1. Does the paper address the importance (and methods for) identifying existing SRs or protocols on the same or similar PICOs? Yes/No; Comments

2. Does the paper address the importance (and methods) for determining whether index systematic review's PICO still addresses a current priority question? Yes/No; Comments

3. Which type(s) of replication are discussed in the paper?

3.1. Replication by repetition: a systematic review replication conducted with the same or very similar PICO as the index review

3.2. Replication by extension or narrowing of the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome

3.3. Replication by extension or narrowing of the Context

3.4. Replication by extension or narrowing of the Study designs

3.5. Replication by extension or narrowing of the Timing

3.6. Replication by extension or narrowing of the Logic model/analytic framework/causal pathway

3.7. Other

4. Does paper present any of the following as reasons for replication?

4.1. Inconsistency in findings across previous reviews? Yes/No; Comments

4.2. Inconsistency of previous systematic review findings based on theory? Yes/No; Comments

4.3. Inconsistency in the logic model/analytic framework/causal pathway between the index and replication systematic reviews? Yes/No; Comments

4.4. Potential bias in the index review: Inadequate systematic review methods Yes/No; Comments

4.5. Potential bias in the index review: Inadequate data sources? Yes/No; Comments

4.6. Potential bias in the index review: Lack of transparency in SR methods? Yes/No; Comments

4.7. Potential bias in the index review: SR author Conflict of interest? Yes/No; Comments

4.8. Potential bias in the index review: SR author Conflict of interest? Yes/No; Comments

4.9. Potential bias in the index review: Poor conduct of the SR: Yes/No; Comments

4.10. Potential bias in the index review: SR investigator factors? Yes/No; Comments

4.11. Potential bias in the index review: Other? Yes/No; Comments

4.12. Need to test the robustness of the systematic review results? Yes/No; Comments

4.13. Other reasons? Yes/No; Comments

5. Does the paper indicate quality and/or quantity of primary studies as a factor to be considered when determining whether to replicate a systematic review? Yes/No; Comments

6. Does the paper indicate the importance (and methods) for assessing whether the benefits of replication outweigh alternative uses (added value) of human and financial resources? Yes/No; Comments

7. Does the paper indicate the importance (and methods) for assessing whether the benefits of replication by extension outweigh alternative uses (added value) of human and financial resources? Yes/No; Comments