What exactly does my course expect for the PRISMA flow diagram?
Before you start typing numbers into any shape, open the syllabus or the elective’s grading rubric and locate the line that mentions the “PRISMA 2020 flow diagram.” Most medical‑school systematic‑review electives require that exact phrase, and the rubric will usually list four or five sub‑items that the grader will check off. Those sub‑items are the terminology you must reproduce on the diagram itself, not synonyms you feel are more natural.
The standard boxes, in the order they appear from top to bottom, are:
- Records identified through database searching
- Records identified through other sources
- Records after duplicates removed
- Records screened
- Records excluded
- Full‑text articles assessed for eligibility
- Full‑text articles excluded, with reasons
- Studies included in qualitative synthesis
- Studies included in quantitative synthesis (if a meta‑analysis is planned)
Notice that the rubric will often underline “records” and “studies” as the exact nouns to use. Swapping “articles” for “records” or “papers” for “studies” can cause a loss of points because the grader is looking for the precise language that signals you have followed the PRISMA standard.
In addition to the box labels, the rubric may ask for a brief caption beneath the figure. The caption should identify the figure number (usually Figure 1), state that it is a PRISMA 2020 flow diagram, and note the date of the search. For example: “Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram summarising the study selection process for the systematic review protocol submitted on 28 October 2026.” Using this exact structure satisfies the “caption” criterion without needing to copy any published wording.
Below is a single‑table view of the typical rubric items and what the grader will be looking for. Keep this table handy while you fill in the diagram so you can double‑check each requirement.
| Criterion | What the grader looks for | Common mistake |
|---|---|---|
| Exact terminology | Labels match PRISMA 2020 wording (e.g., “Records identified through database searching”) | Using synonyms such as “articles” or “papers” |
| Numeric totals | Each box contains a concrete number or “0” if none | Leaving dashes, “N/A,” or blank spaces |
| Reason for exclusion | Full‑text exclusion box lists at least one reason per study | Omitting reasons or writing “not relevant” without detail |
| Caption format | Figure number, PRISMA label, and search date in one sentence | Copy‑pasting a caption from a published protocol |
| Visual integrity | Diagram is clear, shapes are aligned, and numbers are legible in the PDF | Distorted shapes or overlapping text after conversion |
When you have verified that each of these points is satisfied, you can move on to the next pain layer, which deals with the mechanics of getting the diagram into your document without breaking the layout.
How can I keep my PRISMA diagram original and avoid plagiarism flags?
Even though the diagram itself is a graphic, the caption and any explanatory text are treated as prose by similarity‑detection software. The safest route is to write the caption in your own words, following the template suggested above, and to avoid copying any sentence from a published protocol, even if you cite the source. In most academic settings, reproducing a short methodological description with proper citation is permissible, but the line between acceptable paraphrase and unattributed copying can be thin, especially when the wording is highly standardized.
To stay on the safe side, treat the caption as a fresh piece of writing. Start with the figure number, mention the PRISMA 2020 version, and add the date of your search. If you need to explain a decision (for example, why you excluded a set of studies), write a one‑sentence rationale in your own voice rather than lifting it from another protocol. This approach satisfies the integrity requirement while still demonstrating that you understand the reporting standards.
Another subtle risk involves the diagram template itself. Many institutions provide a Word or PowerPoint file that contains pre‑filled placeholder text such as “Enter number here.” If you simply delete the placeholder and leave the shape empty, the similarity checker may flag the empty field as missing content, and the grader will deduct points for incompleteness. The critical warning here is to replace every placeholder with an actual numeric value or a zero, never with a dash or the word “none.”
When you export the final document to PDF, double‑check that the diagram remains embedded as a high‑resolution image. Some plagiarism tools rasterise PDFs and can still read embedded text if the caption is placed inside the image rather than as a separate paragraph. Keep the caption as normal document text beneath the figure; this ensures the tool analyses it correctly and that the grader can read it without zooming.
If you decide to look at published protocols for inspiration, do so only to understand the structure, not to copy phrasing. Take note of how they list reasons for exclusion, then craft your own list based on the specific studies you screened. This method respects intellectual property while giving you a concrete example of what a complete exclusion box looks like.
What quick plan can I follow tonight to finish the diagram?
Time is limited, so break the task into three short bursts: data collection, diagram population, and final polish. Each burst should last no more than 45 minutes, with a 5‑minute break in between to keep your mind fresh.
- Gather the counts. Open the search log you used for the systematic review. Count the total records retrieved from each database (e.g., PubMed, Embase, Cochrane). Add any records found through hand‑searching, conference abstracts, or reference list mining. Write these three numbers on a sticky note or a quick text file. Then, note how many duplicates you removed, how many titles/abstracts you screened, and how many full‑text articles you assessed. Finally, list the studies you intend to include in the qualitative synthesis and, if applicable, the quantitative synthesis.
- Populate the template. Launch the official PRISMA 2020 Word template provided by your school. Click inside each rectangle and type the numbers you just recorded. If a stage has zero records, type “0” rather than leaving the box blank. For the “Full‑text articles excluded” box, write a brief reason for each exclusion (e.g., “Wrong population,” “Insufficient follow‑up”). Keep each reason to a few words; the grader only needs to see that you have thought about the decision.
- Write the caption. Below the diagram, type a single sentence that follows the pattern: “Figure 1. PRISMA 2020 flow diagram summarising the study selection process for the systematic review protocol submitted on [date].” Replace the bracketed text with the actual date you ran the search. If you used multiple search dates, mention the latest one.
- Check visual consistency. Switch the view to “Print Layout” in Word, then zoom out to see the whole page. Verify that the shapes are aligned and that no text is cut off. If any shape looks misaligned, select it and use the arrow keys for fine adjustments. Save the document, then export it as a PDF. Open the PDF and scroll through the figure to ensure numbers are legible.
- Run a quick similarity scan. If your institution offers a free Turnitin preview, upload the PDF of just the caption and any accompanying narrative. The scan should return a low similarity score if you have written the caption yourself. If the score is unexpectedly high, revisit the wording and replace any phrase that feels too close to a source you consulted.
By the end of these steps you will have a fully populated PRISMA flow diagram that meets the terminology, formatting, and originality standards outlined in the rubric. You can then focus the remaining minutes on polishing the rest of your protocol, confident that the diagram component will not hold you back.
Remember that the diagram is a snapshot of your methodological transparency. When you explain each number during your oral presentation or in the methods section, you will reinforce the same language you used in the figure, which further demonstrates consistency and reduces the chance of accidental plagiarism.