Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement

  • PRISMA-P Group
  • University of Ottawa
  • Queen's University Belfast
  • National Health and Medical Research Council
  • University of Modena and Reggio Emilia
  • London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
  • Southern California Evidence-based Practice Center
  • Southern California EPC
  • University of York
  • University of Oxford
  • University of Toronto
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
  • Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
  • Johns Hopkins University
  • University of Zurich
  • Nordic Cochrane Centre
  • The BMJ
  • Portland VA Research Foundation
  • School of Social and Community Medicine
  • Cochrane Editorial Unit
  • Brown University
  • RTI International
  • Annals of Internal Medicine
  • PLoS Medicine
  • Monash University
  • The Lancet
  • The Cochrane Library
  • Kaiser Permanente

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

20378 Scopus citations

Abstract

Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of the review; few reviews report whether a protocol exists. Detailed, well-described protocols can facilitate the understanding and appraisal of the review methods, as well as the detection of modifications to methods and selective reporting in completed reviews. We describe the development of a reporting guideline, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols 2015 (PRISMA-P 2015). PRISMA-P consists of a 17-item checklist intended to facilitate the preparation and reporting of a robust protocol for the systematic review. Funders and those commissioning reviews might consider mandating the use of the checklist to facilitate the submission of relevant protocol information in funding applications. Similarly, peer reviewers and editors can use the guidance to gauge the completeness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or other medium.

Original languageEnglish
Article number1
JournalSystematic Reviews
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 14 2015

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this