Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

    • 686 views

    PRISMA 2009 Checklist PDF

    Uploaded by

    Sunisa Khamkeaw
    This document outlines the PRISMA checklist, which provides guidance on the minimum set of items that should be included in a systematic review or meta-analysis. The checklist includes 27 items spread across a title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and funding sections. The checklist items focus on helping authors report important aspects of their systematic review such as the objectives of the review, the criteria used to select studies for inclusion, how risks of bias were assessed, methods for synthesizing results, and conclusions that can be drawn.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    PRISMA 2009 Checklist PDF

    Uploaded by

    Sunisa Khamkeaw
    686 views2 pages
    This document outlines the PRISMA checklist, which provides guidance on the minimum set of items that should be included in a systematic review or meta-analysis. The checklist includes 27 items spread across a title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and funding sections. The checklist items focus on helping authors report important aspects of their systematic review such as the objectives of the review, the criteria used to select studies for inclusion, how risks of bias were assessed, methods for synthesizing results, and conclusions that can be drawn.

    Original Title

    PRISMA 2009 checklist.pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document outlines the PRISMA checklist, which provides guidance on the minimum set of items that should be included in a systematic review or meta-analysis. The checklist includes 27 items spread across a title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and funding sections. The checklist items focus on helping authors report important aspects of their systematic review such as the objectives of the review, the criteria used to select studies for inclusion, how risks of bias were assessed, methods for synthesizing results, and conclusions that can be drawn.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    686 views2 pages

    PRISMA 2009 Checklist PDF

    Uploaded by

    Sunisa Khamkeaw
    This document outlines the PRISMA checklist, which provides guidance on the minimum set of items that should be included in a systematic review or meta-analysis. The checklist includes 27 items spread across a title, abstract, introduction, methods, results, discussion and funding sections. The checklist items focus on helping authors report important aspects of their systematic review such as the objectives of the review, the criteria used to select studies for inclusion, how risks of bias were assessed, methods for synthesizing results, and conclusions that can be drawn.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    PRISMA 2009 Checklist

    Section/topic

    Reported
    on page #

    Checklist item

    Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

    Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria,
    participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and
    implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.

    Rationale

    Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

    Objectives

    Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons,
    outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

    Protocol and registration

    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

    Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered,
    language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

    Information sources

    Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify
    additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

    Search

    Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be
    repeated.

    Study selection

    State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable,
    included in the meta-analysis).

    TITLE
    Title

    ABSTRACT
    Structured summary

    INTRODUCTION

    METHODS

    Data collection process

    10

    Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes
    for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

    Data items

    11

    List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and
    simplifications made.

    Risk of bias in individual


    studies

    12

    Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was
    done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.

    Summary measures

    13

    State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).

    Synthesis of results

    14

    Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency
    2
    (e.g., I ) for each meta-analysis.
    Page 1 of 2

    PRISMA 2009 Checklist


    Section/topic

    Reported
    on page #

    Checklist item

    Risk of bias across studies

    15

    Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective
    reporting within studies).

    Additional analyses

    16

    Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating
    which were pre-specified.

    Study selection

    17

    Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at
    each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.

    Study characteristics

    18

    For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and
    provide the citations.

    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).

    Results of individual studies

    20

    For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each
    intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.

    Synthesis of results

    21

    Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.

    Risk of bias across studies

    22

    Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15).

    Additional analysis

    23

    Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]).

    Summary of evidence

    24

    Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to
    key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).

    Limitations

    25

    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).

    Conclusions

    26

    Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.

    27

    Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the
    systematic review.

    RESULTS

    DISCUSSION

    FUNDING
    Funding

    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(7): e1000097.
    doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

    For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org.


    Page 2 of 2

    You might also like