Systematic Review Abstract Example, Annotated Against the PRISMA 2020 Abstract Checklist
One complete systematic review abstract, built sentence by sentence against the 12 items of the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist, and the four items authors most often drop when the word limit bites.
Readiness scan
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan before you submit. Catch the issues editors reject on first read.
How to use this page well
These pages work best when they behave like tools, not essays. Use the quick structure first, then apply it to the exact journal and manuscript situation.
Question | What to do |
|---|---|
Use this page for | A working artifact you can actually apply to the manuscript or response package. |
Start with | Fill the template with real manuscript-specific details instead of leaving it generic. |
Common mistake | Copying the structure without tailoring the logic to the actual submission. |
Best next step | Use the artifact once, then cut anything that does not affect the decision. |
Quick answer: A systematic review abstract should cover the 12 items of the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist: identify the report as a systematic review; state the objective; give eligibility criteria, information sources with the date each was last searched, and the risk-of-bias and synthesis methods; report the number of included studies and participants and the main result with its summary estimate, interval and direction of effect; then limitations, interpretation, funding and the registration number. The systematic review abstract example below does all 12 in about 260 words, and the notes after it show where each item sits.
This page is for authors writing up a systematic review or meta-analysis who want a model abstract to measure their own against. For the review itself, from protocol to synthesis, use the guide to writing a systematic review; for abstracts of primary research, use the research paper abstract guide.
Evidence basis: the checklist items are quoted from table 2 of the PRISMA 2020 statement (Page et al., BMJ 2021), read on September 23, 2026, which also records that the abstract checklist updates the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts statement and adds item 6 on synthesis methods. The example abstract is hypothetical: we wrote it for this page, and its numbers describe no real review. The notes on which items get dropped are Manusights judgment from reading drafts before submission; PRISMA defines the items, and this page cannot predict how an editorial team will weigh a missing one.
The example abstract
Title: Supervised exercise for cancer-related fatigue during chemotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials
Objective: To estimate the effect of supervised exercise training, compared with usual care, on fatigue in adults receiving chemotherapy.
Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and CINAHL from inception to 15 March 2026, and trial registries on the same date. Eligible studies were randomised trials in adults receiving chemotherapy for any cancer that compared supervised exercise lasting at least four weeks with usual care and measured fatigue on a validated scale. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias with the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. We pooled standardised mean differences (SMD) in random-effects meta-analyses and rated certainty with GRADE.
Results: Eighteen trials with 1,642 participants were included; most enrolled women with breast cancer, and interventions ran for 8 to 24 weeks. Supervised exercise reduced fatigue compared with usual care (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.52 to -0.24; 16 trials, 1,510 participants; I² = 41%), favouring exercise. Effects on quality of life were smaller and imprecise (SMD 0.17, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.36; 9 trials, 884 participants).
Limitations: Seven trials were at high risk of bias, mainly from unblinded self-reported outcomes, and few enrolled people with haematological cancers. Certainty of evidence was moderate for fatigue and low for quality of life.
Conclusions: Supervised exercise probably reduces fatigue during chemotherapy by a small to moderate amount. Trials in underrepresented cancers, with blinded outcome assessment, are needed before the finding is generalised.
Funding: None. Registration: PROSPERO (give the full CRD number here, not only the registry name).
Where each PRISMA item sits
Item | What the checklist asks | Where it is in the example |
|---|---|---|
1 Title | Identify the report as a systematic review | "a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials" |
2 Objectives | Explicit main objective or question | Objective sentence: population, intervention, comparator, outcome |
3 Eligibility criteria | Inclusion and exclusion criteria | "Eligible studies were randomised trials in adults receiving chemotherapy" |
4 Information sources | Databases or registers and the date each was last searched | Four databases plus registries, "to 15 March 2026" |
5 Risk of bias | Methods used to assess risk of bias | "Cochrane RoB 2 tool", assessed in duplicate |
6 Synthesis of results | Methods used to present and synthesise results | Random-effects meta-analysis of SMDs, GRADE for certainty |
7 Included studies | Total studies and participants, key characteristics | "Eighteen trials with 1,642 participants", population, duration |
8 Synthesis of results | Main outcomes with study and participant counts, summary estimate and interval, direction of effect | SMD -0.38 with 95% CI, 16 trials, 1,510 participants, "favouring exercise" |
9 Limitations of evidence | Brief summary such as risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision | High risk of bias in seven trials, narrow population, GRADE ratings |
10 Interpretation | General interpretation and implications | "probably reduces fatigue during chemotherapy by a small to moderate amount" |
11 Funding | Primary source of funding | "None" |
12 Registration | Register name and registration number | PROSPERO plus the CRD number |
Source: item wording summarised from the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist, table 2 of Page et al., BMJ 2021
Item 8 asks for more than most authors give it. The checklist wants the results for main outcomes "preferably indicating the number of included studies and participants for each," the summary estimate with its confidence or credible interval if a meta-analysis was done, and, when groups are compared, "the direction of the effect (i.e. which group is favoured)." Three separate things, in one sentence.
The four items that disappear when the word limit bites
When a draft abstract runs long, the cuts fall in the same places. In our pre-submission review work on systematic reviews and meta-analyses, these are the ones we look for first, because each is short to add back and conspicuous when missing.
The search date. "We searched four databases" without "to 15 March 2026." Item 4 asks for the date each source was last searched, and it is how a reader judges whether the review predates the trial they know about.
The direction of effect. "Exercise had a significant effect on fatigue (SMD -0.38)." On a fatigue scale where lower is better, a negative number favours exercise; on a quality-of-life scale it would not. Name the favoured group in words.
The limitations of the evidence. Many abstracts give limitations of the review ("only English-language studies") and skip limitations of the evidence, which is what item 9 asks for: risk of bias, inconsistency, imprecision in the included studies.
The registration number. "Registered in PROSPERO" is half of item 12. The checklist asks for the register name and the registration number, and editors checking a protocol need the number.
A fifth, less common one: the title says "a review" or "a meta-analysis" but not "systematic review," which fails item 1 and makes the paper harder to find in searches filtered by study type.
How to draft yours from the full manuscript
Write the abstract last, from the finished tables, not from memory. Pull each number from the place it is reported in the paper: the included-study count from the flow diagram, the pooled estimate from the forest plot, the certainty ratings from the summary-of-findings table. Then read the abstract against the 12 items with the checklist open, and against the body with the paper open. A pooled estimate in the abstract that differs from the forest plot by one decimal place is exactly the kind of inconsistency a reviewer circles.
If the journal's limit still forces a choice, shorten the background, which PRISMA reduces to the objective alone, before touching any number.
What a Manusights review adds, and where it stops
A free check of my systematic review manuscript reads the draft and returns its submission-risk signal and the single biggest blocker in a minute or two. The $39 Full Review recognises the manuscript as a systematic review or meta-analysis, comments section by section, and checks the reference list against live scholarly sources, which matters in a review whose conclusions rest on citing each included study correctly. Neither replaces the PRISMA checklist itself: complete it item by item with page numbers, and attach it if your journal asks for it at submission.
Readiness check
Run the scan to see how your manuscript scores on these criteria.
See score, top issues, and what to fix before you submit.
Think twice before submitting if
- the conclusion outruns the certainty rating. "Exercise reduces fatigue" over low-certainty evidence invites the first reviewer comment. Match the verb to the certainty; the example says "probably" because its fatigue evidence was rated moderate.
- the abstract reports only the outcome that reached significance. If quality of life was a main outcome, it belongs in the abstract even when the interval crosses zero, as in the example.
- the pooled estimate in the abstract differs from the forest plot. Even a rounding difference suggests the abstract was written from an earlier version of the analysis.
- the review was never registered. Say so plainly in the registration line; an empty field reads as concealment.
Frequently asked questions
The 12 items of the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist: a title that identifies the report as a systematic review; the objective; eligibility criteria; information sources with the date each was last searched; risk-of-bias methods; synthesis methods; the number of included studies and participants; results for the main outcomes with the summary estimate, its interval and the direction of effect; limitations of the evidence; interpretation; funding; and the register name and registration number.
As long as the target journal allows; PRISMA sets items, not a word count. Check the journal's author guidelines before drafting, because fitting all 12 items is what usually forces the cuts.
Yes. PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts item 4 asks for the information sources and the date each was last searched. It is the item readers use to judge how current the review is, and one of the easiest to leave out.
It keeps the items of the 2013 PRISMA for Abstracts statement, rewords them to match PRISMA 2020, and adds one new item (item 6) asking authors to specify the methods used to present and synthesise results.
PRISMA's abstract checklist does not name heterogeneity as a separate item, but item 8 asks for the summary estimate and its interval, and item 9 asks for limitations such as inconsistency. Reporting I-squared beside the pooled estimate covers both in a few characters.
Sources
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
- PubMed record for the PRISMA 2020 statement (PMID 33782057)
- PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews
Final step
Find out if this manuscript is ready to submit.
Run the Free Readiness Scan. See score, top issues, and journal-fit signals before you submit.
Private API processing. Your manuscript is not used to train models.
See example reportsPut the guidance to work
Move from draft advice to a practical manuscript pass.
Choose the reporting framework first, then use the final checklist when the manuscript and submission files are ready to travel together.