Skip to main content

Table 3 PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol* [29]

From: External validation of type 2 diabetes computer simulation models: definitions, approaches, implications and room for improvement—a protocol for a systematic review

Section and topic Item No Checklist item PAGE NUMBER (SUBMITTED MANUSCRIPT) AND AUTHOR’S RESPONSE (KO)
ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION
 Title:
  Identification 1a Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic review See page 1, Title: External validation of type 2 diabetes computer simulation models: definitions, approaches, implications and room for improvement—a protocol for a systematic review
  Update 1b If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such Not applicable
 Registration 2 If registered, provide the name of the registry (such as PROSPERO) and registration number See page 2, Section: Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42017069983.
 Authors:
  Contact 3a Provide name, institutional affiliation, e-mail address of all protocol authors; provide physical mailing address of corresponding author See page 1
Section: Author’s affiliations
  Contributions 3b Describe contributions of protocol authors and identify the guarantor of the review See page 13, Section: Authors’ contributions
  Amendments 4 If the protocol represents an amendment of a previously completed or published protocol, identify as such and list changes; otherwise, state plan for documenting important protocol amendments See page 13, Section: Protocol amendments
 Support:
  Sources 5a Indicate sources of financial or other support for the review See page 13, Section: Funding
  Sponsor 5b Provide name for the review funder and/or sponsor Not applicable
  Role of sponsor or funder 5c Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s), and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol Not applicable
INTRODUCTION
 Rationale 6 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known See pages 2 and 4, Section: Background and Study objectives and rationale
 Objectives 7 Provide an explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address with reference to participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO) Not applicable
METHODS
 Eligibility criteria 8 Specify the study characteristics (such as PICO, study design, setting, time frame) and report characteristics (such as years considered, language, publication status) to be used as criteria for eligibility for the review See page 5, Section: Eligibility criteria
 Information sources 9 Describe all intended information sources (such as electronic databases, contact with study authors, trial registers or other grey literature sources) with planned dates of coverage See page 8, Section: Information Sources
 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 repeated See Table 2. Search strategy for MEDLINE (via PubMed)
 Study records:
  Data management 11a Describe the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review See page 10, Section: Technical tools
  Selection process 11b State the process that will be used for selecting studies (such as two independent reviewers) through each phase of the review (that is, screening, eligibility and inclusion in meta-analysis) See page 10, Section: Study selection
  Data collection process 11c Describe planned method of extracting data from reports (such as piloting forms, done independently, in duplicate), any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators See page 11, Section: Data extraction
  Data items 12 List and define all variables for which data will be sought (such as PICO items, funding sources), any pre-planned data assumptions and simplifications See Additional file 2
  Outcomes and prioritization 13 List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritization of main and additional outcomes, with rationale Not applicable
  Risk of bias in individual studies 14 Describe anticipated methods for assessing risk of bias of individual studies, including whether this will be done at the outcome or study level, or both; state how this information will be used in data synthesis Not applicable
  Data synthesis 15a Describe criteria under which study data will be quantitatively synthesised Not applicable
15b If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, describe planned summary measures, methods of handling data and methods of combining data from studies, including any planned exploration of consistency (such as I2, Kendall’s τ) Not applicable
15c Describe any proposed additional analyses (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression) Not applicable
15d If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, describe the type of summary planned See page 12, Section: Data synthesis
  Meta-bias(es) 16 Specify any planned assessment of meta-bias(es) (such as publication bias across studies, selective reporting within studies) Not applicable
  Confidence in cumulative evidence 17 Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (such as GRADE) Not applicable
  1. * 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