Checklist for reporting a systematic review (with or without a meta-analysis)

Identify the report as a systematic review. Read more

Report an abstract addressing each item in the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist. Read more

Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge. Read more

Provide an explicit statement of the objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses. Read more

Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses. Read more

Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists, and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies. Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted. Read more

Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, including any filters and limits used. Read more

Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. Read more

Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. Read more

List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (for example, for all measures, time points, analyses), and, if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect. Read more

List and define all other variables for which data were sought (such as participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources). Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information. Read more

Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and, if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process. Read more

Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (such as risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results. Read more

Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (such as tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)). Read more

Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics or data conversions. Read more

Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses. Read more

Describe any methods used to synthesise results and provide a rationale for the choice(s). If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used. Read more

Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (such as subgroup analysis, meta-regression). Read more

Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesised results. Read more

Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases). Read more

Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome. Read more

Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram (http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/FlowDiagram). Read more

Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded. Read more

Cite each included study and present its characteristics. Read more

Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study. Read more

For all outcomes, present for each study (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (such as confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots. Read more

For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies. Read more

Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted. If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (such as confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity. If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect. Read more

Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results. Read more

Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesised results. Read more

Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed. Read more

Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed. Read more

Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. Read more

Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. Read more

Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. Read more

Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research. Read more

Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered. Read more

Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared. Read more

Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol. Read more

Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review. Read more

Declare any competing interests of review authors. Read more

Report which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review. Read more