an d rep o rt ch aracteristics (e.g ., years co n sid ered. , lan g u ag e, p u b licatio n statu s) u sed as criteria fo r elig ib ility, g ivin g ratio n ale. 6. In form ation so u.
www.kjim.org 4
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Eligibility criteria
Information sources
Search
Study selection
Data collection process
Data items
Risk of bias in individual studies
Summary measures Synthesis of results
State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-analysis.
Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Describe method of data extraction from reports (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if appli cable, included in the meta-analysis).
Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
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.
Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (e.g., years consid ered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
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.
Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibil ity criteria, participants, and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis methods; results; limitations; con clusions and implications of key findings; systematic review registration number.
Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Checklist item
7,8 6,7,8
7
7,8
6,7,8
6,7
6
6
6
5
5
4
4
Reported on page #
Adapted from Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000097.
5
Protocol and registration
METHODS
3
Objectives
2
1
#
Rationale
INTRODUCTION
Structured summary
ABSTRACT
Title
TITLE
Section/topic
Appendix 1. PRISMA 2009 checklist
The Korean Journal of Internal Medicine Vol. 31, No. 5, September 2016
http://dx.doi.org/10.3904/kjim.2016.093
