MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Document-Type: Worksheet Content-Location: file:///C:/7484B1E5/Shietal(334)Supplementaryfile.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="windows-1253"
PRIS= MA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protoc= ols) 2015 checklist: recommended items to
address in a systematic review protocol= *
Section and topic Item No Checklist item reported on page #
Identification 1a Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic review 1
Update 1b If the protocol is for an update of a p= revious systematic review, identify as such N/A
Registration 2 If registered, provide the name of the = registry (such as PROSPERO) and registration number N/A
Contact 3a Provide name, institutional affiliatio= n, e-mail address of all protocol authors; provide physical mailing address = of
corresponding author
Contributions 3b Describe contributions of protocol auth= ors and identify the guarantor of the review
Amendments 4 If the protocol represents an amendmen= t of a previously completed or published protocol, identify as such and list cha= nges; N/A
otherwise, state plan for documenting i= mportant protocol amendments
Sources 5a Indicate sources of financial or other = support for the review 10
Sponsor 5b Provide name for the review funder and/= or sponsor 10
Role of sponsor or funder 5c Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s)= , and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol
Rationale 6 Describe the rationale for the review i= n the context of what is already known 1
Objectives 7 Provide an explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address with reference to participants, interventions, 1
comparators, and outcomes (PICO)
Eligibility criteria 8 Specify the study characteristics (suc= h as PICO, study design, setting, time frame) and report characteristics (such= as years 2
considered, language, publication statu= s) to be used as criteria for eligibility for the review
Information sources 9 Describe all intended information sour= ces (such as electronic databases, contact with study authors, trial register= s or other 2
grey literature sources) with planned d= ates of coverage
Search strategy 10 Present draft of search strategy to be= used for at least one electronic database, including planned limits, such that= it could be 1
Study records:
Data management 11a Describe the mechanism(s) that will be = used to manage records and data throughout the review 3
Selection process 11b State the process that will be used for selecting studies (such as two independent reviewers) through each phase = of the 2
review (that is, screening, eligibility= and inclusion in meta-analysis)
Data collection process 11c Describe planned method of extracting = data from reports (such as piloting forms, done independently, in duplicate), = any 3
processes for obtaining and confirming = data from investigators
Data items 12 List and define all variables for whic= h data will be sought (such as PICO items, funding sources), any pre-planned dat= a 3
assumptions and simplifications
Outcomes and prioritization 13 List and define all outcomes for which= data will be sought, including prioritization of main and additional outcomes, with 4
Risk of bias in individual studies 14 Describe anticipated methods for asses= sing risk of bias of individual studies, including whether this will be done at the 7
outcome or study level, or both; state = how this information will be used in data synthesis
Data synthesis 15a Describe criteria under which study dat= a will be quantitatively synthesised 3
15b If data are appropriate for quantitati= ve synthesis, describe planned summary measures, methods of handling data an= d 3
methods of combining data from studies, including any planned exploration of consistency (such as I2, Kendall’s τ= )
15c Describe any proposed additional analy= ses (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression) N/A
15d If quantitative synthesis is not approp= riate, describe the type of summary planned N/A
Meta-bias(es) 16 Specify any planned assessment of meta-bias(es) (such as publication bias across studies, selective reporti= ng within studies) 7
Confidence in cumulative evidence 17 Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (such as GRADE) 6
* It is strongly recommended that this checklist be read in conjunction with the PRISMA-P Explanation and Elaboration (cite when available) for important
clarification on the items. Amendments= to a review protocol should be tracked and dated. The copyright for PRISMA-P (including checklist) is held by the
PRISMA-P Group and is distributed under= a Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.
From: Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, G= hersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart L, PRISMA-P Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and
meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015 Jan 2;349(jan02 1):g7647.
© 2020 Shi L. et al.