Evaluation of tools used to assess adherence to PRISMA 2020 reveals inconsistent methods and poor tool implementability: part I of a systematic review
Our findings demonstrate variation and inadequacies in the methods and reporting of tools used to assess adherence to the PRISMA 2020 statement. We have commenced work on a standardized PRISMA 2020 assessment tool to facilitate accurate and consistent assessments of adherence of systematic reviews to PRISMA. In the interim, we provide some recommendations for how meta-researchers interested in assessing adherence of systematic reviews to the PRISMA 2020 statement can transparently report the findings of their assessments.
Authors
- Joanne E. McKenzie (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3534-1641)
- Daniel G. Hamilton (ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8104-474X)
- Camilla Hansen Nejstgaard
- David Moher
- Sue E. Brennan
Institutions
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- University of Southern Denmark (DK)
- Ottawa Hospital (CA)
- Odense University Hospital (DK)
- Monash Health (AU)
- Monash University (AU)
Publication Details
- Journal
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Published
- 2026-01-09
- DOI
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2026.112133
- Citations
- 1
- Primary Topic
- Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Type
- article
- Field-Weighted Citation Impact
- 28.09
Funders
- Medical Research Council
- National Health and Medical Research Council