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

  

 Title

1

Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

Abstract

  

 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.

Introduction

  

 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.

Methods

  

 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].

Results

  

 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]].

Discussion

  

 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

  

 Funding

27

Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support; role of funders for the systematic review.