PRISMA 2020 Checklist Checker

PRISMA 2020 organizes reporting of a completed systematic review from its title through the availability of data and code. Its 27 numbered items include lettered subitems, so the assessment contains more than 27 individual findings. The report preserves those identifiers: a finding about outcome definitions belongs to 10a, while other collected variables belong to 10b. Use the identifiers when comparing this report with the official checklist rather than assuming that each displayed row represents a separate numbered item.

The title should identify the work as a systematic review. The introduction explains the rationale and the review question. Methods describe eligibility, information sources, search strategies, selection, extraction, bias assessment and synthesis. Results cover included studies, study-level findings and syntheses. Discussion separates limitations of the evidence from limitations of the review process. The final section asks about registration, the protocol, support, interests and reusable materials. This structure makes the report useful for allocating revisions among review-team members.

Item 2 points to the separate PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. This checker makes that referral explicit and leaves the abstract item unclear for manual review; it does not claim to run every element of the separate abstract checklist. A short abstract can still be submitted as an excerpt to examine other clearly supported items, such as identification as a systematic review. Absence of methods detail in an abstract never proves that the full review omitted it.

Registration and protocol reporting have separate identifiers. Item 24a asks for registration details or an explicit statement that the review was not registered. Item 24b asks where the protocol is available or states that none was prepared. Item 24c concerns explained amendments. Reporting that registration was absent can satisfy the disclosure requirement without making the underlying decision good practice. For a protocol document, select PRISMA-P rather than treating the completed-review checklist as a protocol standard. Confirm the source wording and journal requirements before submitting the final checklist.

“We searched MEDLINE and Embase. The final search of both databases was performed on 12 January 2026.” gives database names and dates for item 6. It does not explain whether registers, websites, organisations, reference lists or other sources were consulted. The excerpt therefore stays Unclear even though both quotations can be verified. Supply that additional account before treating the item as met.