Table 4.1 Systematic review components linked to appraisal with AMSTAR-2 and ROBIS^a

Corresponding item(s)

Research question(s)

#1

PHASE I

Appropriate for type of review (see Table 2.1).

Promotes conceptual clarity (see Table 2.1).

Protocol

#2*

#1.1, 4.2

Follows PRISMA-P; registration confirms developed a priori; deviations are documented in protocol and explained in review.

Guides authors and reviewers, limits scope, prevents arbitrary decisions, fosters collaboration, and reduces research waste.

Justification for study design inclusion decisions

#3

#1.2, 1.4, 2.3, 2.4

Explain reasons for study designs included in review.

Excessive exclusions narrow the field of vision and may introduce bias or limit the potential usefulness of research available to assess. Reviews of interventions should rarely be limited at this stage.

Evidence search

#4*

#2.1–2.4

Systematic and comprehensive without restrictions.

Mitigates author and publications bias, promotes diversity of understanding.

Methods for study selection

#5

#2.5

All three components must be done in duplicate, and methods fully described.

Helps to mitigate CoI and bias; also may improve accuracy.

Methods for data extraction

#6

#3.1

Methods for RoB assessment

NA

#3.5

List of studies excluded at full text level

#7*

#4.1

Indicate reasons for exclusion.

Improves confidence all eligible studies are included.

Study description

#8

#3.2

Research design features, components of research question (eg, PICO), setting, funding sources.

Allows readers to understand the individual studies in detail.

Tool for RoB assessment

#9*

#3.4

Use of reliable and valid tools appropriate for study design features.

Tools chosen must assess specific sources of bias required by AMSTAR-2 or ROBIS.

RoB assessment results

#12 (if MA), 13

#4.6, 3.4

Interpreted and discussed.

Allows readers to understand the details of RoB issues, optimally by each outcome investigated.

Sources of funding

#10

NA

Identified for all included studies.

Can reveal CoI or bias.

Synthesis methods

#11* (if MA), 13*, 14

#4.1, 4.3, 4.4

Appropriate methods for quantitative data with or without meta-analysis, including identification and discussion of heterogeneity.

Strengthens the ability to obtain more reliable results and make sound inferences.

Publication bias

#15*

#4.5

Explored, diagrammed, and discussed.

Publication and other selective reporting biases are major threats to the validity of systematic reviews.

Author CoI

#16

NA

Disclosed, with management strategies described.

If CoI is identified, management strategies must be described to ensure confidence in the review.