Cochrane Upper Gastrointestinal and Pancreatic Diseases Group

Peer Referee Assessment of a Systematic Review

Title of review: Name of Lead Author: Date sent to editors and external reviewers: Date comments due: Name of Editor/external peer reviewer:

 Please use the numbered headings as guidance on the areas you should cover when giving comment.

 All of your comments will be returned to the authors of the review and the authors will be aware of your identity unless you specifically request otherwise.

 When commenting on the review, we urge you to make specific suggestions for any changes that will help authors to make revisions.

 Please ensure that you number each of the points that you feel the authors should respond to. This will make it much easier for the authors to organize their replies, and for us to check their revised manuscript.

 You will note that there is no place to indicate whether the protocol should be “accepted” or “rejected.” Our goal is to work with the authors to make their work acceptable for inclusion in the Cochrane Library.

1. General Comments

(Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

2. Terminology  Is the terminology acceptable? (copy the and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No (Please continue on a separate sheet if necessary)

0be4ce9ff0982f25a3a16d5771f5a561.doc 3. Plain Language Summary . Is the synopsis clear and concise? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

4. Abstract . Is the abstract clear and concise? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

5. Background . Does the Background include the biological and health care rationale for the intervention under study? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No (Please note that the review has already been refereed during protocol stage and therefore its background, objectives, selection criteria, search strategy and methods have been through peer review) (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

6. Objectives . Are review questions well formulated with specified key components? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Were major changes in review questions avoided during the review process? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

7. Selection Criteria . Are appropriate inclusion/exclusion criteria used to select articles? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are selection criteria applied in a manner that limits bias? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are major changes in selection criteria avoided during the review process? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No a. Types of Studies (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

b. Types of Participants (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

c. Types of Interventions (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

0be4ce9ff0982f25a3a16d5771f5a561.doc d. Types of Outcome measures (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

8. Search Strategy . Is there a thorough search for relevant data using appropriate sources? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Is the search unbiased, explicit and appropriately matched to the question? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are you aware of any other trials that should be included? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

9. Methods of the Review Have the reviewers discussed all of the elements that should be covered in the methods section ie. timeline for completion of the review, methods of locating and selecting trials, critical appraisal/quality assessment, methods of collection of data, analysis and presentation, improving and updating the review Yes  No  (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

10. Description of Studies (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

11. Methodological Quality of Included Studies . Is the validity of included studies addressed in a reliable reproducible way? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are important parameters (eg. setting, population, design) that could affect the study results systematically addressed? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

12. Results . Have attempts been made to retrieve missing information? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are important parameters, such as design, considered in the analysis? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are the subgroup analyses (if used) appropriate? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are reasonable decisions made concerning whether/how to combine data? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate

0be4ce9ff0982f25a3a16d5771f5a561.doc response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are results sensitive to changes in the way analysis was done (for example, are the inclusion criteria including participants, interventions and outcomes similar enough to allow combination of the data)? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Is the precision of the results reported? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

13. Discussion . Are limitations of studies and the review process stated? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are review findings integrated within the context of indirect evidence? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

14. Conclusions . Are the conclusions supported by the data reviewed? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Is evidence appropriately interpreted as inconclusive (no evidence of effect) or as showing a particular strategy did not work (evidence of no effect)? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are important considerations for decisions makers identified, including values and contextual factors that might influence decisions? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No . Are the implications practical and valid? (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate response if you are filling in the form on your PC). Yes No a. Implications for Practice (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

b. Implications for Research (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

15. References (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

16. Tables and Graphs (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

17. Differences between Protocol and Review  Have the authors completed the review as they intended by what is written in the protocol? If not, have they adequately detailed the reasons for deviating from the protocol?

0be4ce9ff0982f25a3a16d5771f5a561.doc (Begin writing here and the box will expand automatically as you write)

In the light of the comments you have made, please give an overall opinion of the review (copy the  and paste next to the appropriate statement). (i) Acceptable for publication in its present form (ii) Acceptable for publication with minor revisions (iii) Acceptable for publication with substantial revisions

0be4ce9ff0982f25a3a16d5771f5a561.doc Checklist for Refereeing Systematic Reviews for the Cochrane UGPD Group

Preparing a review involves judgements at each step in the review process. Both systematic and random errors can occur. The following checklist may be useful as a guide and you may wish to structure your comments around these guidelines. The checklist includes points which are relevant to completed reviews, therefore not all of the points will apply to referees of Protocols.

Problem Formulation  Are review questions well formulated with specified key components?  Is the specific purpose (question to be answered) stated?  Are the comparison groups clearly stated?  Were major changes in review questions avoided during the review process?

Study Identification  Is there a thorough search for relevant data using appropriate sources?  Are there unbiased explicit searching strategies used to find evidence (primary studies) that are appropriately matched to the question?  Is the search strategy for evidence reasonably comprehensive?

Study Selection  Are appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select articles?  Are selection criteria applied in a manner that limits bias?  Are major changes in selection criteria avoided during the review process?  Are explicit criteria used for deciding which studies to include in the review?  Are the reasons for excluding studies from the review reported?  Is bias in the selection of articles likely to be avoided?

Appraisal of Studies  Is the validity of individual studies addressed in a reliable manner?  Are important parameters (e.g., setting, study population, study design) that could affect study results systematically addressed?  Is the quality of all the studies to be reviewed assessed using appropriate criteria? - Are the criteria used for assessing the quality of the studies reported?

Data Collection  Is there a minimal amount of missing information regarding outcomes and other variables considered key to interpretation of results?

Data Synthesis  Are the methods used (regardless of whether they are qualitative or quantitative) to combine the findings of the relevant studies reported  Are important parameters, such as study designs, considered in the synthesis?  Are reasonable decisions made concerning whether and how to combine data - Are the methods used to combine the findings of the relevant studies appropriate to the questions to be answered by the review?  Are results sensitive to changes in the way the analysis was done?  Is the precision of results reported?

Discussion  Are limitations of studies and the review process stated?  Are review findings integrated within the context of relevant indirect evidence?

Conclusions  Are conclusions supported by the data reviewed?  Are plausible competing explanations of observed effects addressed?  Is evidence appropriately interpreted as inconclusive (no evidence of effect) or as showing a particular strategy did not work (evidence of no effect)?  Are important considerations for decision makers identified, including values and contextual factors that might influence decisions?

0be4ce9ff0982f25a3a16d5771f5a561.doc