Blank PRISMA Flow Diagram Template — an alternative version of the PRISMA Flow Diagram for Systematic Reviews, generated by AI and fully editable. Download the PNG for quizzes, homework or slides.
✓ Accurate labels ✓ Edit text after generation ✓ PNG for papers, posters & slides
OUTPUT · 16:9 · PNGThis blank PRISMA flow diagram template preserves the full black-and-white structure of a PRISMA 2020 study-selection flowchart, including the Identification, Screening, Eligibility, and Included stages, their boxes, arrows, and stage labels. Unlike the standard main diagram, which displays completed study counts and specific exclusion reasons, every numerical field here appears as n = ___. The exclusion boxes also use placeholders such as "Reason for exclusion 1: n = ___." This version is designed for completion rather than immediate interpretation, allowing learners and researchers to supply data without rebuilding the diagram.
Read the template from top to bottom, following the arrows as records move from database or register identification through duplicate removal, title-and-abstract screening, full-text eligibility assessment, and final inclusion. Enter a count in each n = ___ field, then check that totals remain consistent after every removal or exclusion step. In the right-hand boxes, replace each generic exclusion-reason line with a precise category and its count. Use this blank version when the purpose is to calculate, practise, plan, or handwrite the selection data; use the standard completed figure when reporting final review results.
The boxes, arrows, and selection stages are retained, but completed counts and review-specific exclusion reasons are removed. Every quantity is shown as n = ___, so the figure functions as a worksheet or drafting framework rather than a finished report.
Only after every placeholder has been replaced with verified counts and specific exclusion reasons. Before submission, confirm that the pathway matches the actual search sources and selection process, that totals reconcile between boxes, and that terminology is consistent with the reporting guidance used by the review.