x 10 9 may be x 10⁹, chi 2 5 may be chi-squared with five degrees of freedom, and 1 2 may be one half. Read any expression here against the published paper before relying on it.standOff. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote shown on the same row, so the borrowing can be checked against the thing borrowed from without leaving this page. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.| relation to other work | claim_relations | how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies |
| claim type | claim_type | the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null |
| concept edge | concept_edges | an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses it |
| content tag | content_tags | a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper |
| contribution | contribution | what the paper claims to add |
| control | controls | an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation |
| limitation | limitations | what the paper says its evidence cannot support |
| mechanism | mechanisms | how the reported effect is said to come about |
| method | method | how the paper produced its evidence |
| object of study | object_of_study | what the paper is about — the thing it investigates |
| phenomenon | phenomenon | the effect or regularity under study |
| research question | research_question | the question the paper sets itself |
| sense | senses | a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it |
| unrecordable relation | unhoused_relations | a relation the paper asserts that this vocabulary cannot express, with the reason |
The reference list is not part of the text we hold for this paper. Our copy was extracted from the publisher's page and the bibliography did not survive that extraction, so the article below ends before its references. Nothing has been removed by us.
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Abstract
object_of_studycontributionclaim_typeconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsclaim_relationsclaim_relationsconcept_edgescontent_tagscontent_tagsThe 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.
mechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concept_edgescontent_tagsSystematic 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
limitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsconcept_edgesconcept_edgescontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagsThe 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
research_questionmechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensescontent_tagscontent_tags↗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.
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, and what they found
The PRISMA 2020 statement provides updated reporting guidance for systematic reviews that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies
concept_edgesconcept_edgesconcept_edgesconcept_edgesThe PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist, an expanded checklist that details reporting recommendations for each item, the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams for original and updated reviews
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
Development of PRISMA 2020
method↗mechanisms↗mechanisms↗mechanisms↗mechanisms↗controlscontrolscontrolscontrolscontrolsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗sensescontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tags↗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
limitationslimitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concept_edgescontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tags↗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.
sensescontent_tags↗Systematic review —A review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesise findings of studies that address a clearly formulated question 43
concepts↗content_tags↗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)
concepts↗content_tags↗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
concepts↗content_tags↗Outcome —An event or measurement collected for participants in a study (such as quality of life, mortality)
concepts↗sensescontent_tags↗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
concepts↗content_tags↗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
concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationssensescontent_tags↗content_tags↗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.
concepts↗unhoused_relationssensescontent_tags↗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
limitationslimitationslimitationslimitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationssensessensesclaim_relationscontent_tagsPRISMA 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
concepts↗concepts↗concept_edgescontent_tagscontent_tagsThe 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 ).
Inclusion of the abstract reporting checklist within PRISMA 2020 (see item #2 and table 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).
content_tagsModification 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).
content_tagsModification 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).
content_tagscontent_tagscontent_tags↗content_tags↗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).
content_tagscontent_tags↗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).
PRISMA 2020 item checklist
PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist*
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.
mechanisms↗mechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗claim_relationsconcept_edgesWe 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 the data supplement on bmj.com). 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.
mechanisms↗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 the data supplement on bmj.com. Consulting the explanation and elaboration paper is recommended if further clarity or information is required.
mechanisms↗limitationslimitationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsJournals 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.
Discussion
phenomenonmechanisms↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗concepts↗sensesconcept_edgesconcept_edgescontent_tagscontent_tags↗content_tags↗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.
mechanisms↗mechanisms↗limitationslimitationslimitationslimitationsconcepts↗concepts↗concepts↗unhoused_relationsunhoused_relationsunhoused_relationssensesclaim_relationscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tagscontent_tags↗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.
Conclusion
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.
Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; 13 of 13 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.
| facet | tag | field | conf. | whose words |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| object_of_study | transparent, complete, and accurate reporting of systematic reviews through the updated PRISMA guideline | object_of_study | the paper's words | |
| research_question | how the 2009 PRISMA statement should be updated to reflect methodological, terminological, technological, and publishing changes | research_question | the paper's words | |
| contribution | the PRISMA 2020 statement, including a 27-item checklist, expanded recommendations, abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams | contribution | the paper's words | |
| claim_type | method | claim_type | the paper's words | |
| phenomenon | incomplete systematic-review reporting and the effects of reporting completeness on appraisal, reuse, updating, and decision making | phenomenon | the paper's words | |
| method | expert-consensus also in: expert-consensus | method | the paper's words | |
| mechanisms | Makes review rationale, procedures, and findings available to users. also in: transparent reporting | mechanisms[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Adds guidance as evidence-identification, synthesis, and bias-assessment methods evolve. also in: methodological updating | mechanisms[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Generates candidate modifications and additions to the checklist. also in: guidance-document review | mechanisms[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Elicits keep, modify, remove, and add judgments for reporting items. also in: stakeholder survey | mechanisms[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Uses multidisciplinary discussion to refine content and wording. also in: consensus meeting | mechanisms[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Incorporates co-author and external-reviewer feedback before approval. also in: iterative revision | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Helps authors capture recommended information during writing. also in: prospective checklist use | mechanisms[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Let authors track which items have been reported. also in: fillable checklist templates | mechanisms[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Provide concise implementation detail for each reporting recommendation. also in: bullet-point elements | mechanisms[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Keeps detailed methods and results accessible when article space is constrained. also in: repository linkage | mechanisms[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Enables assessment, replication, updating, and downstream synthesis reuse. also in: complete reporting | mechanisms[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Combine checklist completion with editorial or other checks to improve uptake. also in: multi-pronged interventions | mechanisms[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | Use think-aloud and reliability designs to expose barriers and ambiguous items. also in: future user studies | mechanisms[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | PRISMA 2020 does not guide how systematic reviews should be conducted. | limitations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | PRISMA 2020 should not be used to assess review conduct or methodological quality. | limitations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | A separate PRISMA-P statement is needed for protocol reporting. | limitations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Mixed-methods reviews should also consult guidance specific to qualitative synthesis. | limitations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Updated and living reviews can require additional considerations. | limitations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Specialized review types require PRISMA extension guidance in addition to the core statement. | limitations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Journal word, section, table, and figure limits can constrain where recommended information is reported. | limitations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The suggested locations of information in the template are not prescriptive. | limitations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The 2009 statement still had incomplete adherence despite broad adoption. | limitations[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The effects of most proposed adherence interventions had not been evaluated. | limitations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Existing intervention evaluations were mostly observational and at high confounding risk. | limitations[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | It remained unclear which adherence strategies should be used. | limitations[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | Some checklist items may be interpreted variably and require reliability study. | limitations[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | published-review transparency studies eliminates: relying only on opinion to identify incomplete PRISMA 2009 items | controls[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | review of 60 guidance documents eliminates: deriving candidate modifications from a single guidance source | controls[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | structured survey of methodologists and journal editors eliminates: unobserved stakeholder judgments about keeping, modifying, removing, or adding items | controls[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | 21-member in-person consensus meeting eliminates: adopting literature and survey suggestions without multidisciplinary wording review | controls[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| controls | initial draft, five co-author revisions, and external user feedback eliminates: finalizing layout and terminology after a single drafting pass · outcome: held | controls[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | PRISMA 2020 statement also in: PRISMA 2020 statement | concepts[0] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | systematic reviews also in: systematic reviews | concepts[1] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reporting guidance also in: reporting guidance | concepts[2] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | new reporting guidance also in: new reporting guidance | concepts[3] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | 27-item checklist also in: 27-item checklist | concepts[4] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | expanded checklist also in: expanded checklist | concepts[5] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist also in: PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist | concepts[6] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | revised flow diagrams also in: revised flow diagrams | concepts[7] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | transparent also in: transparent | concepts[8] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | complete also in: complete | concepts[9] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | accurate also in: accurate | concepts[10] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | PRISMA 2009 statement also in: PRISMA 2009 statement | concepts[11] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 | concepts[12] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | PRISMA 2009 also in: PRISMA 2009 | concepts[13] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reporting guideline also in: reporting guideline | concepts[14] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | explanation and elaboration paper also in: explanation and elaboration paper | concepts[15] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | natural language processing also in: natural language processing | concepts[16] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | machine learning also in: machine learning | concepts[17] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | meta-analysis also in: meta-analysis | concepts[18] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | risk of bias also in: risk of bias | concepts[19] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | certainty also in: certainty | concepts[20] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | systematic review protocols also in: systematic review protocols | concepts[21] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | preprint servers also in: preprint servers | concepts[22] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | publicly accessible repositories also in: publicly accessible repositories | concepts[23] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | transparency of reporting also in: transparency of reporting | concepts[24] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | online survey also in: online survey | concepts[25] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Systematic review methodologists also in: Systematic review methodologists | concepts[26] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | journal editors also in: journal editors | concepts[27] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | in-person meeting also in: in-person meeting | concepts[28] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | health interventions also in: health interventions | concepts[29] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | social or educational interventions also in: social or educational interventions | concepts[30] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | aetiology also in: aetiology | concepts[31] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prevalence also in: prevalence | concepts[32] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prognosis also in: prognosis | concepts[33] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | pairwise meta-analysis also in: pairwise meta-analysis | concepts[34] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | mixed-methods systematic reviews also in: mixed-methods systematic reviews | concepts[35] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | quantitative and qualitative studies also in: quantitative and qualitative studies | concepts[36] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | qualitative studies also in: qualitative studies | concepts[37] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | living systematic reviews also in: living systematic reviews | concepts[38] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Statistical synthesis also in: Statistical synthesis | concepts[39] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Meta-analysis of effect estimates also in: Meta-analysis of effect estimates | concepts[40] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Outcome also in: Outcome | concepts[41] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Result also in: Result | concepts[42] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Report also in: Report | concepts[43] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Record also in: Record | concepts[44] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Study also in: Study | concepts[45] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | duplicates also in: duplicates | concepts[46] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | PRISMA for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement | concepts[47] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | network meta-analyses also in: network meta-analyses | concepts[48] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | scoping reviews also in: scoping reviews | concepts[49] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | PRISMA 2020 checklist also in: PRISMA 2020 checklist | concepts[50] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | seven sections also in: seven sections | concepts[51] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | fillable templates also in: fillable templates | concepts[52] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | web application also in: web application | concepts[53] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | replication also in: replication | concepts[54] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | review updates also in: review updates | concepts[55] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | research waste also in: research waste | concepts[56] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | randomised trials also in: randomised trials | concepts[57] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | think-aloud studies also in: think-aloud studies | concepts[58] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | reliability studies also in: reliability studies | concepts[59] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Up-to-date reporting guidance also in: Up-to-date reporting guidance | concepts[60] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | transparent, complete, and accurate account | concepts[61] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | prospective consideration of the items | concepts[62] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | all the items are addressed also in: all the items are addressed | concepts[63] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Complete reporting also in: Complete reporting | concepts[64] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | appropriateness of the methods also in: appropriateness of the methods | concepts[65] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Presenting and summarising characteristics | concepts[66] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | applicability of the findings also in: applicability of the findings | concepts[67] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Describing the certainty also in: Describing the certainty | concepts[68] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | appropriate recommendations also in: appropriate recommendations | concepts[69] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | Complete reporting of all PRISMA 2020 items | concepts[70] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| concepts | replication and review updates also in: replication and review updates | concepts[71] | 0.95 | the paper's words |
| unhoused_relations | PRISMA 2020 statement → PRISMA 2009 statement PRISMA 2020 replaces PRISMA 2009. | unhoused_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | PRISMA 2009 statement use → more complete reporting Use of PRISMA 2009 is associated with more complete reporting. | unhoused_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | quality → certainty Review terminology shifted from quality to certainty. | unhoused_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | PRISMA 2020 → systematic review conduct PRISMA 2020 is not intended to guide review conduct. | unhoused_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | PRISMA 2020 → methodological quality assessment PRISMA 2020 should not assess methodological quality. | unhoused_relations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | PRISMA-P 2015 → systematic review protocols PRISMA-P is the separate statement for protocol reporting. | unhoused_relations[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | PRISMA extensions → specialized review types Extensions provide additional guidance for specialized review types. | unhoused_relations[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | records → reports Multiple records can refer to one report. | unhoused_relations[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | studies → reports One study can have multiple reports. | unhoused_relations[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | publicly accessible review protocol → main report information A public protocol may supply information omitted from the main report. | unhoused_relations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | multi-pronged interventions → single strategies Multi-pronged interventions may be more effective. | unhoused_relations[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | adherence strategies → guideline use It is unclear which adherence strategies should be used. | unhoused_relations[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | journal limits → report placement Journal space limits constrain where information can be reported. | unhoused_relations[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| unhoused_relations | existing intervention evaluations → confounding Most evaluations were observational and at high risk of bias due to confounding. | unhoused_relations[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | PRISMA as reporting guidance rather than a conduct manual | senses[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | systematic review as explicit question-driven collation and synthesis | senses[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | report as a document and record as its indexed title or abstract | senses[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | study as an investigation that may generate multiple reports | senses[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | result as estimate plus precision rather than an outcome alone | senses[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | certainty as the evolved term replacing quality of an evidence body | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | complete reporting as infrastructure for appraisal and reuse | senses[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | PRISMA 2020 as core guidance supplemented by specialized extensions | senses[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | guideline development as empirical review, consultation, consensus, and iteration | senses[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| senses | guideline uptake as an intervention problem with limited comparative evidence | senses[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | replaces → PRISMA 2009 statement note: The article explicitly supersedes the earlier reporting statement. | claim_relations[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | extends → reporting guidance for systematic reviews note: The update adds new and modified guidance and artifacts. | claim_relations[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → prospective use of reporting checklists note: Early checklist use may help authors capture every item. | claim_relations[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → PRISMA 2020 as a conduct or quality-assessment tool note: The stated scope excludes conduct guidance and methodological-quality appraisal. | claim_relations[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → future experimental evaluation of adherence strategies note: The article proposes randomized trials because current intervention evidence is limited. | claim_relations[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | PRISMA 2009 statement —is-a→ reporting guideline the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Direct categorical class statement. · the relation stated: The PRISMA 2009 statement is a reporting guideline. also in: PRISMA 2009 statement · reporting guideline | concept_edges[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement published in 2009 —same-as→ PRISMA 2009 the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Explicit controlled alternative name. · the relation stated: The statement published in 2009 is hereafter referred to as PRISMA 2009. | concept_edges[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | new reporting guidance —part-of→ PRISMA 2020 statement the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Categorical inclusion. · the relation stated: The PRISMA 2020 statement includes new reporting guidance. also in: new reporting guidance · PRISMA 2020 statement | concept_edges[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | 27-item checklist —part-of→ PRISMA 2020 statement the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Categorical component membership. · the relation stated: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of a 27-item checklist. also in: 27-item checklist · PRISMA 2020 statement | concept_edges[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | expanded checklist —part-of→ PRISMA 2020 statement the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Categorical component membership. · the relation stated: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of an expanded checklist. also in: expanded checklist · PRISMA 2020 statement | concept_edges[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist —part-of→ PRISMA 2020 statement the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Categorical component membership. · the relation stated: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of the PRISMA 2020 abstract checklist. | concept_edges[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | revised flow diagrams —part-of→ PRISMA 2020 statement the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Categorical component membership. · the relation stated: The PRISMA 2020 statement consists of revised flow diagrams. also in: revised flow diagrams · PRISMA 2020 statement | concept_edges[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | seven sections —part-of→ PRISMA 2020 checklist the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Categorical checklist structure. · the relation stated: The PRISMA 2020 checklist includes seven sections. also in: seven sections · PRISMA 2020 checklist | concept_edges[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | quantitative and qualitative studies —part-of→ mixed-methods systematic reviews the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 1 · note: Categorical study-type membership. · the relation stated: Mixed-methods systematic reviews include quantitative and qualitative studies. | concept_edges[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Up-to-date reporting guidance —causes→ transparent, complete, and accurate account the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Flat positive facilitation claim. · the relation stated: Up-to-date reporting guidance facilitates authors achieving transparent, complete, and accurate reporting. | concept_edges[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | prospective consideration of the items —causes→ all the items are addressed the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.6 — the record marks this weak · note: Modal positive facilitation claim. · the relation stated: Prospective consideration of the items may help to ensure that all items are addressed.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says prospective consideration MAY help ensure all items are addressed; hedged. | concept_edges[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Describing the certainty —causes→ appropriate recommendations the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.65 — the record marks this weak · note: Normative modal positive claim. · the relation stated: Describing certainty should help decision makers formulate appropriate recommendations.
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span says describing certainty SHOULD help decision makers formulate recommendations; hedged. | concept_edges[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | Complete reporting of all PRISMA 2020 items —causes→ replication and review updates the relation itself is separately evidenced · strength of the relation: 0.95 · note: Flat positive facilitation claim. · the relation stated: Complete reporting facilitates replication and review updates. | concept_edges[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | PRISMA 2020 replaces the 2009 statement and reflects advances in evidence identification, selection, appraisal, and synthesis. | content_tags.findings[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The updated statement presents a 27-item checklist, expanded recommendations, an abstract checklist, and revised flow diagrams. | content_tags.findings[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Systematic reviews can synthesize knowledge, set research priorities, expose primary-study problems, and develop or evaluate theories. | content_tags.findings[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | PRISMA 2009 was widely endorsed and its use was associated with more complete review reporting. | content_tags.findings[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Review methodology, terminology, bias assessment, registration, dissemination, and material-sharing practices changed after 2009. | content_tags.findings[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | PRISMA 2020 applies beyond health interventions to several other intervention and non-intervention objectives. | content_tags.findings[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The guideline applies to reviews with or without statistical synthesis and to original, updated, and living reviews. | content_tags.findings[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | PRISMA 2020 is not a guide to review conduct or a tool for assessing methodological quality. | content_tags.findings[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The PRISMA 2020 checklist has seven sections and 27 items, some with sub-items. | content_tags.findings[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The search item now requests full strategies for all searched databases, registers, and websites. | content_tags.findings[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Study-selection reporting now covers reviewer counts, independence, and automation tools. | content_tags.findings[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Synthesis methods are split into six reporting sub-items spanning eligibility, preparation, display, synthesis, heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis. | content_tags.findings[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | New items cover certainty assessment, competing interests, and availability of data, code, and materials. | content_tags.findings[12] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Complete reporting supports appraisal, applicability judgments, replication, updating, overview inclusion, and guideline development. | content_tags.findings[13] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Only 11 of 31 proposed interventions to improve guideline adherence had been evaluated, mostly with confounding-prone observational studies. | content_tags.findings[14] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | The authors identify randomized, think-aloud, and reliability studies as priorities for future evaluation. | content_tags.findings[15] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a review using explicit systematic methods to collate and synthesize studies addressing a formulated question also in: Systematic review | content_tags.definitions[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | combination of quantitative results from at least two studies also in: Statistical synthesis | content_tags.definitions[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | statistical synthesis using effect estimates and their variances to yield a quantitative summary also in: Meta-analysis of effect estimates | content_tags.definitions[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | an event or measurement collected for study participants also in: Outcome | content_tags.definitions[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a point estimate combined with a measure of precision for an outcome also in: Result | content_tags.definitions[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a paper or electronic document supplying information about a study also in: Report | content_tags.definitions[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | the title, abstract, or both of a report indexed in a database or website also in: Record | content_tags.definitions[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | an investigation with a defined participant group and one or more interventions and outcomes also in: Study | content_tags.definitions[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | records that refer to the same report also in: duplicates | content_tags.definitions[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | continually updated systematic reviews also in: living systematic reviews | content_tags.definitions[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 27 — items in both the PRISMA 2009 and PRISMA 2020 core checklists | content_tags.quantities[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | over 60 000 — reports citing PRISMA 2009 in Scopus by August 2020 | content_tags.quantities[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | almost 200 — journals and systematic-review organizations endorsing PRISMA 2009 | content_tags.quantities[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 60 — guidance documents reviewed to identify possible statement modifications | content_tags.quantities[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 110 of 220 — invited methodologists and editors responding to the development survey | content_tags.quantities[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 21-member — size of the in-person consensus meeting | content_tags.quantities[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | two-day — duration of the in-person consensus meeting | content_tags.quantities[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | five — checklist and elaboration-paper revisions circulated after the initial draft | content_tags.quantities[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 15 — reviewers providing feedback on layout and terminology | content_tags.quantities[8] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | seven — sections in the PRISMA 2020 checklist | content_tags.quantities[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | six — sub-items for reporting synthesis methods | content_tags.quantities[10] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 11 — evaluated interventions among 31 proposed adherence interventions | content_tags.quantities[11] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | transparency of reporting also in: transparency of reporting | content_tags.variables[0] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | reporting completeness also in: reporting completeness | content_tags.variables[1] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | risk of bias also in: risk of bias | content_tags.variables[2] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | certainty also in: certainty | content_tags.variables[3] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | heterogeneity also in: heterogeneity | content_tags.variables[4] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | robustness also in: robustness | content_tags.variables[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | applicability also in: applicability | content_tags.variables[6] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | adherence also in: adherence | content_tags.variables[7] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
Tags that could not be placed in the text:
What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.