Skip to main content

Table 1 PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist

From: The effect of preoperative chemotherapy on liver regeneration after portal vein embolization/ligation or liver resection in patients with colorectal liver metastasis: a systematic review protocol

Section/topic

No.

Checklist item

Information reported

Line number(s)

Yes

No

Administrative information

Title

  Identification

1a

Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic review

4

  Update

1b

If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such

 

Registration

2

If registered, provide the name of the registry (e.g., PROSPERO) and registration number in the Abstract

54

Authors

  Contact

3a

Provide name, institutional affiliation, and e-mail address of all protocol authors; provide physical mailing address of corresponding author

6, 19

  Contributions

3b

Describe contributions of protocol authors and identify the guarantor of the review

488

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

420

Support

  Sources

5a

Indicate sources of financial or other support for the review

484

  Sponsor

5b

Provide name for the review funder and/or sponsor

No sponsor

  Role of sponsor/funder

5c

Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s), and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol

No sponsor

Introduction

Rationale

6

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

61

Objectives

7

Provide an explicit statement of the question(s) the review will address with reference to participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO)

152

Methods

Eligibility criteria

8

Specify the study characteristics (e.g., PICO, study design, setting, time frame) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) to be used as criteria for eligibility for the review

166

Information sources

9

Describe all intended information sources (e.g., electronic databases, contact with study authors, trial registers, or other grey literature sources) with planned dates of coverage

242

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

253, 683

Study records

 Data management

11a

Describe the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review

269

 Selection process

11b

State the process that will be used for selecting studies (e.g., two independent reviewers) through each phase of the review (i.e., screening, eligibility, and inclusion in meta-analysis)

277

 Data collection process

11c

Describe planned method of extracting data from reports (e.g., piloting forms, done independently, in duplicate), any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators

289

Data items

12

List and define all variables for which data will be sought (e.g., PICO items, funding sources), any pre-planned data assumptions and simplifications

303

Outcomes and prioritization

13

List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritization of main and additional outcomes, with rationale

314

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

335

Data

Synthesis

15a

Describe criteria under which study data will be quantitatively synthesized

355

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 (e.g., I 2, Kendall’s tau)

360, 390

15c

Describe any proposed additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression)

409

15d

If quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, describe the type of summary planned

368

Meta-bias(es)

16

Specify any planned assessment of meta-bias(es) (e.g., publication bias across studies, selective reporting within studies)

337, 418

Confidence in cumulative evidence

17

Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (e.g., GRADE)

348

  1. This checklist has been adapted for use with systematic review protocol submissions to BIOMED Central Journals from Table 3 In Moher D et al.: Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 Statement. Systematic Reviews 2015 4:1
  2. An editorial from the editors-in-chief of systematic reviews details why this checklist was adapted—Moher D, Stewart L & Shekelle P: Implementing PRISMA-P: Recommendations for prospective authors. Systematic Reviews 2016 5:15