Table 2. Assessment scores by item and breakdown for 433 PROSPERO records.
| PRISMA-P reporting item | Reported
or not applicable |
Not
reported |
Breakdown of items | Reported | Not
reported |
Not
applicable |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Section 1 Administrative information | ||||||
| 1a. Identification in the title:
Identify the report as a protocol of a systematic review |
22 (5) | 411 (95) | Identify the report as a
protocol |
22 (5) | 411 (95) | / |
| Identify the report as a
systematic review |
342 (79) | 91 (21) | / | |||
| 1b. Update: If the protocol is
for an update of a previous systematic review |
424 (98) | 9 (2) | Identify the report as an
update |
1 (0) | 9 (2) | 423 (98) |
| Section 2 Introduction | ||||||
| 6. Rationale: Describe the
rationale for the review in the context of what is already known |
38 (9) | 395 (91) | Rationale described | 44 (10) | 389 (90) | / |
| Context provided * | 108 (25) | 325 (75) | / | |||
| 7. Objectives: Provide an explicit
statement of the question(s) the review will address with reference to participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO) * |
134 (31) | 299 (69) | Population | 397 (92) | 36 (8) | / |
| Intervention | 416 (96) | 17 (4) | / | |||
| Comparator | 142 (33) | 264 (61) | 27 (6) | |||
| Outcomes | 237 (55) | 196 (45) | / | |||
| Section 3 Methods | ||||||
| 8. Eligibility criteria: 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 * |
386 (89) | 47 (11) | Study design specified * | 427 (99) | 6 (1) | / |
| Setting (condition or
domain) specified * |
410 (95) | 23 (5) | / | |||
| Population * | 429 (99) | 4 (1) | / | |||
| Intervention * | 428 (99) | 5 (1) | / | |||
| Comparator * | 392 (91) | 14 (3) | 27 (6) | |||
| Outcome(s) * | 424 (98) | 9 (2) | / | |||
| 9. Information sources: 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 * |
2 (1) | 431 (99) | Electronic database(s)
named |
431 (99) | 2 (1) | / |
| Grey literature sources | 100 (23) | 333 (77) | / | |||
| Study registries | 289 (67) | 144 (33) | / | |||
| Contact with study authors
planned or statement that contact not planned |
27 (6) | 406 (94) | / | |||
| Other: e.g. hand searching
reference lists of included studies |
152 (35) | 281 (65) | / | |||
| Planned search dates | 238 (55) | 195 (45) | / | |||
| 10. Search strategy: Present draft
of search strategy to be used for at least one electronic database, including planned limits, such that it could be repeated |
75 (17) | 358 (83) | Draft search strategy
provided |
91 (21) | 342 (79) | / |
| Search terms given alone | 100 (23) | 242 (56) | 91 (21) | |||
| Approach to limits/
restrictions reported e.g. language or dates/ statement of no limits * |
332 (77) | 101 (23) | / | |||
| 11a. Data management: Describe
the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review |
17 (4) | 416 (96) | Software named/type
indicated * |
56 (13) | 377 (87) | / |
| De-duplication planned | 42 (9) | 391 (91) | / | |||
| 11b. Selection process: 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) |
214 (49) | 219 (51) | Initial screening process
described * |
232 (54) | 201 (46) | / |
| Full paper screening
process described * |
219 (51) | 214 (49) | / | |||
| 11c. Data collection process:
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 * |
50 (12) | 383 (88) | Data extraction form | 169 (39) | 264 (61) | / |
| Data extraction process
described |
258 (60) | 175 (40) | / | |||
| Obtain missing data | 76 (18) | 357 (82) | / | |||
| 12. Data items: List and define all
variables for which data will be sought (e.g., PICO items, funding sources), any pre-planned data assumptions and simplifications |
6 (1) | 427 (99) | List of data for extraction * | 219 (51) | 214 (49) | / |
| Variables defined * | 29 (7) | 404 (93) | / | |||
| Any data assumptions
reported |
17 (4) | 416 (96) | / | |||
| 13. Outcomes and prioritisation:
List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritisation of main and additional outcomes, with rationale |
3 (1) | 430 (99) | Primary/main outcome(s)
*
specified as such |
418 (97) | 15 (3) | / |
| Primary/main outcome(s)
measure specified * |
235 (54) | 198 (46) | / | |||
| Additional outcomes
specified/ state None * |
430 (99) | 3 (1) | / | |||
| Additional outcomes:
measures specified * |
131 (30) | 180 (42) | 122 (28) | |||
| Rationale for choice of
outcome(s) |
8 (2) | 425 (98) | / | |||
| 14. Risk of bias in individual
studies: 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 * |
41 (9) | 392 (91) | No risk of bias assessment
planned, and justification provided |
4 (1) | 3 (1) | 426 (98) |
| Risk of bias tools named
for all study types included |
362 (84) | 67 (16) | 4 (1) | |||
| Outcome or study level
or both |
310 (71) | 119 (28) | 4 (1) | |||
| Domains/outcomes for risk
of bias assessment stated |
342 (79) | 87 (20) | 4 (1) | |||
| Risk of bias assessment
process described |
296 (68) | 133 (31) | 4 (1) | |||
| How risk of bias findings
will be used in the synthesis |
64 (15) | 365 (84) | 4 (1) | |||
| 15a. Synthesis: Describe criteria
under which study data will be quantitatively synthesized |
200 (46) | 233 (54) | Criteria for doing a
quantitative synthesis/ meta-analysis described * |
131 (30) | 233 (54) | 69 (16) |
| 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) |
70 (16) | 363 (84) | Summary measures * | 202 (46) | 163 (38) | 68 (16) |
| Statistical method * | 89 (20) | 276 (64) | 68 (16) | |||
| Use of fixed or random
effects or both * |
194 (44) | 171 (40) | 68 (16) | |||
| Data handling: conversion
to same format |
106 (24) | 259 (60) | 68 (16) | |||
| Data handling: missing
data |
14 (3) | 351 (81) | 68 (16) | |||
| Combining data/
exploration of consistency |
179 (41) | 186 (43) | 68 (16) | |||
| Name of software to be
used for meta-analysis |
204 (47) | 161 (37) | 68 (16) | |||
| 15c. Describe any proposed
additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression) |
84 (19) | 349 (81) | Subgroup analyses
planned: co-variants named * |
344 (79) | 21 (5) | 68 (16) |
| Methods for subgroup
analyses reported |
25 (6) | 280 (65) | 128 (29) | |||
| Sensitivity analyses
planned |
85 (19) | 280 (65) | 68 (16) | |||
| 15d. If quantitative synthesis is not
appropriate, describe the type of summary planned * |
227 (52) | 206 (48) | Descriptive, narrative,
or qualitative synthesis planned |
194 (45) | 55 (12) | 184 (43) |
| Descriptive, narrative
or qualitative synthesis methods described |
49 (11) | 200 (46) | 184 (43) | |||
| Other analyses planned | 3 (1) | 11 (3) | 419 (96) | |||
| 16. Meta-bias(es): Specify any
planned assessment of meta- bias(es) (e.g., publication bias across studies, selective reporting within studies) |
72 (17) | 361 (83) | Publication bias to be
assessed |
94 (21) | 271 (63) | 68 (16) |
| Outcome reporting bias to
be assessed |
4 (1) | 361 (83) | 68 (16) | |||
| 17. Confidence in cumulative
evidence: Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (e.g., GRADE) |
37 (9) | 396 (91) | Overall assessment of
included studies planned |
40 (9) | 393 (91) | / |
| Methods specified | 38 (9) | 395 (91) | / | |||
* Item/element required in PROSPERO *Item/element identified in PROSPERO but as optional