for systematic reviews; Evidence Partners was not involved in the design or outcomes of the statement, and the views expressed solely represent those of the author.

Additional information

Publisher’s note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1..

PRISMA 2020 checklist.

Additional file 2.

PRISMA 2020 expanded checklist.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Page, M.J., McKenzie, J.E., Bossuyt, P.M. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. Syst Rev 10 , 89 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Download citation

Accepted : 04 January 2021

Published : 29 March 2021

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Systematic Reviews

ISSN: 2046-4053

• Submission enquiries: Access here and click Contact Us
• General enquiries: [email protected]