This checklist outlines the key information to include when preparing a protocol for a systematic review. It includes administrative details like the authors and registration, as well as methods sections on eligibility criteria, information sources, study selection process, data collection, outcomes, risk of bias assessment, data synthesis plans and assessment of meta-biases. Completing this checklist ensures all important aspects of the review methodology are documented in the protocol.
This checklist outlines the key information to include when preparing a protocol for a systematic review. It includes administrative details like the authors and registration, as well as methods sections on eligibility criteria, information sources, study selection process, data collection, outcomes, risk of bias assessment, data synthesis plans and assessment of meta-biases. Completing this checklist ensures all important aspects of the review methodology are documented in the protocol.
This checklist outlines the key information to include when preparing a protocol for a systematic review. It includes administrative details like the authors and registration, as well as methods sections on eligibility criteria, information sources, study selection process, data collection, outcomes, risk of bias assessment, data synthesis plans and assessment of meta-biases. Completing this checklist ensures all important aspects of the review methodology are documented in the protocol.
This checklist outlines the key information to include when preparing a protocol for a systematic review. It includes administrative details like the authors and registration, as well as methods sections on eligibility criteria, information sources, study selection process, data collection, outcomes, risk of bias assessment, data synthesis plans and assessment of meta-biases. Completing this checklist ensures all important aspects of the review methodology are documented in the protocol.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 3
1
PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist
This checklist has been adapted for use with protocol submissions to Systematic Reviews from Table 3 in Moher D et al: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 2015 4:1
Information reported Line
Section/topic # Checklist item Yes No number(s) ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION Title Identification 1a Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic review Update 1b If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such If registered, provide the name of the registry (e.g., PROSPERO) and registration number in the Registration 2 Abstract Authors Provide name, institutional affiliation, and e-mail address of all protocol authors; provide physical Contact 3a mailing address of corresponding author Contributions 3b Describe contributions of protocol authors and identify the guarantor of the review If the protocol represents an amendment of a previously completed or published protocol, identify Amendments 4 as such and list changes; otherwise, state plan for documenting important protocol amendments Support Sources 5a Indicate sources of financial or other support for the review Sponsor 5b Provide name for the review funder and/or sponsor Role of 5c Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s), and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol sponsor/funder INTRODUCTION Rationale 6 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known Provide an explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address with reference to participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO) Objectives 7 2
Information reported Line
Section/topic # Checklist item Yes No number(s) METHODS Specify the study characteristics (e.g., PICO, study design, setting, time frame) and report Eligibility criteria 8 characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) to be used as criteria for eligibility for the review Describe all intended information sources (e.g., electronic databases, contact with study authors, Information sources 9 trial registers, or other grey literature sources) with planned dates of coverage Present draft of search strategy to be used for at least one electronic database, including planned Search strategy 10 limits, such that it could be repeated STUDY RECORDS Data management 11a Describe the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review State the process that will be used for selecting studies (e.g., two independent reviewers) through Selection process 11b each phase of the review (i.e., screening, eligibility, and inclusion in meta-analysis) Data collection Describe planned method of extracting data from reports (e.g., piloting forms, done independently, 11c process in duplicate), any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators List and define all variables for which data will be sought (e.g., PICO items, funding sources), any Data items 12 pre-planned data assumptions and simplifications Outcomes and List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritization of main and 13 prioritization additional outcomes, with rationale Describe anticipated methods for assessing risk of bias of individual studies, including whether this Risk of bias in 14 will be done at the outcome or study level, or both; state how this information will be used in data individual studies synthesis DATA 15a Describe criteria under which study data will be quantitatively synthesized If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, describe planned summary measures, methods of 15b handling data, and methods of combining data from studies, including any planned exploration of Synthesis consistency (e.g., I 2, Kendall’s tau) Describe any proposed additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta- 15c regression) 15d If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, describe the type of summary planned Meta-bias(es) 16 Specify any planned assessment of meta-bias(es) (e.g., publication bias across studies, selective 3
Information reported Line
Section/topic # Checklist item Yes No number(s) reporting within studies) Confidence in 17 Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (e.g., GRADE) cumulative evidence