PRISMA 2020 Checklist Checker
Check your systematic review or meta-analysis against the PRISMA 2020 reporting checklist and flow diagram before submission.
Check my manuscript, it's freeNo account required · Results in <2 minutes · PDF, Word & LaTeX
What the PRISMA 2020 checklist requires
PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) is the EQUATOR-endorsed reporting guideline for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. PRISMA 2020 comprises a 27-item main checklist, a separate PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist, and a flow diagram documenting the identification, screening, and inclusion of records. Journals across medicine require PRISMA-compliant reporting for evidence syntheses. CheckMyManuscript flags missing or structurally incomplete PRISMA items, such as an absent search strategy, no flow diagram, or a missing protocol/registration statement, so you can fix them before submission. It checks presence and structure, not methodological adequacy.
PRISMA 2020 items, and what CMM checks
Each item below maps to PRISMA 2020. CMM flags presence and structural signals; methodological adequacy is editorial and needs human review.
Title & structured abstract
✓ CMM checks thisIdentifies the report as a systematic review; abstract follows the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts items.
Flag: abstract omits an eligibility-criteria or synthesis-results element.
Source: prisma-statement.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Eligibility criteria & information sources
✓ CMM checks thisInclusion/exclusion criteria and all databases, registers, and other sources searched, with dates.
Source: prisma-statement.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Full search strategy
✓ CMM checks thisThe full search strategy for at least one database, reproducible by a reader.
Flag: "we searched PubMed and Embase" with no reproducible query string.
Source: prisma-statement.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Selection & data-collection process
✓ CMM checks thisHow records were screened, how many reviewers, and how data were extracted.
Source: prisma-statement.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
PRISMA flow diagram
✓ CMM checks thisA flow diagram of records identified, screened, excluded (with reasons), and included.
Flag: no flow diagram, or counts that do not reconcile across stages.
Source: prisma-statement.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Risk of bias & certainty assessment
✓ CMM checks thisMethods to assess risk of bias in included studies and certainty of evidence (e.g. GRADE).
CMM flags if these sections are absent; it cannot judge whether the assessment was done well.
Source: prisma-statement.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Registration, protocol, support & data availability
✓ CMM checks thisRegistration number and protocol location, sources of support, competing interests, and availability of data/code.
Flag: no PROSPERO (or other) registration statement.
Source: prisma-statement.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
Synthesis appropriateness
Editorial, not auto-checkableWhether the meta-analytic or narrative synthesis methods were appropriate for the data.
Editorial judgement, outside the scope of an automated checker.
Source: equator-network.org · verified Jun 16, 2026
This page reflects PRISMA 2020, the current version, which replaces PRISMA 2009, and the separate PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. CheckMyManuscript checks for the presence, structure, and likely-completeness signals of each reporting item; it does not assess methodological quality and does not replace peer review. Verify the live checklist before submitting, last checked 16 June 2026.
PRISMA 2020 is the current reporting standard for systematic reviews and meta-analyses, replacing the 2009 statement. Medical and clinical journals expect PRISMA-compliant reporting and a PRISMA flow diagram for evidence syntheses. CheckMyManuscript screens your manuscript for the presence and structure of each PRISMA item so preventable gaps are caught before submission.
The three parts of PRISMA 2020
PRISMA 2020 has a 27-item main checklist, a separate PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist, and a flow diagram. Reviews built around the older 2009 checklist may be missing items that 2020 added or reorganised, for instance, more explicit reporting of the selection process, certainty-of-evidence assessment, and data/code availability. Work from the current checklist on the official PRISMA site.
What CheckMyManuscript checks, and what it does not
CheckMyManuscript flags structural signals: a missing flow diagram, no reproducible search strategy, an absent registration or protocol statement, or missing risk-of-bias and certainty sections. It does not judge whether the meta-analysis model was appropriate, whether heterogeneity was handled correctly, or whether the certainty ratings are defensible. Those are methodological judgements for peer and editorial review. Use the checker as a pre-submission completeness screen, not a compliance certificate.
Also see: CONSORT checklist checker | STROBE checklist checker | How to write a systematic review
PRISMA-specific checks
Section presence
Flags missing PRISMA 2020 items across methods, results, and other information.
Flow diagram
Checks for a PRISMA flow diagram and basic stage-count reconciliation.
Search strategy
Flags if no reproducible search strategy is reported for any database.
Registration/protocol
Flags a missing registration number or protocol-access statement.
Abstract items
Checks the abstract against the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts structure.
Risk of bias & certainty
Flags if risk-of-bias or certainty-of-evidence reporting is absent.
Checks relevant to this topic
Part of our 80+ automated checks
Identified as systematic review
Title/abstract identify the review type.
Flow diagram present
PRISMA flow diagram included.
Reproducible search
Full search strategy for ≥1 database.
Registration statement
Protocol registration (e.g. PROSPERO) stated.
Risk-of-bias method
Risk-of-bias assessment method reported.
The practical edge your peers already use
Across disciplines and career stages, researchers reduce bottlenecks and submit with confidence: clearer drafts, easier guideline compliance, and less back and forth with co‑authors and reviewers.
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
I use it to review my students' papers. It instantly highlights typos, missing references, and unclear sections, helping me focus my feedback on the quality of the research instead of surface errors.
Ilyass
Professor in Mechanical Engineering, ÉTS Montréal
I relied on it throughout my thesis to strengthen my writing. It suggested clearer phrasing, improved flow between sections, and ensured my references were complete before the final deadline.
Manon
Master's Student in Speech Therapy
I write research in both Portuguese and English, and it adapts perfectly to either language. It provided precise feedback in Portuguese, helping me maintain academic tone and consistency across my drafts.
Afonso
PhD Candidate, UFPE
It gave excellent advice on how to rephrase and present ideas more clearly and concisely. The suggestions helped me refine my arguments and make my research more impactful.
Félix
Postdoc Researcher, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Biology
A round of suggestions helped to generally refine the text of my paper and, moreover, to present some of its key points in a more focused form.
Oleg
Professor, Pirogov Russian National Research Medical University
Frequently asked questions
Use PRISMA 2020, the current version that replaces the 2009 statement. It includes a 27-item main checklist, the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist, and an updated flow diagram. Several PRISMA extensions also exist (e.g. for scoping reviews, network meta-analyses, and protocols); use the extension that matches your review type.
No. CheckMyManuscript checks the presence, structure, and likely-completeness signals of PRISMA items, for example, whether a flow diagram, a reproducible search strategy, and a registration statement exist. It does not assess whether the synthesis or risk-of-bias judgements were methodologically sound, and it does not replace peer review.
Most journals expect prospective registration of systematic review protocols (commonly in PROSPERO) and PRISMA asks you to report the registration number and where the protocol can be accessed. Manuscripts without a registration statement are frequently queried during editorial screening.
The PRISMA flow diagram documents how many records were identified, screened, excluded (with reasons), and ultimately included in the review. Reviewers expect the counts to reconcile across stages; mismatched numbers are a common reporting problem CheckMyManuscript can flag.