PRISMA-P
PRISMA-P is a checklist that helps researchers plan and report their systematic review protocols clearly and completely. It ensures important details like the review's purpose, methods, and planned analyses are described upfront, which improves transparency and reduces bias.
At a glance
Use when
Developing or reviewing a protocol for a systematic review or meta-analysis
Avoid when
Conducting a rapid review or scoping review where full protocol pre-specification is not feasible
Inputs
Draft systematic review protocol
Outputs
Completed PRISMA-P checklist, fully reported systematic review protocol
How it works
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 is a 17-item checklist developed to standardize the reporting of systematic review and meta-analysis protocols. It supports transparency in the design and methodology of reviews, enabling assessment of methodological rigor, identification of protocol deviations, and reduction of selective reporting. It is intended for use by researchers, funders, peer reviewers, and editors.
- HTA domains
- Clinical Effectiveness, Costs & Economic Evaluation, Patient and Social Aspects
- Assumptions
- Researchers will use the checklist prospectively when developing protocols; adherence improves reporting quality and methodological transparency.
- Strengths
- Standardizes protocol reporting across systematic reviews,Enhances transparency and reduces selective reporting,Useful for peer review, funding applications, and editorial assessment
- Limitations
- Does not guide methodological quality, only reporting,Adherence is voluntary and varies across journals and institutions
- Also known as
- PRISMA-P 2015, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Protocols
Questions this answers
- › What should be included in a systematic review protocol?
- › How can a review protocol be reported transparently?
- › What information should funders require in systematic review proposals?
- › How can peer reviewers assess the completeness of a submitted protocol?
- › Which methodological elements should be pre-specified in a review?
- › How can deviations from planned methods be detected in published reviews?
References & sources
Related methods
Similar by meaning
- ISPOR Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Checklist (Part I)
- ISPOR Prospective Observational Studies to Assess Comparative Effectiveness Good Research Practices Task Force Report
- PROBAST
- COSMOS-E
- 10-step guide to standardising patient-reported outcomes data collection in healthcare
Beta record. Generated from the primary source via AI extraction and independent audit, pending final human review.

