It has also been widely used in occupational epidemiology and other fields, so I think it is applicable in many fields with som similarity in the structure of causation (multifactorial, complex)

Dear @Martin Lindhardt Nielsen

I agree with you 100%. But when I read the original draft of PRISMA paper and even the extension drafts its likely to be written for medical fields.

Ragards

The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses is a reporting guideline that intended to facilitate and homologising the preparation and reporting of systematic reviews.

It was firstly developed for medical SR and then used in other scientific fields. The point is that it can be applied in any case where studies comply with the characteristics required in Prisma itself.

Keep in mind that the same Prima authors said in their paper that “some modifications of the checklist items or flow diagram will be necessary in particular circumstances.”

Yes dear @Pietro Ferrara, therefor we could find several extentions for PRISMA.

A.s. Albahri indeed

I believe yes. But it is gaining recognition among social science reviewers and editors as well.

PRISMA is applicable to non-health or on-medical related fields, but you might have to modify some aspects of the flow diagram that don't apply to your field or study. See the recently released PRISMA 2020 guidelines here https://www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n71

By the way, you can also take a look at another guideline known as ROSES. It was designed specifically for systematic reviews and systematic maps in the field of conservation and environmental management. The authors highlight some limitations of PRISMA which inspired the development of ROSES Article ROSES RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses:...

Thank you for asking this question Mr A.s. Albahri because I was wondering the same thing.

Mr Chukwuma John Okolie 's reply is very helpful giving the link here to the PRISMA 2020 statement which I have looked at and found that under 'Scope of the guideline' it specifically states:

"The PRISMA 2020 statement has been designed primarily for systematic reviews of studies that evaluate the effects of health interventions, irrespective of the design of the included studies. However, the checklist items are applicable to reports of systematic reviews evaluating other interventions (such as social or educational interventions), and many items are applicable to systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (such as evaluating aetiology, prevalence, or prognosis)."

you can find more about PRISMA directly here: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

@E.E. Schiemer

Thank you for your good conclusion about the question.

According to the PRISMA 2020 statement"

"Scope of the guideline The PRISMA 2020 statement has been designed primarily for systematic reviews of studies that evaluate the effects of health interventions, irrespective of the design of the included studies. However, the checklist items are applicable to reports of systematic reviews evaluating other interventions (such as social or educational interventions), and many items are applicable to systematic reviews with objectives other than evaluating interventions (such as evaluating aetiology, prevalence, or prognosis)."

For example, I and my colleagues in landscape architecture have written several articles on landscape assessment and health effects:

• Evaluating the literature of therapeutic landscapes with an emphasis on the search for the dimensions of health: A systematic review. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113820https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0277953621001520?via%3Dihub
• Compilation of therapeutic gardens design guidelines with emphasis on promoting the health of the elderly with alzheimer's - systematic review. 10.52547/hafthesar.10.36.9