PRISMA 2020準拠を評価するためのツールの評価：不統一な方法とツールの実装可能性の低さが明らかに：系統的レビューのパートI

Numerous studies have assessed the adherence of published systematic reviews to the PRISMA 2020 statement. We aimed to summarise the characteristics and methods of development of the tools used to assess adherence in these studies.

MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO (all via Ovid) were searched on January 20^th 2025, to locate studies that assessed adherence of systematic reviews of health interventions to the PRISMA 2020 statement. Two authors independently screened all records and extracted data. We examined three aspects of the tools used to assess adherence to PRISMA 2020: i) characteristics of the assessment tool, ii) methods used to develop and validate the tool, and iii) processes used to apply the tool. We classified a tool as 'implementable' by researchers external to the tool developers if authors reported the exact wording of each item, its response options, guidance on how to operationalise all response options, and the algorithms used to aggregate judgements and quantify adherence.

We included 24 meta-research studies that had assessed adherence to PRISMA 2020 in 2,766 systematic reviews published between 1989 and 2024. Most authors assessed adherence to PRISMA 2020 in its entirety (N=15/24, 63%), with the remaining nine (37%) assessing adherence to one or a subset of domains (e.g., abstract, search methods, risk of bias assessment methods). Psychometric testing of the assessment tool was reported by five studies (21%), all of which assessed the inter-rater reliability of the tool. Only one (4%) reported how response options for all items were operationalised. According to our criteria, only one assessment tool was classified as implementable (N=1/24, 4%). No authorship team used the same methods to assess adherence to the PRISMA 2020 statement. However, information on some tool characteristics was unavailable for several studies.

Our findings demonstrate variation and inadequacies in the methods and reporting of tools used to assess adherence to the PRISMA 2020 statement. We have commenced work on a standardised PRISMA 2020 assessment tool to facilitate accurate and consistent assessments of adherence of systematic reviews to PRISMA. In the interim, we provide some recommendations for how meta-researchers interested in assessing adherence of systematic reviews to the PRISMA 2020 statement can transparently report the findings of their assessments.