Moher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

RESEARCH

Open AccessPreferred reporting items for systematic review
and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015
statement
David Moher1*, Larissa Shamseer1, Mike Clarke2, Davina Ghersi3, Alessandro Liberatiˆ, Mark Petticrew4,
Paul Shekelle5, Lesley A Stewart6 and PRISMA-P Group

Abstract
Systematic reviews should build on a protocol that describes the rationale, hypothesis, and planned methods of thereview; 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 incompleted 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 thosecommissioning 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 thecompleteness and transparency of a systematic review protocol submitted for publication in a journal or othermedium.

Background
Systematic reviews are the reference standard for synthesizing evidence in health care because of their methodological rigor. They are used to support thedevelopment of clinical practice guidelines and informclinical decision-making. They are becoming increasingly common; in 2010, 11 new reviews were estimatedto be published daily [1]. Ideally, systematic reviews are
based on pre-defined eligibility criteria and conductedaccording to a pre-defined methodological approach as
outlined in an associated protocol.
The preparation of a protocol is an essential component of the systematic review process; it ensures that asystematic review is carefully planned and that what isplanned is explicitly documented before the review
starts, thus promoting consistent conduct by the review
team, accountability, research integrity, and transparencyof the eventual completed review. A protocol may also
reduce arbitrariness in decision-making when extracting* Correspondence: dmoher@ohri.ca
ˆDeceased
1
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
CanadaFull list of author information is available at the end of the article

and using data from primary research, since planningprovides an opportunity for the review team to anticipate potential problems. When clearly reported protocols are made available, they enable readers to identify
deviations from planned methods in completed reviews
and whether they bias the interpretation of a review results and conclusions. Bias related to the selective
reporting of outcomes has been characterized as a serious problem in clinical research, including systematic
reviews [2-7].
Until recently, systematic review protocols were generally available only through select organizations, such as
The Cochrane [8] and Campbell Collaborations and the
Joanna Briggs Institute, for which the preparation of a
protocol is mandatory. Outside of these organizations,the existence of a protocol is infrequently reported incompleted reviews [9,10]. Fewer than half of 300 systematic reviews indexed on MEDLINE in November 2004
(most recent generalizable sample; 2014 update underway) report working from a protocol [10], 80% of which
are non-Cochrane affiliated. Of the non-Cochrane therapeutic reviews, only 11% mentioned the existence of a
protocol [10]. The majority of reviews in health care are© 2015 Moher et al.; licensee BioMed Central. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, andreproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain
Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article,
unless otherwise stated.

Moher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

conducted and published outside of Cochrane, however[10]. The paucity of protocols may be due, in part, to theauthors’ lack of knowledge about how to write them andwhat to include. Currently, little succinct guidance isavailable for those preparing systematic review protocols,
although the recent Standards for Systematic Reviews
prepared by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) provide
some guidance toward addressing this gap [11].
Many groups have called for the widespread preparation
and registration of systematic review protocols in order
to increase the availability and accessibility of a priori
methods for systematic reviews [12-14]. Such an effort
may reduce the duplication of effort [15] and reduce
the publication bias of systematic reviews. This challenge has been taken up by the Centre for Reviews andDissemination, University of York, which has spearheaded
the establishment of an international register—PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Ongoing
Systematic Reviews, http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero)[16,17]. The register, which enables the permanent documentation of 22 mandatory (and 18 optional) items about
the a priori design and conduct of a review, was launchedin February 2011. At the time of writing, >5,000 systematic review protocols from over 70 countries have beenregistered since its inception. Starting in October 2013,
new Cochrane protocols were and continue to be automatically added to PROSPERO.
Along with the improved accessibility of protocols
through registration comes the need for strengthenedtransparency, accuracy, and completeness of the reports
of protocols intended for dissemination. A template toaid in the preparation of systematic review protocols,such as a reporting guideline, may help achieve this. Furthermore, such guidance will enable authors to create aclear and complete document of their a priori methods,
which may facilitate the registration of key information
into the PROSPERO database. Building on an established guideline for systematic reviews and meta-

Page 2 of 9analyses of studies evaluating health care interventions—the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews
and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA, www.prisma-statement.
org) [12,13]—we have developed PRISMA for Protocols(PRISMA-P) 2014. Table 1 summarizes the difference
in intentions between PRISMA-P and PROSPERO.
The aim of PRISMA-P 2015 is to improve the qualityof systematic review protocols, similar to the impact
achieved by other reporting guidelines [18-20]. By helping authors document an a priori road map of their systematic review, PRISMA-P also has the potential to
improve the conduct of systematic reviews, as has beensuggested of other reporting guidelines [21]. This Statement paper summarizes the development of the guideline and presents the PRISMA-P checklist.
Terminology

There is no standard definition for a systematic review
and meta-analysis protocol, and we note that some terminology contained within these definitions may carrydifferent meanings for different readers (i.e., ‘systematic
search’). The terms ‘systematic review’ , ‘meta-analysis,’and ‘protocol’ are defined in Table 2. The former two
terms are in accordance with the definitions reported in
the PRISMA Statement [13] and are in line with thoseused by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program [22],The Cochrane Collaboration [23], and the 2011 guidancefrom the Institute of Medicine [11]. The definition provided is a culmination of the terminology used by theStandard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) 2013 initiative [24], the PROSPERO register, and the IOM Standards (Table 2).
Scope

The PRISMA-P checklist is intended primarily for the
preparation of protocols of systematic reviews and metaanalyses that summarize aggregate data from studies,

Table 1 PROSPERO and PRISMA-P
Definition and objective
PROSPERO: International Prospective
Register of Systematic Reviews

An online portal through which to register the intention to conduct a systematic review, with health-related
outcomes, before it is initiated [16]. One of the main goals of PROSPERO is to make the intent of systematic
reviews known before they are conducted in order to reduce the unplanned duplication of systematic
reviews [15]. In addition, by requiring the documentation of a priori methods, the register facilitates
increased transparency in the review process by allowing readers of systematic reviews to compare
methods, outcomes, and analyses carried out with those planned in advance and judge whether suchchanges impact the results of a review.

PRISMA-P: Preferred Reporting Items for A guideline to help authors prepare protocols for planned systematic reviews and meta-analyses thatprovides them with a minimum set of items to be included in the protocol. A protocol is intended to
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
provide the rationale for the review and pre-planned methodological and analytic approach, prior toProtocolsembarking on a review. Investigators should prepare a review protocol in advance of registering it in
PROSPERO so that details requiring further consideration may be thought through in advance, avoiding
the need for multiple amendments to registration information. PRISMA-P items have been derived largely
from the PRISMA checklist and items of the PROSPERO register, in order to facilitate seamless registration.

Moher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

Page 3 of 9

Table 2 PRISMA-P terminology
TermDefinition

Systematic
review

A systematic review attempts to collate all relevant evidences that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific researchquestion. It uses explicit, systematic methods to minimize bias in the identification, selection, synthesis, and summary of studies.
When done well, this provides reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made [25,26]. The key
characteristics of a systematic review are (a) a clearly stated set of objectives with an explicit, reproducible methodology; (b) asystematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria; (c) an assessment of the validity of thefindings of the included studies (e.g., assessment of risk of bias and confidence in cumulative estimates); and (d) systematicpresentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies

Meta-analysis

Meta-analysis is the use of statistical techniques to combine and summarize the results of multiple studies; they may or may becontained within a systematic review. By combining data from several studies, meta-analyses can provide more precise estimatesof the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies

ProtocolIn the context of systematic reviews and meta-analyses, a protocol is a document that presents an explicit plan for a systematic
review. The protocol details the rationale and a priori methodological and analytical approach of the review

particularly the evaluations of the effects of interventions. There are many review types that are outside ofthis scope. As such, given the general lack of protocol
guidance for other types of reviews, we encourage reviewers preparing any type of review protocol to makeuse of PRISMA-P as applicable. Readers can also use thechecklist to assess the completeness of the reporting of
published protocols. However, it is not recommended touse the checklist as an assessment tool to gauge the appropriateness of the methods of a systematic review
protocol; it has not been validated for that purpose.

Development of PRISMA-P 2015

An international steering committee (MC, DG, AL, DM,
MP, PS, and LAS) comprising members with wide-ranging
experience in systematic review methodology, protocol
registry development, and reporting guideline development
led the development of PRISMA-P, coordinated by LS. The
process proposed by the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network wasused to guide PRISMA-P development [27]. The process
has 18 step-by-step recommendations grouped into fivemain stages:
1. Initial steps (determine the need for a reporting
guideline);
2. Pre-meeting activities (identify contributors, conduct
Delphi exercise, generate a list of potential items,
and prepare for face-to-face meeting);
3. Face-to-face consensus meeting (present results ofpre-meeting activities and relevant evidence);
4. Post-meeting activities (develop guidance Statement,
Explanation and Elaboration document, and apublication strategy);
5. Post-publication activities (encourage uptake ofguideline).
The first stage, ‘Initial steps,’ was described above; details of the remaining four steps are below.

Pre-meeting activities

In developing the PRISMA-P checklist, the steeringcommittee compiled a list of items from various tools
relating to the preparation of systematic review protocols for discussion at a consensus meeting of experts.
Specifically, we mapped items from a Delphi exercise
carried out during the development of PROSPERO [28],PROSPERO register items, PRISMA checklist items [13],SPIRIT 2013 checklist items [29], and items of IOM
Standard 2.6 [11] against each other to identify uniqueand overlapping concepts. Lessons learned from the development of the SPIRIT checklist with respect to theconcept and content of research protocols were used to
guide discussion and debate at the meeting.
PRISMA-P consensus meeting

Twenty-three international experts attended the
PRISMA-P consensus meeting on June 23–24, 2011, in
Rockville, MD, USA to gain consensus on and reduce
the number of potential PRISMA-P items. Delegates included journal editors, systematic review methodologists(including directors and representatives from international Cochrane Centres, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s (AHRQ’s) Evidence-based PracticeCentres, and the UK National Institute for Health Research), reporting guideline developers, information specialists, biostatisticians, and health research funders.
Through group discussion at the meeting, 38 potential
checklist items were reduced to 22.
Post-meeting activities

Following the meeting, the steering committee revised
the draft 22-item checklist and refined their wording
such that they accurately reflected meeting discussions.
The draft checklist was also presented to the PROSPERO group, at a scientific meeting of the Cochrane
Collaboration, for input and feedback and to AHRQ’s
Learning Network. After each of these reviews, the steering committee made minor amendments to the items.

Moher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

The checklist was then circulated to all meeting invitees
for critical input.
The PRISMA-P 2015 checklist

The final PRISMA-P 2015 checklist contains 17 numbered
items (26 including sub-items) Items are categorized into
three main sections: administrative information, introduction, and methods (Table 3).
We made a conscious effort to harmonize the PRISMAP checklist items with the items of the PRISMA checklist
to facilitate authors in transitioning their protocol into
a report of a systematic review. Thirteen PRISMA-P
sub-items have existing PRISMA counterparts. Where
PRISMA wording or content did not sufficiently address protocol reporting, checklist items were modified.
Readers familiar with PRISMA will notice that PRISMAP does not contain a flow diagram documenting the flowof studies throughout the systematic review process. Suchdocumentation is possible only after a review has been carried out and remains an essential component to include in
the report of a completed systematic review or metaanalysis; for further guidance, see the PRISMA Explanationand Elaboration document [12].
We strongly recommend that the present document
and the accompanying PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation andElaboration document [30], which includes examples ofgood reporting, rationale, and evidence (where available),be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 checklist.
PRISMA-P 2015 explanation and elaboration

Once the steering committee prepared the PRISMA-P
2015 Statement and checklist, they drafted the content
of an Explanation and Elaboration document, with assistance from the larger PRISMA-P group. The explanatory text was derived largely from discussions at the
PRISMA-P meeting (recorded at the time) as well as the
PRISMA Explanation and Elaboration document [12].
Examples of well-reported PRISMA-P items came fromprotocols registered in the PROSPERO database,
AHRQ’s EPC Program, and the Cochrane Database of
Systematic Reviews or those published elsewhere. Afterthe entire group had an opportunity to suggest additions, deletions, and changes, the steering committee
combined all amendments to create the PRISMA-P 2014
Explanation and Elaboration document [30].
Post-publication activities

The post-publication activities recommended by EQUATOR include seeking and responding to criticism, encouraging the endorsement of and adherence to the guidelinefrom various stakeholders, translating the guideline into
other languages, evaluating its impact, ensuring website
development, and updating of the guideline. The
PRISMA-P 2015 checklist and related publications are

Page 4 of 9

freely available on the websites of the PRISMA Group(www.prisma-statement.org) and EQUATOR Network(www.equator-network.org). The PROSPERO register
also contains a link to the guidance to encourage registrants to prepare a complete documentation of their
protocol if they have not done so already.
We plan to develop an educational webinar about therationale, usefulness, and potential impact of PRISMA-P,
similar to what was done for PRISMA [31]. In addition,
the potential for PRISMA-P 2015 to be used as an educational tool for authors, peer reviewers, and editors will be
explored. Targeted implementation activities for PRISMAP will be developed in a systematic manner together withexperts in knowledge translation. The PRISMA website
and social media (@PRISMAStatement, www.twitter.
com/PRISMAStatement) will be used to make announcements about the launch of PRISMA-P and educational initiatives.
Endorsement

We encourage journals publishing systematic review products to modify their ‘Instructions for Authors’ section toendorse PRISMA-P 2015 and to consider publishing systematic review protocols, if they do not do so already. We
plan to communicate with known endorsers of PRISMA(http://prisma-statement.org/endorsers.htm) as well as toother, relevant non-endorsing journals, to ask them toconsider extending their support to PRISMA-P.
To help ensure optimal uptake by systematic reviewers,
we propose a uniform endorsement policy across organizations and journals involved in the development andpublication of systematic review protocols, demonstrated
by the adoption of the following statement:‘[this organization/journal] requires a completed
PRISMA-P 2015 checklist as a condition of submissionof systematic review protocols. We recommend that,while completing the PRISMA-P 2015 checklist, you
ensure your protocol addresses all items. Taking thetime to ensure that your protocol adheres to thesebasic reporting elements will improve your manuscript
and potentially enhance its chances of eventual
acceptance.’
Such a statement could be included in a journal’s ‘Instructions to Authors,’ or for funding agencies and thosecommissioning systematic reviews, in their Application
Guidelines, recommending that applicants developing
the proposals of systematic reviews for funding use
PRISMA-P 2014. Peer reviewers and scientific committees can also use the checklist to gauge the extent towhich protocols include necessary information.
As has been done for previous reporting guidelines[18,32] we plan to evaluate whether and to what degreeMoher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

Page 5 of 9

Table 3 PRISMA-P 2015 checklist: recommended items to include in a systematic review protocola
Section/topic

Item #

Checklist item

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
Title
Identification

1aIdentify the report as a protocol of a systematic review

Update1b

If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such

Registration

2

If registered, provide the name of the registry (e.g., PROSPERO) and registration number

Contact

3aProvide name, institutional affiliation, and e-mail address of all protocol authors; provide physicalmailing address of corresponding author

Contributions

3b

Describe contributions of protocol authors and identify the guarantor of the review

4

If the protocol represents an amendment of a previously completed or published protocol,
identify as such and list changes; otherwise, state plan for documenting important protocol
amendments

Sources

5a

Indicate sources of financial or other support for the review

Sponsor

5b

Provide name for the review funder and/or sponsor

Role of sponsor/
funder5c

Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s), and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol

Rationale

6

Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known

Objectives

7

Provide an explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address with reference to participants,
interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO)

Eligibility criteria

8Specify the study characteristics (e.g., PICO, study design, setting, time frame) and report characteristics(e.g., years considered, language, publication status) to be used as criteria for eligibility for the review

Information sources

9

Describe all intended information sources (e.g., electronic databases, contact with study authors,
trial registers, or other grey literature sources) with planned dates of coverage

Search strategy

10

Present draft of search strategy to be used for at least one electronic database, including planned
limits, such that it could be repeated

Data management

11a

Describe the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review

Selection process

11bState the process that will be used for selecting studies (e.g., two independent reviewers) through eachphase of the review (i.e., screening, eligibility, and inclusion in meta-analysis)

Data collection process

11c

Describe planned method of extracting data from reports (e.g., piloting forms, done independently, in
duplicate), any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators

Data items

12

List and define all variables for which data will be sought (e.g., PICO items, funding sources), any
pre-planned data assumptions and simplifications

Outcomes andprioritization

13

List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritization of main andadditional outcomes, with rationale

Risk of bias inindividual studies

14

Describe anticipated methods for assessing risk of bias of individual studies, including whether this will
be done at the outcome or study level, or both; state how this information will be used in data synthesis

15a

Describe criteria under which study data will be quantitatively synthesized

15b

If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, describe planned summary measures, methods ofhandling data, and methods of combining data from studies, including any planned exploration of
consistency (e.g., I2, Kendall’s tau)

15c

Describe any proposed additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression)

15d

If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, describe the type of summary planned

Authors

Amendments

SupportINTRODUCTIONMETHODS

Study records

Data
Synthesis

Moher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

Page 6 of 9

Table 3 PRISMA-P 2015 checklist: recommended items to include in a systematic review protocola (Continued)
Meta-bias(es)16Specify any planned assessment of meta-bias(es) (e.g., publication bias across studies, selective
reporting within studies)

Confidence incumulative evidence

17

Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (e.g., GRADE)

PRISMA-P Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols.
a
It is strongly recommended that this checklist be read in conjunction with the PRISMA-P Explanation and Elaboration [30] for important clarification on the items.
Amendments to a review protocol should be tracked and dated. The copyright for PRISMA-P (including checklist) is held by the PRISMA-P Group and is distributed
under a Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0.

endorsement of PRISMA-P 2015 by journals (and potentially by other organizations) influences the completeness of reported protocols. Such an evaluation will beplanned after allowing sufficient time for the wide dissemination of PRISMA-P 2015.

Implementation

The current system of implementing reporting guidelines is not optimal. At present, their primary mechanism of uptake is through endorsement by journals attheir discretion, if at all. In journals that do endorse

Table 4 Proposed stakeholders, actions, and potential benefits for supporting adherence to PRISMA-P
Stakeholder

Proposed action

Funders

Promote or mandate adherence to PRISMA-P or use PRISMA-P as Improved quality, completeness, and consistency
a template for systematic review proposals for grant applications of systematic review proposal submissions

Potential benefits

Standardized protocol content will improve peer
review efficiency and investigator understandingof requirements
Systematic review authors/ Use/adhere to PRISMA-P during protocol developmentgroups/organizations

Improved quality, completeness, and consistencyof protocol content
Enables reviewers to anticipate and avoid futurechanges to review methods (i.e., outcomes)
Increased awareness of minimum content for
protocol reporting
Improved completeness of reporting ofcompleted reviews

PROSPERO (and otherreview registries)

Encourage the development of PRISMA-P-based protocols

Improved quality of registry entries

Practice guideline
developers

Use PRISMA-P to gauge the completeness of protocols andfacilitate detection of selective reporting when considering
reviews for guideline inclusion

Enables easy comparison across protocols, registry
entries, and completed systematic reviews

Policymakers

Advocate use of PRISMA-P by those funding and carryingout systematic reviews

May yield better quality, more complete, and moreconsistent reviews to inform decision-making

Journal editors

Encourage compliance to PRISMA-P for authors submitting
protocols for publication

Improved quality, completeness, and consistencyof protocols over those published in journals notendorsing PRISMA-P

Offer PRISMA-P as a template to assist in protocol
writing for publication

Increased efficiency in protocol peer andauthor understanding of journal requirements

Improved consistency across registry entries,
protocols, and systematic reviews

Improved transparency and interpretationof reviews by readers
Educators

Students

Use PRISMA-P as a training tool

Simplified teaching and grading of protocols

Encourage adherence in students submitting protocols
for coursework

Improved quality, completeness, andconsistency of protocol content

Develop protocols for coursework or research using PRISMA-P

Improved understanding of the minimum
protocol content
Well-trained systematic reviewer going
into the workforce

Moher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

guidelines, language describing their support is often
vague, leaving authors unclear on what they are supposed to do with a given reporting guideline during thesubmission process [33]. Furthermore, policies aroundhow journal editors and peer reviewers should ensure
and/or enforce adherence to reporting checklists areeven less clear, if they exist at all [34]. Other barriers to
implementation may include a lack of awareness of theguideline and perceived burden of using a reporting
guideline checklist during the editorial process [35].
Some well-known checklists, such as PRISMA, include
a column to the right of the main checklists in whichusers report the page number on which a specific item isreported. This was initially intended to help authors ensure each checklist item is addressed and to aid peer reviewers in locating reported text for each item within adocument. However, this system is not optimal. One
major problem is that peer reviewers still have to searchwithin a considerable body of text to locate the exact
text describing a checklist item. When multiple items
are listed separately but reported together or vice versa,
this problem is compounded, because exactly which
content pertains to each item may remain unclear.
The lack of implementation and adherence to reporting guidelines is systemic; additional authorities encountered early in the research process should promote a
clearer message about author adherence to reporting
standards if improvements in reporting are to be made.
In targeting protocols of systematic reviews, PRISMA-P
has a unique opportunity to not only affect the way inwhich protocols are reported but to also impact the way
in which reviews are eventually conducted, perhaps
allowing for a more seamless transition into a completely reported systematic review.
To overcome known challenges with reporting guideline
uptake [36,37], we are developing a prospective implementation strategy for PRISMA-P 2015 using knowledgetranslation principles involving theoretically derived interventions [37] which have demonstrated effectiveness inthe development of implementation interventions for clinical practice guidelines [38,39]. An initial list of proposed
stakeholders who can assist in the implementation of
PRISMA-P, along with proposed actions and benefits, isprovided in Table 4.

Discussion
Studies comparing trial protocols to final reports havewidely documented both the presence and the extent ofreporting biases in publications of randomized trials[2,40]. Protocols for systematic reviews are rarely available
for such comparisons, with the exception of select organizations. Of 288 reviews with available protocols in a 2006/
2007 cohort, 64 (22%) were observed to have at least one
discrepant outcome with their completed reviews; only 4Page 7 of 9

described reasons for the change in the completed review[3]. Discrepant outcomes added or upgraded from secondary to primary at the review stage were more likely to bestatistically significant than those outcomes that had notchanged. This practice (i.e., including, excluding, or changing outcomes in association with the strength or direction of findings) has the potential to bias the findings ofany meta-analysis and the review’s conclusions. As review
protocols are expected to become increasingly available
with the advent of PROSPERO, clear reporting will become essential to facilitate the identification of discrepancies between protocol and review by readers and help
them determine whether they need to be cautious in interpreting findings.
Reporting and publishing protocols is an important stepin increasing the transparency of the research process andreliability of published papers. For example, some journals
require a copy of the protocol as part of the peer review
process of randomized trials. As of 1 March 2014, BioMed
Central has published 4,158 trial protocols across 66 of its
258 open-access journals, including 1,026 in Trials. Systematic Reviews, a BioMed Central journal launched in
February 2012, is committed to publishing systematic review products, including protocols [41], and has published
142 protocols since inception (to 8 June 2014).
Journals, granting agencies, and systematic review organizations are encouraged to endorse PRISMA-P 2015
in their ‘Instructions to Authors’ and guidance for applicants and to implement its use during their peer review
process of systematic review proposals. Reviewers areencouraged to use the PRISMA-P checklist and Explanation and Elaboration [30] document to guide themthrough the documentation of a protocol. Doing so will
enhance the completeness of reporting of review protocols, facilitate the assessment of potential in systematic
reviews, and hopefully strengthen the methodologicalquality and reliability of completed systematic reviews.
Competing interests
The PRISMA-P 2015 initiative was supported by the AHRQ, USA (Contract No.
HHSA 290 2007 10059 I) and the Canadian Institutes for Health Research(Reference No. 114369). This manuscript does not reflect the opinions ofeither agency; one author, SC, is an employee of AHRQ. MC, DG, DM, MP,
and LAS are members of the Advisory Board for PROSPERO. DGA, SC, MC,
JG, MH, JM, and MP are members of the Editorial Board, and DM, PS, and
LAS are co-Editors in Chief of Systematic Reviews. None of the authors whoare editors of Systematic Reviews were involved in the handling of thispaper or the decision to publish it.
Authors’ contributions
DM, LS, MC, DG, AL, MP, PS, and LAS conceived this paper. DM and LS
drafted the article, and all authors critically revised it for important
intellectual content. All authors approved the final version of this article. DM
is the guarantor of this work.
Acknowledgements
The PRISMA-P steering committee would like to thank the following staff
from the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI): Jodi Peters for her efforts
organizing the PRISMA-P consensus meeting, Michael Zhao for his assistanceMoher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

in preparing documents for the PRISMA-P meeting, Dr. Mohammed Ansari
for valuable input and feedback throughout the process, and Justin Thielman
for his assistance during the preparation of the PRISMA-P manuscripts.
Dedication
The PRISMA-P 2015 initiative is dedicated to our colleague Alessandro Liberati(1954–2012) who passed away during the time in which PRISMA-P 2015 wasunder development and whose contributions to this work were invaluable.

Page 8 of 9

5.

6.

7.
PRISMA-P group (listed alphabetically)
Douglas G Altman, DSc, Centre for Statistics in Medicine (CSM), University of
Oxford, (Oxford, UK); Alison Booth, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD),
University of York (York, UK); An-Wen Chan, Women’s College ResearchInstitute, University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada); Stephanie Chang,
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Rockville, USA); Mike Clarke,
Queen’s University of Belfast (Belfast, Ireland); Tammy Clifford, Canadian
Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) (Ottawa, Canada);
Kay Dickersin, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health; Matthias
Egger, Institut für Sozial-und Präventivmedizin; Davina Ghersi, National
Health and Medical Research Council (Canberra, Australia); Peter C Gøtzsche,
Nordic Cochrane Centre (Copenhagen, Denmark); Jeremy M Grimshaw,
Canadian Cochrane Centre and OHRI (Ottawa, Canada); Trish Groves, The
BMJ (London, UK); Mark Helfand, AHRQ EPC Scientific Resource Center,
Portland VA Research Foundation (Portland, USA); Julian Higgins, School ofSocial and Community Medicine (Bristol, UK); Toby Lasserson, Cochrane
Editorial Unit (London, UK); Joseph Lau, Center for Evidence-based Medicine,
Brown University (Providence, USA); Alessandro Liberati, University of Modena(Modena, Italy); Kathleen Lohr, Research Triangle Institute-University of North
Carolina EPC (Research Triangle Park, USA); Jessie McGowan, University ofOttawa (Ottawa, Canada); David Moher, Clinical Epidemiology Program, OHRI,
and University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Canada); Cynthia Mulrow, Annals ofInternal Medicine (San Antonio, USA); Melissa Norton, PLoS Medicine(London, UK); Matthew Page, Monash University (Australia); Mark Petticrew,
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (London, UK); Margaret
Sampson, Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario (Ottawa; Canada); Holger
Schünemann, McMaster University (Hamilton, Canada); Larissa Shamseer, Clinical
Epidemiology Program, OHRI, and University of Ottawa (Ottawa; Canada);
Paul Shekelle, Southern California EPC, (Los Angeles, USA); Iveta Simera,
CSM, University of Oxford (Oxford, UK); Lesley A Stewart, CRD, University ofYork (York, UK); William Summerskill, The Lancet (London, UK); Jennifer Tetzlaff,
Clinical Epidemiology Program, OHRI (Ottawa, Canada); Thomas A Trikalinos,Center for Evidence-based Medicine, Brown University (Providence, USA); David
Tovey, The Cochrane Library (London, UK); Lucy Turner, Clinical Epidemiology
Program, OHRI (Ottawa Canada); Evelyn Whitlock, Kaiser Permanente Research
Affiliates EPC (Portland, USA).
Author details
Ottawa Hospital Research Institute and University of Ottawa, Ottawa,
Canada. 2Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, Ireland. 3National Health andMedical Research Council, Canberra, Australia. 4London School of Hygiene
and Tropical Medicine, London, UK. 5Southern California Evidence-based
Practice Center, Santa Monica, CA, USA. 6Centre for Reviews andDissemination, University of York, York, UK.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.
15.
16.

17.

18.

1

Received: 27 August 2014 Accepted: 26 November 2014
Published: 1 January 2015
References
1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I: Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic
reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 2010, 7(9):e1000326.
2. Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG: Empiricalevidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials:
comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 2004,
291(20):2457–2465.
3. Kirkham JJ, Altman DG, Williamson PR: Bias due to changes in specified
outcomes during the systematic review process. PLoS ONE 2010,
5(3):e9810.
4. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, Williamson
PR: The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials
on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ 2010, 340:c365.

19.

20.

21.
22.

23.

24.

25.

Dwan K, Gamble C, Williamson PR, Kirkham JJ, Reporting Bias Group:
Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias
and outcome reporting bias—an updated review. PLoS ONE 2013,
8(7):e66844.
Norris SL, Holmer HK, Ogden LA, Fu R, Abou-Setta AM, Viswanathan MS,
McPheeters ML: Selective Outcome Reporting as a Source of Bias in Reviews ofComparative Effectiveness (Prepared by the Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center
Under Contract no. 290-2007-10057-I). Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality; 2012. Report No.: AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC110-EF.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Kirkham J, Dwan K, Kramer S, Green S, Forbes A: Bias
due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses insystematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.
Cochrane Lib 2014, (10):Art No.:MR000035. doi:10.1002/14651858.MR000035.
pub2.
Higgins JPT, Green S (Eds): Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews ofInterventions Version 5.1.0: updated March 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration;
2011. Available from [www.cochrane-handbook.org]
Ma B, Guo J, Qi G, Li H, Peng J, Zhang Y, Ding Y, Yang K: Epidemiology,
quality and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of traditional
Chinese medicine interventions published in Chinese journals. PLoS ONE
2011, 6(5):e20185.
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG: Epidemiology
and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 2007,
4(3):e78.
Institute of Medicine. In Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for
Systematic Reviews. Edited by Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S. Washington,
DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke
M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D: The PRISMA statement for reporting
systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009,
6(7):e1000100.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group: Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMAStatement. BMJ 2009, 339:b2535.
Straus S, Moher D: Registering systematic reviews. CMAJ 2010, 182(1):13–14.
Moher D, Booth A, Stewart L: How to reduce unnecessary duplication: use
PROSPERO. BJOG 2014, 121:784–786.
Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L: An
international registry of systematic-review protocols. Lancet 2011,
377(9760):108–109.
Booth A, Clarke M, Dooley G, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L:
The nuts and bolts of PROSPERO: an international prospective register ofsystematic reviews. Syst Rev 2012, 1:2.
Turner L, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Moher D: Does use of the
CONSORT statement impact the completeness of reporting ofrandomised controlled trials published in medical journals? A Cochranereview. Syst Rev 2012, 1:60.
Smidt N, Rutjes AWS, Van der Windt D, Ostelo R, Bossuyt PM, Reitsma JB,
Bouter LM, de Vet HCW: The quality of diagnostic accuracy studies since
the STARD statement: has it improved? Neurology 2006, 67(5):792–797.
Prady SL, Richmond SJ, Morton VM, MacPherson H: A systematic
evaluation of the impact of STRICTA and CONSORT recommendations
on quality of reporting for acupuncture trials. PLoS ONE 2008, 3(2):e1577.
Williams HC: Cars, CONSORT 2010, and clinical practice. Trials 2010, 11:33.
Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews, AHRQ
Publication No. 10(14)-EHC063-EF. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research
and Quality; 2014. Chapters available at: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov.
Green S, Higgins JPT, Alderson P, Clarke M, Mulrow CD, Oxman AD: 1.2.2.
What is a systematic review? In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviewsof Interventions Version 5.1.0: updated March 2011. Edited by Higgins JPT,
Green S. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011 [www.cochrane-handbook.org]
Chan A, Tetzlaff JM, Altman DG, Laupacis A, Gøtzsche PC, Krleža-Jerić K,
Hróbjartsson A, Mann H, Dickersin K, Berlin JA, Doré C, Parulekar WR,
Summerskill WSM, Groves T, Schulz KF, Sox HC, Rockhold FW, Rennie D,
Moher D: SPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items forclinical trials. Ann Intern Med 2013, 158(3):200–207.
Antman EM, Lau J, Kupelnick B, Mosteller F, Chalmers TC: A comparison of
results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendationsof clinical experts: treatments for myocardial infarction. JAMA 1992,
268(2):240–248.

Moher et al. Systematic Reviews 2015, 4:1
http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/4/1/1

Page 9 of 9

26. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH: The science of reviewing research. Ann N Y Acad
Sci 1993, 703:125,33. discussion 133–134.
27. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG: Guidance for developers ofhealth research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med 2010, 7(2):e1000217.
28. Booth A, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Moher D, Petticrew M, Stewart L: Establishinga minimum dataset for prospective registration of systematic reviews: aninternational consultation. PLoS ONE 2011, 6(11):e27319.
29. Chan A, Tetzlaff JM, Gøtzsche PS, Altman DG, Mann H, Berlin JA, Dickersin K,
Hróbjartsson A, Schulz KF, Paruleka WR, Krleža-Jerić K, Laupaucis A, Moher D:
SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols ofclinical trials. BMJ 2013, 346:e7586.
30. Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P,
Stewart LA, PRISMA-P Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic
review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration &explanation. BMJ 2015, 349:g7647.
31. Cochrane Canada: David Moher on crystal clear reporting of systematic
reviews and EQUATOR Network. In 2010 [https://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=TVFYenon1Jo]
32. Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, Yazdi F, Turner L, Thielman J, Altman
DG, Hirst A, Hoey J, Palepu A, Schulz KF, Moher D: Relation ofcompleteness of reporting of health research to journals’ endorsementof reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ 2014, 348:g3804.
33. Hopewell S, Altman DG, Moher D, Schulz KF: Endorsement of the
CONSORT statement by high impact factor medical journals: a survey ofjournal editors and journal ‘Instructions to Authors’. Trials 2008, 9:20.
34. Hirst A, Altman DG: Are peer reviewers encouraged to use reporting
guidelines? A survey of 116 health research journals. PLoS ONE 2012,
7(4):e35621.
35. Shamseer L, Weeks L, Turner L, Straus S, Grimshaw J, Moher D: Identifying
barriers to uptake and implementation of the CONSORT statement. In
The Seventh International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication:
8–10 Sept 2014: Chicago, USA.
36. Mills E, Wu P, Gagnier J, Heels-Ansdell D, Montori VM: An analysis ofgeneral medical and specialist journals that endorse CONSORT foundthat reporting was not enforced consistently. J Clin Epidemiol 2005,
58(7):662–667.
37. Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M:
Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new medical
research council guidance. BMJ 2008, 337(0959–535):a1655.
38. Davies P, Walker AE, Grimshaw JM: A systematic review of the use oftheory in the design of guideline dissemination and implementation
strategies and interpretation of the results of rigorous evaluations.
Implement Sci 2010, 5:14.
39. Carlsen B, Glenton C, Pope C: Thou shalt versus thou shalt not: a metasynthesis of GPs’ attitudes to clinical practice guidelines. Br J Gen Pract
2007, 57(545):971–978.
40. Dwan K, Altman DG, Cresswell L, Blundell M, Gamble CL, Williamson PR:
Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for
randomised controlled trials. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011,
1:MR000031.
41. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P: Establishing a new journal for systematic
review products. Syst Rev 2012, 1:1.
doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
Cite this article as: Moher et al.: Preferred reporting items for
systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015
statement. Systematic Reviews 2015 4:1.

Submit your next manuscript to BioMed Central
and take full advantage of:• Convenient online submission• Thorough peer review• No space constraints or color ﬁgure charges• Immediate publication on acceptance• Inclusion in PubMed, CAS, Scopus and Google Scholar• Research which is freely available for redistribution
Submit your manuscript at
www.biomedcentral.com/submit