- Username
- Password
forgot?

iRubric: Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic re rubric

edit print share Copy to my rubrics Bookmark test run assess... delete Do more...
Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic re Checklist of items to include when reporting a systematic re Adaptation of Moher, D., Liberati. A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. (2009) The PRISMA Group, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med, 6(7). inot a Rubric Rubric Code: FXCB523 By ErinMMiller Ready to use Public Rubric Subject: Psychology Type: Writing Grade Levels: Graduate

Checklist of items to include when
	Exceptional 3 pts	Good 2 pts	Fair 1 pts	Unacceptable 0 pts
1. Title 3.7 %	Exceptional Identifies the report as a systematic review and meta-analysis	Good Limited in the identification of the report as a systematic review or meta-analysis	Fair Minimal identifiction of the report as a systematic review or meta-analysis	Unacceptable Does not identify it as a systematic review or meta-analysis
3. Introduction 3.7 % Rationale	Exceptional Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known	Good Limited description of the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known	Fair Minimal description of the rationale for the review or in the context of what is already known	Unacceptable No description of the rationale for the review.
4. Introduction 3.7 % Objectives	Exceptional Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)	Good Provides a limited statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)	Fair Provides minimal statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)	Unacceptable No statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS)
5. Methods 3.7 % Protocol and registration	Exceptional Indicates if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (such as web address), and provides registration information including registration number	Good	Fair	Unacceptable No Indication if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed
6. Methods 3.7 % Eligibility criteria	Exceptional Specifies the study characteristics (such as PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (such as years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale	Good Limited study characteristics (such as PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (such as years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale	Fair Minimal study characteristics (such as PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (such as years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale	Unacceptable No study characteristics
7. Methods 3.7 % Information sources	Exceptional Describes all information sources (such as databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched	Good Limited desciption of information sources (such as databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and date last searched	Fair Minimal information sources (such as databases with dates of coverage, contact with study authors to identify additional studies) in the search and no date search conducted	Unacceptable No information sources
8. Methods 3.7 % Search	Exceptional Presents full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated	Good Presents limited electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated	Fair Presents minimal electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated	Unacceptable Presents no electronic search strategy , can't be repeated
9. Methods 3.7 % Study selection	Exceptional States the process for selecting studies screening, eligibility, included in systematic review and, included in the meta-analysis	Good Limited information on the process for selecting studies	Fair Minimal information on the process for selecting the study	Unacceptable No Information on the process for selecting the study
10. Methods 3.7 % Data collection process	Exceptional Describes method of data extraction from reports: piloted forms, independently, in duplicate and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators	Good Limited descrition of data extraction from reports (such as piloted forms, independently, in duplicate) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators	Fair Minimal description of data extraction from reports does not include extraction from reports	Unacceptable No description of data extraction
11. Methods 3.7 % Data items	Exceptional Lists and define all variables for which data were sought (such as PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made	Good Limited list of variables for which data were sought (such as PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made	Fair Minimal list of variables no assumptions or identification of simplications made	Unacceptable No Variables listed
12. Methods 3.7 % Risk of bias in individual studies	Exceptional 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	Good Limited description of methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis	Fair Minimal description of the methods used for assessing risk of bias of individual studies	Unacceptable No description of the methods used for asessing risk of bias
13. Methods 3.7 % Summary measures	Exceptional States the principal summary measures risk ratio, difference in means	Good	Fair	Unacceptable No statement of prinicipal summary measures
14. Methods 3.7 % Synthesis of results	Exceptional Describes the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, including measures of consistency (such as I2) for each meta-analysis	Good Limited description of the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, including measures of consistency (such as I2) for each meta-analysis	Fair Minimal description of the methods of handling data and combining	Unacceptable No decription of the methods of data handling
15. Methods 3.7 % Risk of bias across studies	Exceptional Specifies any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (such as publication bias, selective reporting within studies)	Good Limited assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence	Fair Minimal assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence	Unacceptable No Assesment of bias
16. Methods 3.7 % Additional analyses	Exceptional Describes methods of additional analyses (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), indicating which were pre-specified	Good Limited description of any additional analyses (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), no indication of which were pre-specified	Fair Minimal description of any additional analyses	Unacceptable No Description of methods of additional analyses
17. Results 3.7 % Study selection	Exceptional Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, with a flow diagram	Good Give numbers of studies screened, limited assessment for eligibility, and reasons for exclusion at each stage, with a flow diagram	Fair Give numbers of studies screened, minimal assessment for eligibility, and reasons for exclusion no flow diagram	Unacceptable No number of studies screened.
18. Results 3.7 % Study characteristics	Exceptional For each study, presents characteristics for which data were extracted, study size, PICOS, follow-up period and provides the citations	Good For each study, limited presentation of the characteristics for which data were extracted, study size, PICOS, follow-up period and provides the citations	Fair For each study, minimal presention of characteristics for which data were extracted, study size, PICOS, follow-up period and does not provides citations	Unacceptable Presents no characteristics for data
19. Results 3.7 % Risk of bias within studies	Exceptional Present data on risk of bias of each study and, any outcome-level assessment (see item 12).	Good Limited data on risk of bias of study and any outcome assessment	Fair Minimal data on risk of bias and no outcome assessment	Unacceptable No data is presented on risk
20. Results 3.7 % Results of individual studies	Exceptional For all outcomes considers benefits or harms, presents each study as a simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals, with a forest plot	Good Limited outcomes considers benefits or harms, presents each study as a simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals, with a forest plot	Fair Limited outcomes does not considers benefits or harms. Presents each study as a simple summary data for each intervention group and does not effect estimates and confidence intervals, with a forest plot	Unacceptable No consideration of individual studies
21. Results 3.7 % Synthesis of results	Exceptional Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency	Good Presents results meta-analysis done, limited confidence intervals and measures of consistency	Fair Presents meta-analysis done, does not confidence intervals and measures of consistency	Unacceptable Does not present meta-analysis completed
22. Results 3.7 % Risk of bias across studies	Exceptional Presents results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see item 15)	Good	Fair	Unacceptable No results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies
23. Results 3.7 % Additional analysis	Exceptional Give results of additional analyses, sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression (see item 16)	Good	Fair	Unacceptable No Additional Analyses
24. Discussion 3.7 % Summary of evidence	Exceptional Summarises the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; considers their relevance to key groups (such as health care providers, users, and policy makers)	Good Limited summary of the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; considers their relevance to key groups (such as health care providers, users, and policy makers)	Fair Minimal summary of findings does not include including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; considers their relevance to key groups (such as health care providers, users, and policy makers)	Unacceptable No summary of main findings
25. Discussion 3.7 % Limitations	Exceptional Discusses limitations at study and outcome level (such as risk of bias), and at review level (such as incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias)	Good	Fair	Unacceptable No discussion of study limitations
26. Discussion 3.7 % Conclusions	Exceptional Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research	Good Limited interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research	Fair Minimal interpretation of the results. Not put into context or implications for future research.	Unacceptable No Interpretaion of the results
27. Funding 3.7 % Funding	Exceptional Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (such as supply of data) and role of funders for the systematic review	Good	Fair	Unacceptable No funding details

Keywords:

systematic review meta-analysis resrach check list

Subjects:

Types:

Discuss this rubric