National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$61.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (2011)
Board on Health Care Services (HCS)

Citation Manager

. "Appendix H: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Checklist." Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2011.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
304
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews

TABLE H-1 Checklist of Items to Include When Reporting a Systematic Review or Meta-Analysis

Selection/Topic

#

Checklist Item

TITLE

 

 

Title

1

Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

ABSTRACT

 

 

Structured summary

2

Provide 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 number.

INTRODUCTION

 

 

Rationale

3

Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

Objectives

4

Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).

METHODS

 

 

Protocol and registration

5

Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (e.g., web address), and, if available, provide registration information, including registration number.

Eligibility criteria

6

Specify 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 rationale.

Information sources

7

Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched.

Search

8

Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

Study selection

9

State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic reviews, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

Data collection process

10

Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

Data items

11

List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.

Page
304