Systematic Review Checklist
The article is of interest to PCD readers.
The article fits the mission of the journal to address the interface between applied prevention research and public health practice in chronic disease prevention.
The title accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.
The structured abstract (with headings Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion) accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.
The review is systematic in that it collates and summarizes all relevant data on a particular topic.
The article is not overly influenced by the opinions and biases of the authors.
The manuscript adds substantially to what is already known about the topic.
The manuscript is clearly and concisely written and is free of jargon.
The manuscript is divided into the following sections: Introduction, Methods (including Data sources, Study selection, and Data extraction), Results, and Discussion. Each section of the manuscript includes the appropriate elements. The sections are clearly delineated.
The review was properly conducted.
The citations are up to date and relevant.
All statements requiring citations has citations.
The Acknowledgments identify funding for the study.
The article has no more than 3,500 words. There is no limit to the number of references.
The abstract accurately reflects the content of the manuscript.
The abstract has the following sections: Introduction, Methods, Results, and Conclusion.
The abstract has no more than 300 words.
The review question is stated.
The importance of the review question is explained.
A general reader would be able to understand the review question and its importance.
The precise primary objective of the review is stated.
This section is no more than 300 words.
The authors appear to know their subject.
The Methods section includes the following 3 subheadings: Data sources, Study selection, and Data extraction.
The search strategy is described.
The data sources are clearly identified and succinctly summarized.
The exact years searched are identified.
The search uses the most current information possible; the search was conducted no more than several months before the manuscript was submitted.
All potential data sources were considered in the search.
The exact search terms used to identify and retrieve articles are stated.
Search constraints are cited.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria for selecting studies for detailed review are described.
The specific disease, population, intervention, methodologic design, or outcome being studied is highlighted.
The method used to identify and apply the inclusion and exclusion criteria is stated (eg, consensus, multiple reviewers).
Of the studies identified initially, the proportion that met the selection criteria is stated.
The guidelines used to extract data are described.
The guidelines used to assess data quality and validity are described.
The section includes information on how the guidelines were applied (eg, independent extraction by multiple observers).
The main results of the review are stated in the first paragraph.
The results are well described.
The results are specific and relevant to the review question.
All results reported have a corresponding section in the Methods section. (In other words, for each result reported, a reader would be able to ascertain how the result was obtained by referring to the Methods section.)
For numerical results, measures of data distribution or precision (eg, SD, 95% CI, SE) are given.
Implications or weaknesses of the review and the rationale for the search and selection procedures used are not discussed in this section.
The review question is addressed.
Strengths and weaknesses of the study are objectively evaluated.
Equal emphasis is given to positive and negative findings of equal scientific merit.
A lengthy reiteration of the Results section is avoided.
Study findings are compared and contrasted with findings of similar studies.
Unexpected findings are mentioned with suggested explanations.
Limitations of the study are discussed.
The generalizability of the results is discussed.
Implications for public health are discussed.
Speculation and overgeneralization are avoided.
If appropriate, future potential studies are suggested.
The section ends with a clear, concise conclusion that is directly supported by the study findings.
The interpretation of the data is limited to the domain of the review.
Tables and Figures
The tables and figures are well constructed, easy to comprehend, and visually appealing.
There are no more than 3 tables or 2 figures or a combination of 5 items.
Information in the tables or figures is not duplicated in the text.
Information in the tables or figures is consistent with information in the text.
Numbers add up correctly.
The tables and figures are able to stand independently; they do not require explanation from the text.
The opinions expressed by authors contributing to this journal do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the Public Health Service, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or the authors’ affiliated institutions.