Table 2.

 Substantive specific changes between the QUOROM checklist and the PRISMA checklist (a tick indicates the presence of the topic in QUOROM or PRISMA)

Section/topic and item	QUOROM	PRISMA	Comment
Abstract	√	√	QUOROM and PRISMA ask authors to report an abstract. However, PRISMA is not specific about format
Introduction:
Objective		√	This new item (4) addresses the explicit question the review addresses using the PICO reporting system (which describes the participants, interventions, comparisons, and outcome(s) of the systematic review), together with the specification of the type of study design (PICOS); the item is linked to items 6, 11, and 18 of the checklist
Methods:
Protocol		√	This new item (5) asks authors to report whether the review has a protocol and if so how it can be accessed
Search	√	√	Although reporting the search is present in both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists, PRISMA asks authors to provide a full description of at least one electronic search strategy (item 8). Without such information it is impossible to repeat the authors’ search
Assessment of risk of bias in included studies	√	√	Renamed from “quality assessment” in QUOROM. This item (12) is linked to reporting this information in the results (item 19). The new concept of “outcome level” assessment has been introduced
Assessment of risk of bias across studies		√	This new item (15) asks authors to describe any assessments of risk of bias in the review, such as selective reporting within the included studies. This item is linked to reporting this information in the results (item 22)
Discussion	√	√	Although both QUOROM and PRISMA checklists address the discussion section, PRISMA devotes three items (24-26) to the discussion. In PRISMA the main types of limitations are explicitly stated and their discussion required
Funding		√	This new item (27) asks authors to provide information on any sources of funding for the systematic review.