Tear Levels of Inflammatory Cytokines in Keratoconus: A Meta-Analysis of Case-Control and Cross-Sectional Studies
Table 1
PRISMA guideline checklist.
Section/topic
#
Checklist item
Reported on page #
Title
Title
1
Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
1
Abstract
Structure 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; funding for the systematic review; and systematic review registration number.
2
Introduction
Rationale
3
Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
3-5
Objectives
4
Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
-
Methods
Protocol and registration
5
Indicate if a review protocol exists, if and where it can be accessed (such as a web address), and, if available, provide registration information including the registration number.
5
Eligibility criteria
6
Specify study characteristics (such as PICOS, length of follow-up) and report characteristics (such as years considered, language, and publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.
5
Information sources
7
Describe all information sources in the search (such as databases with dates of coverage and contact with study authors to identify additional studies) and date last searched.
2, 5
Search
8
Present the full electronic search strategy for at least one major database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
5
Study selection
9
State the process for selecting studies (that is, for screening, for determining eligibility, for inclusion in the systematic review, and, if applicable, for inclusion in the meta-analysis).
5-6
Data collection process
10
Describe the method of data extraction from reports (such as piloted forms, independently by two reviewers) and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.
6
Data items
11
List and define all variables for which data were sought (such as PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
6
Risk of bias in individual studies
12
Describe methods used for assessing risk of bias in individual studies (including specification of whether this was done at the study or outcome level, or both), and how this information is to be used in any data synthesis.
-
Summary measures
13
State the principal summary measures (such as risk ratio, difference in means).
6-7
Planned methods of analysis
14
Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (such as ) for each meta-analysis.
6-7
Risk of bias across studies
15
Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (such as publication bias, selective reporting within studies).
-
Additional analyses
16
Describe methods of additional analyses (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, metaregression), if done, indicating which were prespecified.
6-7
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.
7, 25
Study characteristics
18
For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (such as study size, PICOS, and follow-up period) and provide the citation.
7-8, 22
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 and harms), present, for each study, simple summary data for each intervention group and effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot.
8-12, 25-30
Syntheses of results
21
Present the main results of the review. If meta-analyses are done, include for each, confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
8-12
Risk of bias across studies
22
Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see item 15).
-
Additional analyses
23
Give results of additional analyses, if done (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses and metaregression [see item 16]).
8-12, 25-30
Discussion
Summary of evidence
24
Summarize the main findings, including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (such as healthcare providers, users, and policy makers).
12
Limitations
25
Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (such as risk of bias) and at review level (such as incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).
16
Conclusions
26
Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.
16
Funding
Funding
27
Describe sources of funding or other support (such as supply of data) for the systematic review and the role of funders for the systematic review.
16
From Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, and Altman DG; PRISMA group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Oct; 62 (10):1006-12. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005. Epub 2009 Jul 23. PMID: 19631508.
