<p>1 PRISMA-P 2015 Checklist This checklist has been adapted for use with systematic review protocol submissions to BioMed Central journals from Table 3 in Moher D et al: Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews 2015 4:1 An Editorial from the Editors-in-Chief of Systematic Reviews details why this checklist was adapted - Moher D, Stewart L & Shekelle P: Implementing PRISMA-P: recommendations for prospective authors. Systematic Reviews 2016 5:15</p><p>Information reported Line Section/topic # Checklist item number(s) Yes No</p><p>ADMINISTRATIVE INFORMATION </p><p>Title </p><p>Identify the report as a 1 Identification 1a protocol of a systematic review</p><p>If the protocol is for an update of a previous Update 1b systematic review, identify as such</p><p>If registered, provide the 55 name of the registry (e.g., Registration 2 PROSPERO) and registration number in the Abstract</p><p>Authors </p><p>Contact 3a Provide name, institutional 3-27 affiliation, and e-mail address of all protocol authors; provide physical mailing address of 2 Information reported Line Section/topic # Checklist item number(s) Yes No</p><p> corresponding author</p><p>Describe contributions of 277-81 Contributions 3b protocol authors and identify the guarantor of the review</p><p>If the protocol represents an amendment of a previously completed or published protocol, identify as such Amendments 4 and list changes; otherwise, state plan for documenting important protocol amendments</p><p>Support </p><p>Indicate sources of financial 275-6 Sources 5a or other support for the review</p><p>Provide name for the review 275-6 Sponsor 5b funder and/or sponsor</p><p>Describe roles of funder(s), 275-90 Role of sponsor(s), and/or 5c sponsor/funder institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol</p><p>INTRODUCTION </p><p>Rationale 6 Describe the rationale for 67-76 the review in the context of 3 Information reported Line Section/topic # Checklist item number(s) Yes No</p><p> what is already known</p><p>Provide an explicit 74-6 statement of the question(s) the review will address with Objectives 7 reference to participants, interventions, comparators, and outcomes (PICO)</p><p>METHODS </p><p>Specify the study 85-146 characteristics (e.g., PICO, study design, setting, time frame) and report Eligibility criteria 8 characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) to be used as criteria for eligibility for the review</p><p>Describe all intended 147-60 information sources (e.g., electronic databases, Information sources 9 contact with study authors, trial registers, or other grey literature sources) with planned dates of coverage</p><p>Search strategy 10 Present draft of search 161-78 strategy to be used for at Additional file 2 least one electronic 4 Information reported Line Section/topic # Checklist item number(s) Yes No</p><p> database, including planned limits, such that it could be repeated</p><p>STUDY RECORDS </p><p>Describe the mechanism(s) 179-81 that will be used to manage Data management 11a records and data throughout the review</p><p>State the process that will 182-93 be used for selecting studies (e.g., two independent Selection process 11b reviewers) through each phase of the review (i.e., screening, eligibility, and inclusion in meta-analysis)</p><p>Describe planned method of 194-203 extracting data from reports (e.g., piloting forms, done Data collection 11c independently, in duplicate), process any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators</p><p>List and define all variables 196-9 for which data will be sought Additional file 2 (e.g., PICO items, funding Data items 12 sources), any pre-planned data assumptions and simplifications 5 Information reported Line Section/topic # Checklist item number(s) Yes No</p><p>List and define all outcomes 196-9 for which data will be Additional file 2 Outcomes and sought, including 13 prioritization prioritization of main and additional outcomes, with rationale</p><p>Describe anticipated 204-18 methods for assessing risk of bias of individual studies, Risk of bias in including whether this will 14 individual studies be done at the outcome or study level, or both; state how this information will be used in data synthesis</p><p>DATA</p><p>Synthesis Describe criteria under 15a which study data will be quantitatively synthesized</p><p>15b If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, describe planned summary measures, methods of handling data, and methods of combining data from studies, including any planned exploration of consistency (e.g., I 2, Kendall’s tau) 6 Information reported Line Section/topic # Checklist item number(s) Yes No</p><p>Describe any proposed additional analyses (e.g., 15c sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression)</p><p>If quantitative synthesis is 219-35 not appropriate, describe 15d the type of summary planned</p><p>Specify any planned assessment of meta- bias(es) (e.g., publication Meta-bias(es) 16 bias across studies, selective reporting within studies)</p><p>Describe how the strength 237-43 Confidence in 17 of the body of evidence will cumulative evidence be assessed (e.g., GRADE)</p>