PRISMA 2020 Checklist

Scope: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

Reference: See source/archetypes/prisma-2020.yml for canonical link and provenance.

Instructions

• Use the boxes to confirm each reporting item.
• Add reviewer notes under each section as needed.

Title

• 1. Title: Identify the report as a systematic review.

Abstract

• 2. Abstract: See the PRISMA 2020 for Abstracts checklist.

Introduction

• 3. Rationale: Describe the rationale for the review in the context of existing knowledge.
• 4. Objectives: Provide an explicit statement of the main objective(s) or question(s) the review addresses.

Methods

• 5. Eligibility criteria: Specify the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the review and how studies were grouped for the syntheses.
• 6. Information sources: 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.
• 7. Search strategy: Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers, and websites, including any filters and limits used.
• 8. Selection process: 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.
• 9. Data collection process: 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.
• 10. Data items: List and define all outcomes for which data were sought. Specify whether and how results were sought for each outcome, by who, and how they were categorised.
• 11. Study risk of bias assessment: 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.
• 12. Effect measures: Specify the effect measure(s) (e.g., risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results for each outcome.
• 13. Synthesis methods: Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g., tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing them against the planned groups for each synthesis (item 5)).
• 14. Reporting bias assessment: Describe any methods used to assess the risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).
• 15. Certainty assessment: Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.

Results

• 16. Study selection: 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.
• 17. Study characteristics: Cite each included study and present its characteristics.
• 18. Risk of bias in studies: Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.
• 19. Results of individual studies: For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g., confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.
• 20. Results of syntheses: For each synthesis, present results for all outcomes that were assessed, and for each outcome, present a summary of findings and, if meta-analysis was done, an effect estimate and its precision.
• 21. Reporting biases: Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.
• 22. Certainty of evidence: Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.

Discussion

• 23. Discussion: (a) Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence. (b) Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review. (c) Discuss any limitations of the review processes used. (d) Discuss the implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.

Other Information

• 24. Registration and protocol: Provide registration information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.
• 25. Support: Specify the sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.
• 26. Competing interests: Declare any competing interests of review authors.
• 27. Availability of data, code and other materials: 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.

Notes

Reviewer notes

Provenance

• Source: See sidecar metadata in source/archetypes/prisma-2020.yml
• Version: 2020
• License: CC BY 4.0