PRISMA 2020 Explained for Dissertation Researchers in the UAE

What PRISMA 2020 does

PRISMA stands for Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses. PRISMA 2020 is a reporting guideline for systematic reviews. Its 27-item checklist and flow-diagram templates help authors explain why a review was done, what they did and what they found. PRISMA does not replace a sound review method, determine your research question or set your university’s rules.

Use the official checklist with the flow-diagram template suited to your review. Confirm any dissertation or journal formatting requirement with your own handbook, supervisor or target journal. Before you settle on a target journal, run it through our journal legitimacy checker. A scoping review or another review type may need additional or different reporting guidance.

Good reporting starts with good records. Keep the search strategies, dates, source names, screening decisions and reasons for excluding full-text reports as the review proceeds. You can then explain the work you actually performed rather than reconstructing a flow diagram from memory.

How to read the PRISMA flow diagram

The diagram traces records identified from databases, registers and, where relevant, other sources through removal, screening, full-text assessment and inclusion. The official site offers different templates for new or updated reviews and for searches that used other sources. Choose the one that reflects your actual search.

• Identification: report how many records each information source returned and how many were removed before screening, including duplicates.
• Screening: show how many records were screened and excluded. Apply your stated eligibility criteria consistently.
• Full-text assessment: show how many reports were sought, retrieved and assessed, and give reasons for full-text exclusions.
• Inclusion: report the included studies and reports. Distinguish a study from multiple reports about the same study when relevant.

Check that counts reconcile with your search log and screening record. Do not assume that a reference-list count must equal a study count: one study can have more than one report, and a reference list can contain background or methods sources. The diagram should represent the actual identification and selection process.

Register the protocol: PROSPERO

If your review has a health-related outcome, register its protocol on PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. PROSPERO is produced by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination at the University of York and funded by the UK National Institute for Health and Care Research. Registration is free and needs a PROSPERO account. PROSPERO moved to a new registration system on 24 February 2025, so older guides may describe steps that no longer apply.

Check eligibility before you plan your timeline

• Register before data extraction. PROSPERO does not accept reviews that have started data extraction at the point of registration, or individual participant data reviews that have already obtained some datasets.
• Outcomes of direct relevance to human health. Reviews with indirect outcomes that affect health (PROSPERO’s example is educational attainment), reviews of sporting performance, evidence and gap maps, and systematic critical appraisals or reviews of clinical practice guidelines are not accepted.
• A systematic search alone is not enough. Traditional literature reviews that use a systematic search but no other systematic review methods are not accepted.
• Scoping reviews are not currently accepted. Ask your supervisor or target journal where they expect a scoping review protocol to be registered or published.
• Student and training reviews. Reviews produced in student modules or training projects should use PROSPERO’s student project option. Those records can be shared with supervisors but are not published or searchable.

How long does PROSPERO registration take?

PROSPERO states that there is no delay to publication. Once the named guarantor (usually the senior member of the review team) approves the record and every named team member confirms their participation, a registration number is assigned and the record is published immediately. In practice, the wait is your own team’s approvals, so agree the team, each member’s conflict-of-interest details and the protocol content before you submit. To correct a record while approvals are pending, “Cancel this submission” returns it to draft without deleting the content; team members who had already approved must approve again.

What PROSPERO does and does not do

• It checks fields automatically and shows similar reviews already registered. If you continue, you can explain why your review is needed.
• It does not peer review or endorse the content. A record is not a full protocol (you may upload the full protocol as a PDF) and is not a formal publication.
• When we checked, PROSPERO’s FAQ told users to choose the intervention review form for all review types while forms for other review types are developed.
• After publication, a “Minor amendment” covers only a few fields; changes to the review methods or the review team need a “Major revision”. Earlier versions remain publicly available with a dated audit trail.
• PRISMA 2020 asks you to report registration information, including the register name and registration number, and any amendments to the protocol, so keep these for your methods section.

Source: PROSPERO eligibility, registration and FAQ pages (crd.york.ac.uk/prospero), checked 6 October 2026.

Plan and document the search

Define the review question and eligibility criteria before screening. Choose databases, registers, websites or other sources because they suit the question and field, then justify that choice. PRISMA 2020 does not require a fixed pair of databases or a minimum number of included studies.

The checklist asks authors to specify all information sources and the date each was last searched or consulted, and to present the full search strategies for databases, registers and websites, including filters and limits. Record the exact syntax used in each source: search fields, Boolean operators, truncation and date limits may differ between platforms. A search string is an example to adapt and test, not a universal formula.

A useful working log can include source, search date, exact strategy, result count, duplicate decision, screening decision and full-text exclusion reason. If you search reference lists or citation networks, document those sources too. The official flow templates accommodate sources beyond indexed databases.

Eligibility criteria should follow the review question. Study design, date, language, geography and access may matter in a particular project, but PRISMA does not impose any one set of limits. Explain and justify each restriction. Decide how to handle unavailable full text rather than silently treating it as an excluded study.

From included studies to a defensible synthesis

After selection, organise the included evidence around the review question. A synthesis matrix can help track methods, participants or context, findings and limitations. Compare agreements, differences and gaps across studies instead of presenting a disconnected paper-by-paper list. Attribute ideas and quotations accurately.

PRISMA reports what methods were used to prepare, appraise and synthesise the evidence; it does not prescribe one synthesis method or a universal study-count target. A review with primary data collection later in the dissertation also needs a separate, justified method for that new research. SPSS, NVivo or another tool should be selected for the actual research design, not because PRISMA requires it.

Common checks before submission are practical: do the search dates and strategies appear in the report, do the diagram totals match the screening record, are full-text exclusion reasons documented, and does the synthesis answer the stated question? Your supervisor or journal decides the required placement and format.

Questions researchers ask

Does PRISMA tell me how many databases or studies I need?

No. Choose information sources and eligibility criteria that fit the question, document them and explain the limits of your search. The PRISMA 2020 checklist asks for transparent reporting; it does not set a database pair or a quota for included studies.

Must the diagram appear in Chapter 2?

Placement depends on your programme, dissertation structure or target journal. The diagram should be close enough to the methods and results that readers can understand and verify the selection process. Ask your supervisor which format applies.

Can I use software or AI-assisted tools in screening?

Tools may assist a review, subject to your institution’s policies and the method you chose. Report how automation tools were used in selection where applicable, and keep decisions auditable. Do not assume any tool is a substitute for a documented search or human methodological judgment.

Which paper should I cite?

Cite the PRISMA 2020 statement: Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. The separate explanation and elaboration paper is BMJ, 372, n160. Format the full reference to your required citation style.

دليل PRISMA 2020 للباحثين في الإمارات

PRISMA 2020 هو دليل للإبلاغ عن المراجعات المنهجية، وليس منهجاً يحدد كيفية إجراء البحث أو متطلبات جامعة بعينها. تساعد قائمة التحقق ومخططات التدفق الرسمية الباحث على توضيح سبب إجراء المراجعة، ومصادر الدراسات، وخطوات الاختيار، والنتائج.

وثّق مصادر البحث وتاريخ البحث في كل مصدر واستراتيجيات البحث ومعايير الإدراج والاستبعاد. سجّل عدد السجلات المكررة وقرارات الفرز وأسباب استبعاد النصوص الكاملة. اختر مخطط التدفق الرسمي الذي يطابق مصادر البحث التي استخدمتها، وتحقق من اتساق الأعداد مع سجل الفرز.

لا يفرض دليل PRISMA عدداً ثابتاً لقواعد البيانات أو الدراسات المشمولة. يعتمد اختيار المصادر والمعايير وطريقة توليف النتائج على سؤال البحث والتخصص. راجع دليل برنامجك ومشرفك أو تعليمات المجلة لمعرفة متطلبات التنسيق والتسليم.

للاطلاع على المصادر الأصلية: بيان PRISMA 2020، قائمة التحقق، ومخططات التدفق. يمكن لفريق لبيب مناقشة مسودة الباحث وسجل البحث ومتطلبات برنامجه وتقديم ملاحظات منهجية وتحريرية، دون وعد بالقبول أو إعداد بحث نيابة عنه.

How Labeeb can help

If you have a research question, search record, flow diagram or client-authored draft, Labeeb can discuss the scope and review your own materials against the reporting checklist and your supplied university or journal instructions. Support may include feedback on the clarity of the search description, count reconciliation, citation accuracy and manuscript editing. The researcher retains responsibility for the review design, selection decisions, findings and submission. No supervisor approval, publication acceptance or similarity result is guaranteed.

For related needs, see literature review guidance, dissertation support, publication preparation and data-analysis support.

Chat with LabeebSystematic review and publication support

Primary sources

• Official PRISMA 2020 statement and supporting materials
• Official checklist and expanded checklist
• Official flow-diagram guidance and templates
• Page et al. (2021), PRISMA 2020 statement, BMJ 372:n71

This guide was reviewed against these sources on 4 October 2026. Your programme handbook, supervisor and target journal determine requirements for your own project.