Home > Full Text Reviews > The Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of... > Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic...
  • We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information

PubMed Health. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.

Carroll C, Papaioannou D, Rees A, et al. The Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Prophylactic Retinal Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Retinal Detachment and Subsequent Vision Loss in Adults and Children with Stickler Syndrome: A Systematic Review. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2011 Apr. (Health Technology Assessment, No. 15.16.)

Appendix 7Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2009 Checklist

Section/topic#Checklist itemReported on page #
TITLE
Title1Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both1
ABSTRACT
Structured summary2Provide a structured summary including, as applicable, background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, participants and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; conclusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number2–7
INTRODUCTION
Rationale3Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known8–10
Objectives4Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)12
METHODS
Protocol and registration5Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g. web address), and, if available, provide registration information including registration numberAppendix 6
Eligibility criteria6Specify study characteristics (e.g. PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g. years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale14–16
Information sources7Describe all information sources (e.g. databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched13–14
Search8Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeatedAppendix 1
Study selection9Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated13–14
Data collection process10Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g. piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators14
Data items11List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g. PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications madeAppendix 2
Risk of bias in individual studies12Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis15–16
Summary measures13State the principal summary measures (e.g. risk ratio, difference in means)16
Synthesis of results14Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g. I2) for each meta-analysis16
Risk of bias across studies15Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g. publication bias, selective reporting within studies)16
Additional analyses16Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g. sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified16
RESULTS
Study selection17Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram16–18
Study characteristics18For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g. study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations17,19,23
Risk of bias within studies19Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12)19–21
Results of individual studies20For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms) present for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group and (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot21–22,24–28
Synthesis of results21Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistencyN/A
Risk of bias across studies22Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15)21–22
Additional analysis23Give results of additional analyses, if done ]e.g. sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression (see Item 16)]22
DISCUSSION
Summary of evidence24Summarise the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g. health-care providers, users and policy-makers)29–35
Limitations25Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g. risk of bias) and at review-level (e.g. incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)30–38
Conclusions26Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research30–41
FUNDING
Funding27Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g. supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review1–2

N/A, not applicable.

Source: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7):e1000097.

For more information visit www​.prisma-statement.org

© 2011, Crown Copyright.

Included under terms of UK Non-commercial Government License.

Cover of The Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Prophylactic Retinal Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Retinal Detachment and Subsequent Vision Loss in Adults and Children with Stickler Syndrome: A Systematic Review
The Clinical Effectiveness and Safety of Prophylactic Retinal Interventions to Reduce the Risk of Retinal Detachment and Subsequent Vision Loss in Adults and Children with Stickler Syndrome: A Systematic Review.
Health Technology Assessment, No. 15.16.
Carroll C, Papaioannou D, Rees A, et al.
Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2011 Apr.

PubMed Health Blog...

read all...

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...