Checklist for reporting a protocol of a systematic review and meta analysis

This checklist is relevant to protocols of systematic reviews and is based on the PRISMA-P statement  Read more


Complete now

Or download and complete offline

Instructions

Complete this checklist by entering the page numbers from your manuscript where readers will find each of the items listed below.

Your article may not currently address all the items on the checklist. Please modify your text to include the missing information. If you are certain that an item does not apply, please write "n/a" and provide a short explanation.

Download your completed checklist and include it as an extra file when you submit to a journal.

Title

1a

Identification

Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic review.

1b

Update

If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such.

Registration

2.

If registered, provide the name of the registry (such as PROSPERO) and registration number.

Authors

3a

Contact

Provide name, institutional affiliation, e-mail address of all protocol authors; provide physical mailing address of corresponding author.

3b

Contribution

Describe contributions of protocol authors and identify the guarantor of the review.

Amendments

4.

If the protocol represents an amendment of a previously completed or published protocol, identify as such and list changes; otherwise, state plan for documenting important protocol amendments.

Support

5a

Sources

Indicate sources of financial or other support for the review.

5b

Sponsor

Provide name for the review funder and / or sponsor.

5c

Role of sponsor or funder

Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s), and / or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol.

Introduction

6.

Rationale

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

7.

Objectives

Provide an explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address with reference to participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO).

Methods

8.

Eligibility criteria

Specify the study characteristics (such as PICO, study design, setting, time frame) and report characteristics (such as years considered, language, publication status) to be used as criteria for eligibility for the review.

9.

Information sources

Describe all intended information sources (such as electronic databases, contact with study authors, trial registers or other grey literature sources) with planned dates of coverage.

10.

Search strategy

Present draft of search strategy to be used for at least one electronic database, including planned limits, such that it could be repeated.

11a

Study records - data management

Describe the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review.

11b

Study records - selection process

State the process that will be used for selecting studies (such as two independent reviewers) through each phase of the review (that is, screening, eligibility and inclusion in meta-analysis).

11c

Study records - data collection process

Describe planned method of extracting data from reports (such as piloting forms, done independently, in duplicate), any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

12.

Data items

List and define all variables for which data will be sought (such as PICO items, funding sources), any pre-planned data assumptions and simplifications.

13.

Outcomes and prioritization

List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritization of main and additional outcomes, with rationale.

14.

Risk of bias in individual studies

Describe anticipated methods for assessing risk of bias of individual studies, including whether this will be done at the outcome or study level, or both; state how this information will be used in data synthesis.

15a

Data synthesis

Describe criteria under which study data will be quantitatively synthesised.

15b

Data synthesis

If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, describe planned summary measures, methods of handling data and methods of combining data from studies, including any planned exploration of consistency (such as I2, Kendall’s τ).

15c

Data synthesis

Describe any proposed additional analyses (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression).

15d

Data synthesis

If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, describe the type of summary planned.

16.

Meta-bias(es)

Specify any planned assessment of meta-bias(es) (such as publication bias across studies, selective reporting within studies).

17.

Confidence in cumulative evidence

Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (such as GRADE).


To acknowledge this checklist in your methods, please state "We used the PRISMA-P checklist when writing our report [citation]". Then cite this checklist as Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):1..


The PRISMA-P elaboration and explanation paper is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY