A reporting checklist lists what a study must tell readers so they can judge and repeat it. Here is the PRISMA checklist for systematic reviews (2020) word for word as a table to fill, a SAMPL summary for reporting statistics, and SRQR and COREQ for qualitative research. Fill the page column as you write and submit it with your manuscript.
PRISMA's flow diagram, item 16a, has its own guide: how to make a PRISMA flow diagram.
Which reporting checklist do you need?
| You are reporting | Checklist |
|---|---|
| A systematic review, with or without meta-analysis | PRISMA 2020, plus PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts [1] |
| A scoping review | PRISMA-ScR: 20 essential items and 2 optional [2] |
| The search of a systematic review in full | PRISMA-S, 16 items [3] |
| A protocol | PRISMA-P 2015 [4] |
| A synthesis of qualitative studies | ENTREQ: 21 items in five domains [5] |
| A qualitative study | SRQR (21 items) or, for interviews and focus groups, COREQ (32 items) [6][7] |
| The statistics in any biomedical article | SAMPL, alongside the design checklist [8] |
| Sex and gender in any study with people, animals or cells | SAGER, alongside the design checklist (SAGER guidelines explained) |
All of them are listed by the EQUATOR Network, which keeps the current version of each guideline.
The PRISMA 2020 checklist (copy this)
Reproduced from Page et al., BMJ 2021, under a CC BY 4.0 licence [1]. Item wording is unchanged, including British spelling. Download the official Word or PDF version from the PRISMA website [9].
| Section and topic | Item | Checklist item | Reported on page |
|---|---|---|---|
| Title | 1 | Identify the report as a systematic review. | |
| Abstract | 2 | See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. | |
| Introduction: Rationale | 3 | Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. | |
| Objectives | 4 | Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. | |
| Methods: Eligibility criteria | 5 | Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. | |
| Information sources | 6 | Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. | |
| Search strategy | 7 | Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used. | |
| Selection process | 8 | Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including 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. | |
| Data collection process | 9 | Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | |
| Data items | 10a | List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. | |
| 10b | List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g. participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. | ||
| Study risk of bias assessment | 11 | Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. | |
| Effect measures | 12 | Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g. risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. | |
| Synthesis methods | 13a | Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g. tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). | |
| 13b | Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions. | ||
| 13c | Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. | ||
| 13d | Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used. | ||
| 13e | Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g. subgroup analysis, meta-regression). | ||
| 13f | Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results. | ||
| Reporting bias assessment | 14 | Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). | |
| Certainty assessment | 15 | Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. | |
| Results: Study selection | 16a | Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram. | |
| 16b | Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. | ||
| Study characteristics | 17 | Cite each included study and present its characteristics. | |
| Risk of bias in studies | 18 | Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. | |
| Results of individual studies | 19 | For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. | |
| Results of syntheses | 20a | For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. | |
| 20b | Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g. confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. | ||
| 20c | Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. | ||
| 20d | Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results. | ||
| Reporting biases | 21 | Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. | |
| Certainty of evidence | 22 | Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. | |
| Discussion | 23a | Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. | |
| 23b | Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. | ||
| 23c | Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. | ||
| 23d | Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. | ||
| Other information: Registration and protocol | 24a | Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. | |
| 24b | Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. | ||
| 24c | Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. | ||
| Support | 25 | Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. | |
| Competing interests | 26 | Declare any competing interests of review authors. | |
| Availability of data, code and other materials | 27 | Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review. |
Notes. Items 8, 9 and 11 ask about automation tools: if you used AI screening suggestions or AI extraction, say so there. Item 24 links back to your registration; the systematic review protocol template covers it. Item 16b is easier with a screening decision log.
SAMPL: reporting statistics (summary checklist)
SAMPL is written as guidance, not a numbered list. This is our condensed summary of its main points for a fillable check; read the full guideline before submission [8]. For each point with examples, see the SAMPL guidelines explained.
| Area | Check that you report | Done |
|---|---|---|
| Methods | The purpose of each analysis; the variables; which test answered which question; that data met the test's assumptions; adjustment for multiple comparisons; one- or two-tailed tests; the alpha level; the software | |
| Descriptive statistics | Sample and group sizes for each analysis; numerators and denominators for percentages; mean (SD) for roughly normal data; medians with interpercentile ranges for skewed data; never the SE to show variability | |
| Hypothesis tests | The hypothesis; the effect size with a 95% confidence interval for primary outcomes; exact P values (P = 0.03, not P < 0.05 or "NS") | |
| Risks, rates and ratios | Which rate, risk or ratio; numerator, denominator and time period; a confidence interval | |
| Correlation and regression | The coefficient used and its confidence interval; for regression, the coefficients with confidence intervals, goodness of fit, missing data handling and model validation | |
| ANOVA, survival, Bayesian | Assumption checks and interactions (ANOVA); censoring and survival estimates with confidence intervals (survival); priors and their sensitivity (Bayesian) |
To choose and report the test itself, see which statistical test to use. The "Which test?" chooser in Data Lab includes an APA reporting template; check what you write from it against this list.
Qualitative reporting checklists: SRQR and COREQ
SRQR (Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research) has 21 items for any qualitative approach [6]. Item titles, as listed by the EQUATOR Network (version 1.1) [10]:
| # | SRQR item | Page | # | SRQR item | Page |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Title | 12 | Units of study | ||
| 2 | Abstract | 13 | Data processing | ||
| 3 | Problem formulation | 14 | Data analysis | ||
| 4 | Purpose or research question | 15 | Techniques to enhance trustworthiness | ||
| 5 | Qualitative approach and research paradigm | 16 | Synthesis and interpretation | ||
| 6 | Researcher characteristics and reflexivity | 17 | Links to empirical data | ||
| 7 | Context | 18 | Integration with prior work, implications, transferability, and contribution(s) to the field | ||
| 8 | Sampling strategy | 19 | Limitations | ||
| 9 | Ethical issues pertaining to human subjects | 20 | Conflicts of interest | ||
| 10 | Data collection methods | 21 | Funding | ||
| 11 | Data collection instruments and technologies |
The item descriptions are in the original paper and on the EQUATOR site; use them, not the titles alone, when you fill it in.
COREQ (Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research) has 32 items for interview and focus group studies, in three domains: research team and reflexivity, study design, and data analysis and reporting [7]. We don't reproduce the items here; download the checklist from the journal article or EQUATOR. For using AI in qualitative analysis, see AI for qualitative research.
A worked example (invented)
This is an invented example. A team finishing the night-shift nap review fills PRISMA items 6 to 8 from its records: item 6 lists five databases with the date each was last searched, from the search log; item 7 points to Appendix 1 with every string as run; item 8 reads "Two reviewers independently screened 1,412 titles and abstracts and 96 full texts; AI suggestions were shown to reviewers but did not decide eligibility; disagreements were resolved by discussion." Items 13d and 20b say the meta-analysis was run in R.
How the workspace helps you complete PRISMA
The Systematic Review workspace produces the material for several items; you write the report.
| PRISMA item | What the workspace gives you | Credits |
|---|---|---|
| 5 Eligibility criteria | Your criteria from the Protocol tab | 0 |
| 6, 7 Sources and search strategy | The search log: date, database, string, records found, added, duplicates | 0 |
| 8 Selection process | Reviewers, agreement (Cohen's kappa, percent agreement) and conflicts | 0 |
| 9, 10 Data collection and items | The extraction table: 9 standard columns plus your own | 0; AI filling 3 per 10 studies |
| 11, 18 Risk of bias | Ratings for randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding per study | 0 |
| 16a Study selection | The PRISMA 2020 flow diagram, SVG or PNG | 0 |
| Methods write-up (items 5 to 11) | Draft from this review: a methods section from your log, criteria and counts, with [To add: ...] for missing facts | 3 |
Check the finished manuscript in the Reviewer
Once the draft exists, the Reviewer's guideline check does the first pass of the checklist for you. It covers PRISMA 2020, SAMPL and SAGER, and also CONSORT 2010, STROBE, STARD 2015, CARE, COREQ, SRQR and SQUIRE 2.0.
- Open the Reviewer and choose the guideline check. Upload or paste the manuscript and pick the guideline, for example PRISMA 2020 plus SAMPL for a review with a meta-analysis, or SAGER for any study of people or animals.
- For each item, it shows the passage that reports it, or Check by hand when it finds none.
- Read every item yourself, then download the checklist with a page column to fill before you submit.
It costs 5 credits per 10,000 words. It drafts the checklist; you confirm it, and the journal's own checklist form is what you submit. More on the reporting guideline checker page.
What these checklists and the workspace do not do
- The Systematic Review workspace does not fill the checklist. The Reviewer's guideline check drafts it from the finished manuscript, but page numbers depend on the journal's layout, so you add them yourself.
- No meta-analysis, reporting bias or certainty tools. Items 12 to 15 and 19 to 22 need software such as RevMan or R and a GRADE assessment done outside the workspace.
- Risk of bias is three fields. Randomisation, allocation concealment and blinding are not a complete RoB 2 or ROBINS-I assessment.
- A checklist is not a quality score. Ticking an item means you reported it, not that the method was sound.
Who it is for
Authors submitting a systematic review or qualitative study to a journal, PhD candidates writing review chapters (AI tools for PhD students) and clinical researchers (AI for medical research). The full review workflow is on the systematic review software page.
Learn more
- How to make a PRISMA flow diagram: item 16a, box by box.
- Systematic review search strategy: items 6 and 7, with PRISMA-S.
- Cohen's kappa for screening: reporting agreement under item 8.
- Systematic review AI: how to report automation tools.
Sources
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
- Tricco AC, Lillie E, Zarin W, et al. PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2018;169(7):467-473. https://doi.org/10.7326/M18-0850
- Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA Statement for Reporting Literature Searches in Systematic Reviews. Systematic Reviews. 2021;10:39. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
- Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews. 2015;4:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
- Tong A, Flemming K, McInnes E, Oliver S, Craig J. Enhancing transparency in reporting the synthesis of qualitative research: ENTREQ. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2012;12:181. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-181
- O'Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Academic Medicine. 2014;89(9):1245-1251. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000388
- Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J. Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. International Journal for Quality in Health Care. 2007;19(6):349-357. https://doi.org/10.1093/intqhc/mzm042
- Lang TA, Altman DG. Basic statistical reporting for articles published in biomedical journals: the "Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature" or the SAMPL Guidelines. International Journal of Nursing Studies. 2015;52(1):5-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2014.09.006. First published in: Smart P, Maisonneuve H, Polderman A (eds). Science Editors' Handbook. European Association of Science Editors, 2013. Full text: https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/sampl/
- PRISMA. PRISMA 2020 checklist. https://www.prisma-statement.org/prisma-2020-checklist (checked November 2026)
- EQUATOR Network. SRQR: Standards for Reporting Qualitative Research. https://resources.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/srqr/ (checked November 2026)
Last updated 2026-11-13