Supplementary Table 1: Checklist for compliance with the review based on the PRISMA
method
Section/Topic # Checklist item Reported on
Page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta- 1
analysis, or both.
ABSTRACT
Structured 2 Provide a structured summary including, as 2
summary applicable: background; objectives; data
sources; study eligibility criteria, participants,
and interventions; study appraisal and synthesis
methods; results; limitations; conclusions and
implications of key findings; systematic review
registration number.
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the 3-4
context of what is already known.
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being 4
addressed with reference to participants,
interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and
study design (PICOS).
METHODS
Protocol and 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where 4
it can be accessed (e.g., Web address), and, if
registration
available, provide registration information
including registration number.
Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics (e.g., PICOS, 4
length of follow-up) and report characteristics
(e.g., years considered, language, publication
status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving
rationale.
Information 7 Describe all information sources (e.g., databases 4
sources with dates of coverage, contact with study
authors to identify additional studies) in the
search and date last searched.
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least 4
one database, including any limits used, such
that it could be repeated.
Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies (i.e., 4
screening, eligibility, included in systematic
review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-
analysis).
Data collection 1 Describe method of data extraction from reports 5
0 (e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate)
Process
and any processes for obtaining and confirming
data from investigators.
Data items 1 List and define all variables for which data were 5
1 sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any
assumptions and simplifications made.
Risk of bias in 1 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias 5
2 of individual studies (including specification of
individual studies
whether this was done at the study or outcome
level), and how this information is to be used in
any data synthesis.
Summary 1 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk N/A
measures 3 ratio, difference in means).
Synthesis of 1 Describe the methods of handling data and 5
results 4 combining results of studies, if done, including
measures of consistency (e.g., I2) for each meta-
analysis.
Risk of bias 1 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may N/A
across studies 5 affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication
bias, selective reporting within studies).
Additional 1 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., N/A
analyses 6 sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-
regression), if done, indicating which were pre
specified.
RESULTS
Study selection 1 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for 5
7 eligibility, and included in the review, with
reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally
with a flow diagram.
Study 1 For each study, present characteristics for which 5
characteristics 8 data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS,
follow-up period) and provide the citations.
Risk of bias 1 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if 5-6
within studies 9 available, any outcome level assessment (see
item 12).
Results of 2 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), 6-SF1
individual studies 0 present, for each study: (a) simple summary
data for each intervention group (b) effect
estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a
forest plot.
Synthesis of 2 Present results of each meta-analysis done, 6-9
results 1 including confidence intervals and measures of
consistency.
Risk of bias 2 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias N/A
across studies 2 across studies (see Item 15).
Additional 2 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., N/A
analysis 3 sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-
regression [see Item 16]).
DISCUSSION
Summary of 2 Summarize the main findings including the 9-12
evidence 4 strength of evidence for each main outcome;
consider their relevance to key groups (e.g.,
healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
Limitations 2 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level 11-12
5 (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g.,
incomplete retrieval of identified research,
reporting bias).
Conclusions 2 Provide a general interpretation of the results in 12
6 the context of other evidence, and implications
for future research.
FUNDING
Summary of 2 Describe sources of funding for the systematic 13
evidence 7 review and other support (e.g., supply of data);
role of funders for the systematic review.
