What does PRISMA stand for?

What does PRISMA stand for?

• A. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
• B. Primary Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
• C. Policy Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
• D. Practical Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Answer: (A)

PRISMA is a set of guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and it signals that the items it outlines are the preferred ones to include in such reports. The phrase “Preferred Reporting Items” emphasizes that these are recommended components to ensure transparency, completeness, and clarity in how the review was conducted and synthesized. The full scope, “Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,” defines the types of evidence syntheses PRISMA applies to, guiding authors to comprehensively document search strategies, study selection, data extraction, assessment of bias, and the methods and results of synthesis. This naming makes it clear that the guideline is about how to report, not about how to conduct the review. Among the options, only this expansion uses the established terminology and correctly captures both the reporting focus and the types of reviews covered. The other possibilities would misstate the emphasis—suggesting things like primary data, policy rules, or practical steps—rather than a standardized reporting framework.

PRISMA is a set of guidelines for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and it signals that the items it outlines are the preferred ones to include in such reports. The phrase “Preferred Reporting Items” emphasizes that these are recommended components to ensure transparency, completeness, and clarity in how the review was conducted and synthesized. The full scope, “Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses,” defines the types of evidence syntheses PRISMA applies to, guiding authors to comprehensively document search strategies, study selection, data extraction, assessment of bias, and the methods and results of synthesis. This naming makes it clear that the guideline is about how to report, not about how to conduct the review. Among the options, only this expansion uses the established terminology and correctly captures both the reporting focus and the types of reviews covered. The other possibilities would misstate the emphasis—suggesting things like primary data, policy rules, or practical steps—rather than a standardized reporting framework.