Skip to main content

Table 1 PRISMA-P checklist

From: McDonald versus Shirodkar cerclage technique in women requiring a prophylactic cerclage: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

Section and topic Item No Checklist item Line numbers of information reported
Administrative information  
Title:    
 Identification 1a Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic review 1–2
 Update 1b If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such N/A
Registration 2 If registered, provide the name of the registry (such as PROSPERO) and registration number 51–52, 108–110
Authors:    
 Contact 3a Provide name, institutional affiliation, e-mail address of all protocol authors; provide physical mailing address of corresponding author 5–24
 Contributions 3b Describe contributions of protocol authors and identify the guarantor of the review 364–367
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 323–325
Support:    
 Sources 5a Indicate sources of financial or other support for the review  
 Sponsor 5b Provide name for the review funder and/or sponsor 356–359
 Role of sponsor or funder 5c Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s), and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol  
Introduction  
Rationale 6 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known 93–104
Objectives 7 Provide an explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address with reference to participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO) 99–104
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 117–151, 158–160
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 154–159
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 Appendix 2
456–465
Study records:    
 Data management 11a Describe the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review 187–191
 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) 176–185
 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 193–202
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 204–212
Outcomes and prioritization 13 List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritization of main and additional outcomes, with rationale 214–238
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 240–280
Data synthesis 15a Describe criteria under which study data will be quantitatively synthesized 282–291
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) 285–291
15c Describe any proposed additional analyses (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression) 312–315
15d If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, describe the type of summary planned N/A
Meta-bias(es) 16 Specify any planned assessment of meta-bias(es) (such as publication bias across studies, selective reporting within studies) 308–310
Confidence in cumulative evidence 17 Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (such as GRADE) 265–280