Editorial Checklist Review

General

• Is the review well structured and clearly written? Yes No

• Where there any important and relevant issues that were not
  considered in the review but should have been considered? Yes No
  
  If Yes, for example: ___________________________________________

Synopsis

• Is the synopsis well structured and clearly written? Yes No

• Does the synopsis adequately reflect the results of the review? Yes No

Abstract

• Is the clinical question explicitly stated in the objectives? Yes No

• Are the databases and other information sources given? Yes No

• Are the search strategy, selection criteria and methods for
  data collection and analysis clearly stated? Yes No

• Does the result section summarise the characteristics of the
  studies included and excluded; number of trials and participants
  included; qualitative and quantitative findings and subgroup
  analysis? Yes No

• Do the conclusions reflect the results? Yes No

• Do all sections accurately reflect sections in the full review? Yes No

Background

See protocol

Objectives

See protocol

Criteria for considering studies for this review

See protocol

Search strategy for identification of studies

See protocol

Methods of the review

See protocol

Assessment of study quality

See protocol

Data collection

See protocol

Analysis (data synthesis)

See protocol

Description of studies

See protocol

• Were the reasons for excluding studies reported? Yes No

• Are you aware of any other trials to be included? Yes No

Methodological quality of the included studies

• Is it stated how consensus was reached on the quality
  assessment? Yes No

• Are relevant components of study quality presented and
  discussed? Yes No

Results

• Is missing information regarding outcomes and other variables
  described? Yes No

• Is the amount of missing information large enough to be a
  threat to the validity of the results? Yes No

• Is there an appropriate rationale given for combining or not
  combining studies quantitatively? Yes No

• If meta-analysis has been performed, was this appropriate? Yes No

• Are important sources of clinical or methodological heterogeneity
  considered (or accounted for) in the analysis? Yes No

• Have subgroup analysis been performed according to
  the description in the protocol? Yes No

• Have sensitivity analysis been performed according to
  the description in the protocol? Yes No

• Are study characteristics, such as study design, considered
  in the synthesis? Yes No

• Are the results sensitive to changes in the way the analysis
  is done? Yes No

Discussion

• Were (data) limitations and inconsistencies stated or discussed? Yes No

• Is the discussion clear and relevant given the introduction
  and results? Yes No

Conclusion

• Are the conclusions supported by the data reviewed? Yes No

• Are the conclusions clear and concise? Yes No

Implication for practice

• Do the data presented support the implications outlined? Yes No

• Have all reasonable implications of this review for practice
  been identified in this section? Yes No

Implication for research

• Do the data presented support the implications outlined? Yes No

• Is a future research agenda outlined? Yes No

Potential conflict of interest

• Does the document address conflicts of interest to
  your satisfaction? Yes No