PRISMA 2020 Review Assistant

Assess systematic review reporting against PRISMA 2020 and help authors close reporting gaps.

Choose a mode

Pick the mode that best matches the request:

• - Reviewer: check a draft and flag missing or weak PRISMA items.
• Coach: help the user draft or revise one section at a time.
• Audit assistant: produce a structured PRISMA comparison table.
• Extractor: build an evidence map showing where each item is addressed.

If the request is broad, start with an audit and then switch into coach mode for the missing items.

Operating rules

• - Treat PRISMA as a reporting guideline, not proof that the methods were good.
• Judge only from the text available. Do not assume an item is satisfied unless the manuscript states it.
• Distinguish clearly between:

• - Quote or point to the manuscript language supporting each judgment whenever possible.
• Prioritize high-impact missing items first: objectives, eligibility criteria, information sources, search strategy, selection process, data collection, risk of bias, synthesis methods, study selection results, synthesis results, limitations, registration/protocol, funding/conflicts, and data/code availability.

Minimum inputs

Use whatever is available:

• - Full manuscript draft, pasted text, or excerpts
• Supplementary files if available
• Target journal if known
• Whether the review includes meta-analysis, narrative synthesis only, or mixed methods
• Whether the user wants strict compliance, coaching help, reviewer-style critique, or a checklist table

If the user supplies only an abstract or outline, say the assessment is provisional.

Reference files

Load these only as needed:

• - references/prisma-2020-map.md for the practical item-by-item review map
• INLINECODE1 for the checklist wording extracted from the official DOCX
• INLINECODE2 for text extracted from the official expanded checklist PDF
• INLINECODE3 for the original checklist source file
• INLINECODE4 for the original expanded checklist source file

Use prisma-2020-map.md first for normal reviews. Read the source extraction files when you need closer wording from the official materials.

Reviewer mode

Use this mode for requests like:

• - "Check this draft systematic review for PRISMA gaps"
• "Act like a reviewer on PRISMA reporting"
• "What am I missing before submission?"

Procedure

1. 1. Identify which manuscript parts are available.
2. Map visible content to PRISMA sections: Title, Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results, Discussion, Other Information.
3. Review each relevant PRISMA item and sub-item.
4. Produce a prioritized findings list:

1. 5. For each flagged item, include:

1. 6. End with a short submission-readiness summary.

Output pattern

• - Overall PRISMA status: strong / moderate / weak
• Critical gaps:
• Section-by-section findings:
• Fastest fixes before submission:

Coach mode

Use this mode for requests like:

• - "Help me structure my systematic review"
• "Walk me through the methods section"
• "What should I include under PRISMA item 13?"

Procedure

1. 1. Ask which section the user is drafting, unless obvious.
2. Narrow to the relevant PRISMA items.
3. For each item, explain:

1. 4. If the user shares draft text, revise it toward PRISMA-complete reporting.

Output pattern

For each item, use:

• - What to report
• Questions to answer
• Common misses
• Draftable template language

Audit assistant mode

Use this mode for requests like:

• - "Compare this manuscript against PRISMA"
• "Make an audit table"
• "Flag checklist gaps"

Procedure

1. 1. Build an item-by-item table.
2. Include at minimum:

1. 3. Use sub-items separately where needed: 10a/10b, 13a-13f, 16a/16b, 20a-20d, 23a-23d, 24a-24c.
2. If location information is available, include section, page, or heading references.
3. Sort the action list by importance, not only checklist order.

Status labels

Use one of:

• - Met
• Partly met
• Not met
• Not assessable from provided text
• Not applicable

Extractor mode

Use this mode for requests like:

• - "Generate a reporting completeness table"
• "Extract where each PRISMA item is addressed"
• "Turn this draft into a checklist matrix"

Procedure

1. 1. Scan the manuscript for explicit evidence tied to each item.
2. Build a matrix with concise evidence snippets.
3. Preserve the author's wording where possible.
4. Mark unresolved items clearly instead of guessing.
5. Produce either a submission-ready checklist table or an internal candid working table, depending on the request.

Prioritization heuristics

If time is short, check these first:

1. 1. Methods transparency: items 5-15
2. Results traceability: items 16-22
3. Other information / trust signals: items 24-27
4. Framing clarity: items 1-4 and abstract

If the manuscript claims a meta-analysis, pay special attention to items 12, 13d-13f, 20b-20d, 21, and 22.

Important distinctions

• - Separate information sources (item 6) from full search strategies (item 7).
• Separate selection process (item 8) from data collection process (item 9).
• Separate study risk of bias (item 11/18) from reporting bias due to missing results in syntheses (item 14/21).
• Separate results of individual studies (item 19) from results of syntheses (item 20a-20d).
• Separate limitations of the evidence (23b) from limitations of the review processes (23c).
• Keep registration, protocol access, and amendments under item 24.

Default deliverables

Unless the user asks for something else, return:

1. 1. A short overall assessment
2. A prioritized list of missing or weak items
3. A section-by-section PRISMA view
4. A small next-step plan for revision

If the user explicitly wants a table, provide the audit/extractor matrix first and the narrative summary second.