Table 1.

Checklist for Anatomical Reviews and Meta-Analysis (CARMA)

Title	The title should include the main objective of the study, usually the primary outcome such as the prevalence of an anatomical condition, and, the study design, which in our case should be SR or SR with meta-analysis.
Abstract	The abstract should include the objective of the review, the primary and secondary outcomes, the total number of included studies, the overall and subgroup pooled prevalence results with their confidence of intervals, and the results of any association or correlation, when applicable.
Methods	The objective (s) should be clear while providing an explicit statement of the question(s) being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). In the field of anatomy, the outcome for a SR is usually a pooled prevalence from cross-sectional studies in which the subjects are individuals, cadavers and/or skeletons. Comparisons could be between different age, sex or ancestry groups, or between diagnostic-based prevalence values (e.g: cadaveric vs. radiological).
	Description of eligibility criteria such as study characteristics (PICOS) and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language). However, in anatomical epidemiology, the sample size and the number or rate of the condition should be available for a study to be included. If possible, there should be no restriction to language or years; the larger is the pooled sample size, the greater is the accuracy of the results. When possible, reasons for exclusion should also be reported.
	Description of all information sources such as databases with dates of coverage and contact with study authors in order to identify additional studies. However, electronic archives, grey literature and hand-searching could potentially be very useful for searching of related articles and in particular old anatomical publications. Such resources should also be reported.
	Description of the search strategy and reporting the full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used. Therefore, the strategy could be repeated by anyone.
	Description of the study selection process;:(a) identification of studies through database searching and other resources; (b) screened abstracts and number of duplicates removed and records excluded; (c) full-text articles excluded and full-text articles assessed; (d) number of included studies.
	The process of data collection;:description of methods of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from studies' authors.
	Risk of bias;:mainly due to underreporting of study and subjects' characteristics.
	Description of summary measures;:statement of the principal summary measures. In anatomical epidemiological research, pooled prevalence and pooled odds ratio are the main summary measures while correlation tests are rarely used. Chi-squares and proportion difference tests are also used to look for associations with other variables or to search for significant rate differences between population or subgroup samples.
	Synthesis of results;:description of methods of handling data and combining results of studies. Measures of inconsistency, such as the I2 statistic, should be reported for each meta-analysis. Generally, an I2 value > 50% is considered to suggest statistical heterogeneity, prompting a random effects modeling estimate. Otherwise, the fixed effects estimate is used.
	Additional analyses:; description of methods of additional analyses such as sensitivity analyses, mainly by analyzing the large -sampled studies, or subgroup analyses by analyzing the prevalence of the “condition” in specific population groups such as those based on sex or ancestry.
Results	Results of the study selection;:(a) numbers of abstracts screened, (b) studies assessed for eligibility, and (c) studies included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage. A flowchart could be of help if such information is not mentioned in the text.
	Results of study characteristics are best shown in table formats instead of the traditional presentation of the characteristics of each study for which data were extracted. Usually such tables include the studied population (ancestry), the type of the study (radiological, cadaveric or skeletal), the median age or the age range of the subjects, the total sample size, the sample size for each side, and the sex-based sample size, when possible.
	Results of individual studies should be reported preferably in table format for main outcomes such as the overall prevalence and study the type-, side-, sex-, laterality-, and ancestry-based frequencies for each study.
	Synthesis of results;:reporting the pooled result of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of inconsistency.
	Results of sensitivity or subgroup analyses are reported in the same way.
Discussion	Summary of the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome.
	Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
	Conclusions;:provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.