Towards the Best Kidney Failure Prediction Tool

A Systematic Review and Selection Aid

Chava L. Ramspek; Ype de Jong; Friedo W. Dekker; Merel van Diepen

Disclosures

Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2020;35(9):1527-1538. 

In This Article

Sidebar

Section/topic # Checklist item Reported on page #
TITLE
Title 1 Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both. 1
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. 2
INTRODUCTION
Rationale 3 Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known. Introduction
Objectives 4 Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS). Introduction
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. X
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. Methods
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. Methods
Search 8 Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated. appendix
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). Methods
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. Methods
Data items 11 List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made. Methods
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. Methods
Summary measures 13 State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means). Methods
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. Methods
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 within studies). N.A.
Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. N.A.
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. Results Figure 1
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. Table 1 and 2
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). Figure 4a and 4b
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. Table 1
Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. N.A.
Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). Figure 4b
Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). N.A.
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). Discussion
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). Discussion
Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. Discussion
FUNDING
Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. Declarations

From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097

For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org.

Comments

3090D553-9492-4563-8681-AD288FA52ACE

processing....