Editverse Free Calculator

Free PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram Generator

Generate the complete PRISMA 2020 flow diagram for your systematic review or meta-analysis — including optional Previous Studies and Other Methods columns. Counts auto-calculate, exports at 300/600 dpi. Browser-only: your data never leaves your device.

In Simple Words: When you submit a systematic review or meta-analysis to a journal, you must include a flow diagram showing how many records you found in each database, how many you screened, how many you retrieved, and how many you ultimately included. The PRISMA 2020 template is the internationally mandated format for this diagram — journals that follow evidence-based reporting standards will not accept a diagram that deviates from it.

This tool generates the official two- or three-column PRISMA 2020 layout based entirely on the numbers you enter. If you searched registers in addition to databases, toggle the Registers step on. If you identified studies via websites, citation searching, or organisations, toggle Other Methods on. If you are updating a previous version of a review, the Previous Studies column handles the addition of prior-version records to your totals. Every count downstream of your inputs updates instantly — you cannot accidentally create an arithmetic error that slips past peer review.

When to Use the PRISMA 2020 Flow Diagram

Use this template whenever you are conducting or reporting a systematic review, a meta-analysis, or a systematic review with meta-analysis. The PRISMA 2020 statement replaced the 2009 version and introduced the three-column layout to accommodate searches in registers (such as PROSPERO, ClinicalTrials.gov, or WHO ICTRP) and searches via methods other than databases (forward citation searching, contacting organisations, screening reference lists). Most journals publishing systematic reviews now mandate the 2020 version explicitly.

Do not use PRISMA 2020 for scoping reviews — use PRISMA-ScR instead. Do not use it for primary observational studies — those require STROBE. If you are unsure whether your study counts as a systematic review, the Test Selector can guide you.

🔒 100% private. Diagrams are generated entirely in your browser: your counts never leave your device.
Edit the counts: the diagram updates live. Boxes auto-calculate.
Suggested caption
Tip: click any box in the preview to edit its text. Your inputs autosave in this browser · data never leaves your device.
Need help with your review or manuscript? Statistical analysis from $350 · Manuscript writing from $800 · Publication support from $150 Get a quote →

Worked Examples

Example 1 — Databases and registers search, no previous studies

A review of antihypertensive drug efficacy searched PubMed (n=1,420), Embase (n=1,105), and CENTRAL (n=390), plus WHO ICTRP (n=85 records from registers). After removing 620 duplicates, 15 automation-tool removals, and 12 other removals, 2,363 records were screened. 1,890 were excluded at title/abstract stage. Of 473 reports sought for retrieval, 18 were not retrieved. Of 455 assessed, 312 were excluded: wrong population (140), wrong comparator (98), wrong outcome (74). Final included: 143 studies. Enter these numbers — the diagram completes automatically with all nine boxes and arrows.

Example 2 — Full three-column layout updating a previous review

A living systematic review update identified 42 studies in the previous version. The new search added 980 database/register records and 120 from other methods (citation searching and organisations). After deduplication and screening, 18 new studies were included from the database search and 4 from other methods. Total studies in the updated review: 42 + 22 = 64. Toggle Previous Studies to “Included,” enter 42 prior studies, and the Total Included box at the bottom auto-calculates.

Assumptions and Requirements

  • Counts must be non-negative and internally consistent. The number of reports assessed for eligibility cannot exceed the number sought for retrieval; the number included cannot exceed those assessed. The tool flags any inconsistency in red.
  • Exclusion reasons must sum to no more than the assessed pool. The reasons textarea accepts one reason per line in the format “Reason | n”. Their sum is subtracted from assessed to yield included. If the sum exceeds assessed, the tool highlights the problem.
  • Optional steps must match your methods section. If you toggle off the Registers step because you genuinely did not search registers, your methods text must state this explicitly — PRISMA 2020 checklist item 7 covers search strategy.

Common Mistakes

  • Using the 2009 PRISMA template. Many journals now reject 2009-format diagrams. The 2020 version introduced the separate Registers identification box and the Other Methods column. Check your target journal’s author instructions.
  • Mixing studies and reports. PRISMA 2020 distinguishes between studies (unique research projects) and reports (publications). The “Reports of included studies” row is separate from the “New studies included” row — do not enter the same number in both unless every study has exactly one report.
  • Inconsistent numbers across the manuscript. Every count in the diagram must match the corresponding sentence in your Methods and Results sections. Reviewers routinely cross-check these; discrepancies cause revision requests.
  • Omitting the figure caption citation. The PRISMA 2020 template requires attribution to Page et al. BMJ 2021. The suggested caption generated below the diagram includes this — copy it verbatim.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should I use k = or n = in my PRISMA 2020 diagram?
The official Page et al. 2021 template uses k = for records and studies (k denotes the number of studies), but many journals and editors accept n = as equally valid. The Haddaway online tool uses n =. This generator uses n = by default; if your journal specifically requires k =, use the click-to-edit feature to override individual box labels.
My review did not search any registers — should I omit that column?
Yes. Toggle the Registers step to “Omit.” The diagram removes the Registers line from the Identification box and updates the header band to read “via databases” only. State in your Methods section that trial registers were not searched and give a reason (e.g. the question does not concern interventions requiring trial registration).
Can I edit the exclusion reason labels?
Yes — the reasons textarea at the bottom of the form accepts one “Reason | n” entry per line. Type your actual reason labels and counts there. You can also click the exclusion box in the diagram preview to edit its text directly.
Is this the same as the Haddaway PRISMA Flow online tool?
Both implement the Page/Haddaway 2020 template. The key difference is that this tool runs entirely in your browser (no server, no data upload), exports fully editable PowerPoint native shapes, and embeds correct dpi metadata in PNG exports for direct journal submission — features the Shiny-based tool does not offer.

Related Free Tools

References

  1. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. PMID 33782057.
  2. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;134:178–189. PMID 33789819.
  3. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000100.

Need full statistical analysis and manuscript writing for your systematic review or meta-analysis? Editverse expert statisticians and medical writers deliver publication-ready manuscripts.

Get Systematic Review Support →