Appendix A: PRISMA-P Checklist

PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015
checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*

Section and topic Item No Checklist item Criteria location within manuscript

ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
Title:
Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic See Protocol Registration and Timeline sub-
Identification 1a
review section, paragraph 1
If the protocol is for an update of a previous
Update 1b Not applicable
systematic review, identify as such
If registered, provide the name of the registry See Protocol Registration and Timeline sub-
Registration 2
(such as PROSPERO) and registration number section, paragraph 1
Authors:
Provide name, institutional affiliation, e-mail
See title page; see entry on Manuscript
Contact 3a address of all protocol authors; provide physical
Central for email addresses.
mailing address of corresponding author
Describe contributions of protocol authors and See Author Contributions section; guarantor
Contributions 3b
identify the guarantor of the review is Aaron Orkin (see title page)
If the protocol represents an amendment of a
previously completed or published protocol,
See Protocol Registration and Timeline sub-
Amendments 4 identify as such and list changes; otherwise, state
section.
plan for documenting important protocol
amendments
Support:
Indicate sources of financial or other support for
Sources 5a See Funding section.
the review
Provide name for the review funder and/or
Sponsor 5b See Funding section.
sponsor
Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s), and/or
Role of sponsor or funder 5c See Funding section.
institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol

INTRODUCTION
Describe the rationale for the review in the context
Rationale 6 See Funding section.
of what is already known
Provide an explicit statement of the question(s)
the review will address with reference to
Objectives 7 See Introduction section, paragraph 3.
participants, interventions, comparators, and
outcomes (PICO)

METHODS
Eligibility criteria
Information sources
Search strategy
Specify the study characteristics (such as PICO,
study design, setting, time frame) and report
8 characteristics (such as years considered, See Methods section.
language, publication status) to be used as criteria
for eligibility for the review
Describe all intended information sources (such as
electronic databases, contact with study authors,
9 See Methods section.
trial registers or other grey literature sources) with
planned dates of coverage
Present draft of search strategy to be used for at
See Methods section. For full search
10 least one electronic database, including planned
strategy, see Appendix B.
limits, such that it could be repeated

1
Study Records:
Describe the mechanism(s) that will be used to See Reviewers & Reviewer Training sub-
Data management 11a
manage records and data throughout the review section.
State the process that will be used for selecting
studies (such as two independent reviewers)
Selection process 11b through each phase of the review (that is, See Study Selection sub-section.
screening, eligibility and inclusion in meta-
analysis)
Describe planned method of extracting data from
reports (such as piloting forms, done
Data collection process 11c See Data Collection section.
independently, in duplicate), any processes for
obtaining and confirming data from investigators
See Review Question, Definition of Terms,
List and define all variables for which data will be
Types of Study, Date and Language
Data items 12 sought (such as PICO items, funding sources), any
Restrictions, and Study Selection sub-
pre-planned data assumptions and simplifications
sections.
List and define all outcomes for which data will
Outcomes and prioritization 13 be sought, including prioritization of main and See Summary Measures section.
additional outcomes, with rationale
Describe anticipated methods for assessing risk of
bias of individual studies, including whether this
See Risk of Bias Across Studies sub-
Risk of bias in individual studies 14 will be done at the outcome or study level, or
section.
both; state how this information will be used in
data synthesis
Describe criteria under which study data will be
15a See Synthesis of Results sub-section.
quantitatively synthesised
If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis,
describe planned summary measures, methods of
15b handling data and methods of combining data See Summary Measures section.
from studies, including any planned exploration of
Data synthesis consistency (such as I2, Kendall’s τ)
Describe any proposed additional analyses (such
15c as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta- See Summary Measures section.
regression)
If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate,
15d See Summary Measures section.
describe the type of summary planned
Specify any planned assessment of meta-bias(es)
Meta-bias(es) 16 (such as publication bias across studies, selective See Summary Measures section.
reporting within studies)
Confidence in cumulative Describe how the strength of the body of evidence See Risk of Bias Across Studies sub-
17
evidence will be assessed (such as GRADE) section.

From: Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi 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.