Microsoft Word - PRISMA 2009 Checklist.doc

Microsoft Word - PRISMA 2009 Checklist.doc PRISMA 2009 Checklist TITLE Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. Title page Page 1 ABSTRACT Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, Abstract participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and section implications of key findings; systematic review registration number. Page 2 INTRODUCTION Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. The first 3 paragraphs of introduction section Page3-4 Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, The last outcomes, and study design (PICOS). paragraph of introduction section Page 4 METHODS Protocol and registration 5 N/A Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration number. Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, Inclusion and language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale. exclusion criteria paragraph of methods section Page 4 Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify Search additional studies) in the search and date last searched. strategy paragraph PRISMA 2009 Checklist of methods section Page 4 Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be Search repeated. strategy paragraph of methods section Page 4 Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, Data included in the meta-analysis). extraction paragraph of methods section Page 5 Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes Data for obtaining and confirming data from investigators. extraction paragraph of methods section Page 5 Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and Data simplifications made. extraction paragraph of methods section Page 5 12 Risk of bias in individual Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was Statistical studies done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis. analysis paragraph of methods section Page 5 Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). Statistical analysis paragraph of methods section Page 5 PRISMA 2009 Checklist Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency Statistical 2(e.g., I) for each meta-analysis. analysis paragraph of methods section Page 5 Page 1 of 2 Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective Statistical reporting within studies). analysis paragraph of methods section Page 5 Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, Statistical indicating which were pre-specified. analysis paragraph of methods section Page 5 RESULTS Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions Study at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. characteristics paragraph of results section Page 6 Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) Study and provide the citations. characteristics paragraph of results section Page 6 Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). N/A Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each Study intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. characteristics paragraph of PRISMA 2009 Checklist results section Page 6 Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. Quantitative data synthesis paragraph of results section Page 6-7 Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). Publication bias paragraph of results section Page 7 Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). heterogeneity and sensitivity analysis paragraphs of results section Page 7 DISCUSSION Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to The first key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). paragraphs of discussion section Page 8 Limitations 25 The fouth Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). paragraphs of discussion section Page 9-10 Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. The last paragraph of discussion section PRISMA 2009 Checklist Page 10 FUNDING Funding 27 Page 10 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097 For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org. Page 2 of 2