Skip to main content

Table 1 PRISMA checklist

From: A systematic review of double-bundle versus single-bundle posterior cruciate ligament reconstruction

Section/Topic # Checklist item
 Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
 Structured summary 2 Provide a structured summary including, as 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.
 Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
 Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design.
 Protocol and registration 5 Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed [e.g., Web address], and, if available, provide registration information including registration number.
 Eligibility criteria 6 Specify study characteristics [e.g., PICOS, length of follow-up] and report characteristics [e.g., years considered, language, publication status] used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
 Information sources 7 Describe all information sources [e.g., databases 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 one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
 Study selection 9 State the process for selecting studies [i.e., screening, eligibility, included in systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis].
 Data collection process 10 Describe method of data extraction from reports [e.g., piloted forms, independently, in duplicate] and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
 Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought [e.g., PICOS, funding sources] and any assumptions and simplifications made.
 Risk of bias in individual studies 12 Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies [including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level], and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
 Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures [e.g., risk ratio, difference in means].
 Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency [e.g., I2] for each meta-analysis.
 Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence [e.g., publication bias, selective reporting].
 Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses [e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression].
 Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram.
 Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted [e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period] and provide the citations.
 Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment [see item 12].
 Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered [benefits or harms], 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 results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
 Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies [see Item 15].
 Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done [e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]].
 Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups [e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers].
 Limitations 25 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 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
 Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support; role of funders for the systematic review.