The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement is designed to be used in systematic reviews that either do or do not involve synthesis (using techniques like pairwise meta-analysis or other statistical synthesis approaches) (for example, because only one eligible study is identified) [2].

The PRISMA 2020 statement enables reviewers to transparently report what the authors did, what they found, and why the review was done. Its 27-item checklist details reporting recommendations for each item that reflects advances in methods to identify, select, appraise, and synthesise studies, thus aiding authors to improve on the reporting of equity systematic reviews and meta-analyses [1].

Mixed-methods systematic reviews, which incorporate both quantitative and qualitative studies, should adhere to the PRISMA 2020 items, but reporting guidelines regarding the presentation and synthesis of qualitative data should also be examined [2].

The characteristics of the PRISMA-Equity 2012 checklist (and PROGRESSplus framework) methodological guides are presented below.

There exists a correlation between the PROGRESS/Plus framework and the PRISMA-Equity checklist. First, both guidance documents were developed using a consensus methodology by the Campbell and Cochrane Equity Methods Group and there is therefore some overlap in authorship. Also, while the main purpose of the PROGRESS/Plus framework is to identify individual characteristics that may contribute to health inequality or inequity, the PRISMA-Equity checklist is a document recommending ways to improve transparency and reporting standards of equity-focused reviews [1].

As such, the PROGRESS-Plus framework is embedded within one of the categories of the PRISMAEquity checklist (item 11), where reviewers are required to record the variables related to equity that were identified. However, empirical studies were conducted to evaluate the validity PROGRESS-Plus framework’s recommendations and the PRISMA-Equity checklist against the experiences and practices of subject experts. In both cases, the majority of experts concluded that the tools were a useful reminder of the items to consider in equity-focused reviewsincluding the conduct, reporting, and use of research [1].

• A systematic review finds a lack of consensus in methodological approaches in health inequality/inequity focused reviews

• The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews

• Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Studies: The PRISMA-DTAStatement

• Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta -Analyses of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPDStatement

• Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

[1] Kunonga TP, Hanratty B, Bower P, Craig D. A systematic review finds a lack of consensus in methodological approaches in health inequality/inequity focused reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2023 Feb 20.

[2] Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, Shamseer L, Tetzlaff JM, Akl EA, Brennan SE, Chou R. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. International journal of surgery. 2021 Apr 1;88:105906.