PRISMA 2009 Checklist

Reported
Section/topic # Checklist item
on page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 1 meta
analysis
ABSTRACT
Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility 1
criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and
implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. 5-6
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, 6
outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
METHODS
Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if available, provide 7
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, 8-9
language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
Information sources 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify 7
additional studies) in the search and date last searched.
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be 7
repeated.
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, 10
included in the meta-analysis).
Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes 2
for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
Search strategy
Three electronic databases (MEDLINE, PsycINFO, PILOTS) were
searched up to 21 November 2013 using abstract or title search to
identify fully published, peer-reviewed journal articles in English,
French or German (for search terms see Fig. 1). In addition,
reference lists of earlier meta-analyses12,13,15,16 and reviews17–21
were searched using the same criteria as above.
Data extraction
Data extraction from eligible articles was performed independently
by two coders using a standardised data extraction sheet and coding
manual. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. Main coding
variables included information on study group (i.e. sample type,
PRISMA 2009 Checklist
sample n, percentage of women in sample, mean age of sample),
childhood maltreatment (i.e. childhood maltreatment type,
definition of childhood maltreatment, childhood maltreatment
measure) and depression (i.e. type of depression measure) as well
as study design.
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 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was 3 and 5
studies 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). 3
Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency 3 dan 5
(e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.

Page 1 of 2
Reported
Section/topic # Checklist item
on page #
Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective 5
reporting within studies).
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, 5
indicating which were pre-specified.
RESULTS
Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at none
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 none
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). 15-21
Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each 15-21, SI,
intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. Figures
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. 15-21
Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). 15-21
Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). 15-21
DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to 22-23
key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
PRISMA 2009 Checklist

Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of 24
identified research, reporting bias).
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. 27-28
FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the 29
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

Bagian / topik # Item daftar periksa Dilaporkan di halaman #

JUDUL
Judul 1 Identifikasi laporan sebagai tinjauan sistematis, meta-analisis, atau keduanya. 1
ABSTRAK
Ringkasan terstruktur 2 Berikan ringkasan terstruktur termasuk, jika berlaku: latar belakang; tujuan; sumber data; kriteria kelayakan studi,
peserta, dan intervensi; metode penilaian dan sintesis studi; hasil; keterbatasan; kesimpulan dan implikasi temuan kunci; nomor registrasi
review sistematis. 2-3
PENGANTAR
Dasar Pemikiran 3 Jelaskan alasan untuk meninjau ulang dalam konteks apa yang sudah diketahui. 5-6
Tujuan 4 Memberikan pernyataan pertanyaan eksplisit yang ditujukan kepada peserta, intervensi, perbandingan, hasil, dan rancangan studi
(PICOS). 6
METODE
Protokol dan registrasi 5 Tunjukkan jika ada protokol peninjauan, jika dan di mana dapat diakses (mis., Alamat Web), dan jika tersedia,
berikan informasi pendaftaran termasuk nomor registrasi. 7
Kriteria kelayakan 6 Tentukan karakteristik studi (mis., PICOS, lama tindak lanjut) dan karakteristik laporan (misalnya, tahun yang dianggap,
bahasa, status publikasi) digunakan sebagai kriteria kelayakan, memberikan alasan. 8-9
Sumber informasi 7 Jelaskan semua sumber informasi (mis., Database dengan tanggal cakupan, kontak dengan penulis studi untuk
mengidentifikasi studi tambahan) dalam pencarian dan tanggal yang terakhir dicari. 7
Cari 8 Hadir strategi pencarian elektronik lengkap untuk setidaknya satu database, termasuk batasan yang digunakan, sehingga bisa
diulang. 7
Pemilihan studi 9 Menyatakan proses pemilihan studi (yaitu, skrining, kelayakan, termasuk dalam tinjauan sistematis, dan jika ada, termasuk
dalam meta analisis). 10
Proses pengumpulan data 10 Jelaskan metode ekstraksi data dari laporan (mis., Formulir yang diujicobakan, secara terpisah, dalam
rangkap dua) dan proses untuk mendapatkan dan mengkonfirmasi data dari penyidik. 11
Butir data 11 Daftarkan dan tentukan semua variabel yang datanya dicari (mis., PICOS, sumber pendanaan) dan asumsi dan
PRISMA 2009 Checklist

penyederhanaan yang dibuat. 11-12

Risiko bias dalam penelitian individual 12 Jelaskan metode yang digunakan untuk menilai risiko bias penelitian individual (termasuk
spesifikasi apakah ini dilakukan di tingkat studi atau hasil), dan bagaimana informasi ini digunakan dalam sintesis data apa pun. 14
Langkah-langkah ringkasan 13 Menyatakan langkah-langkah ringkasan utama (misalnya, rasio risiko, perbedaan sarana). 12
Sintesis hasil 14 Jelaskan metode penanganan data dan menggabungkan hasil penelitian, jika dilakukan, termasuk langkah-langkah
konsistensi (misalnya, I2) untuk setiap meta-analisis. 13-14

Bagian / topik # Item daftar periksa Dilaporkan di halaman #

Risiko bias lintas studi 15 Tentukan penilaian risiko bias yang mungkin mempengaruhi bukti kumulatif (misalnya, bias publikasi, pelaporan
selektif dalam penelitian). 14
Analisis tambahan 16 Jelaskan metode analisis tambahan (misalnya, analisis sensitivitas atau subkelompok, meta-regresi), jika dilakukan,
menunjukkan yang telah ditentukan sebelumnya. 14
HASIL
Pemilihan studi 17 Berikan sejumlah penelitian yang diputar, dinilai layak, dan termasuk dalam tinjauan ulang, dengan alasan pengecualian
pada setiap tahap, idealnya dengan diagram alir. 15, 48, SI
Karakteristik studi 18 Untuk setiap studi, karakteristik sekarang yang diekstraksi data (misalnya, ukuran studi, PICOS, masa tindak lanjut)
dan memberikan kutipan. 41-44
Risiko bias dalam penelitian 19 Hadir data tentang risiko bias setiap penelitian dan, jika tersedia, setiap penilaian tingkat hasil (lihat butir 12).
15-21
Hasil studi individual 20 Untuk semua hasil yang dipertimbangkan (manfaat atau kerugian), sekarang, untuk setiap penelitian: (a) data
ringkasan sederhana untuk setiap kelompok intervensi (b) perkiraan dampak dan interval kepercayaan, idealnya dengan plot hutan. 15-21,
SI, Angka
Sintesis hasil 21 Hasil sekarang dari setiap meta-analisis dilakukan, termasuk interval kepercayaan dan ukuran konsistensi. 15-21
Risiko bias lintas penelitian 22 Hadir hasil penilaian risiko bias di seluruh studi (lihat Butir 15). 15-21
Analisis tambahan 23 Berikan hasil analisis tambahan, jika dilakukan (misalnya analisis sensitivitas atau subkelompok, meta-regresi [lihat
Butir 16]). 15-21
DISKUSI
Ringkasan bukti 24 Ringkaskan temuan utama termasuk kekuatan bukti untuk setiap hasil utama; pertimbangkan relevansinya dengan
kelompok kunci (mis., penyedia layanan kesehatan, pengguna, dan pembuat kebijakan). 22-23
Keterbatasan 25 Bahas keterbatasan di tingkat studi dan hasil (mis., Risiko bias), dan tingkat tinjauan (misalnya, pengambilan informasi
yang tidak lengkap, bias pelaporan yang tidak lengkap). 24
Kesimpulan 26 Berikan interpretasi umum hasil dalam konteks bukti lain, dan implikasi untuk penelitian selanjutnya. 27-28
PRISMA 2009 Checklist

PENDANAAN
Pendanaan 27 Jelaskan sumber pendanaan untuk tinjauan sistematis dan dukungan lainnya (misalnya, penyediaan data); peran
penyandang dana untuk tinjauan sistematis. 29