PRISMA 2009 Checklist
Section/topic / # / Checklist item / Reported on page #TITLE
Title / 1 / Identify the report as a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.
Comment:
Tittle: Bioelectrical impedance analysis to estimate body composition in surgical and oncological patients: a systematic review / Page 1.
Line 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.
Comment:
We performed a structured summary including all mentioned aspects. / Page 3.
Line 29 – 52
INTRODUCTION
Rationale / 3 / Describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.
Comment:
Rationale is described in detail in the Introduction / Page 4.
Line 55 – 77.
Objectives / 4 / Provide an explicit statement of questions being addressed with reference to participants, interventions, comparisons, outcomes, and study design (PICOS).
Comment:
The purpose of this systematic review was therefore to explore the variability of the equations used, and to investigate the validity of BIA estimations compared to a sound reference method in surgical and oncological patients.
P = surgical and oncological patients.
I = BIA estimations
C = reference methods
O = to explore the variability of the equations applied and to investigate the validity of BIA estimations / Page 5.
Line 78 –80.
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.
Comment:
Not applicable. The review is performed and directly sent to European Journal of Clinical Nutrition
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.
Comment:
In Subjects and Methods we described in detail the search strategy and included databases, the study eligibility criteria (the types of studies included, the included and excluded participants, and the included and excluded types of BIA devices). / Page 6.
Line 94 – 120.
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.
Comment:
Description of the search strategy: A systematic literature search was conducted in several electronic databases up to August 2012: Medline; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); EMBASE; the meta-search engine Sumsearch and CINAHL/Ebsco. The following terms were used: electric impedance; body composition; surgery; operation; oncology;and cancer. / Page 6.
Line 86 – 92.
Search / 8 / Present full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.
Comment:
Details of the entire search strategy are described in Appendix 2 and Figure 1. / Page 6 Line 91
and Page 13 Line 241 - 250.
Appendix 2.
Figure 1.
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).
Comment:
The study selection is described in detail. One review author (EBH) collected the potential studies from the various databases and screened the articles on title and abstracts. From the full texts of the selected studies, three review authors (EBH, PLMR, MAEvB) independently included the studies into this review. Disagreement about inclusion was resolved by consensus. / Page 9
Line 172 - 175.
Page 13.
Line 241 – 250.
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.
Comment:
The data extraction as well as the results of the extraction is described in detail. One review author (EBH) collected the potential studies from the various databases and screened the articles on title and abstracts. From the full texts of the selected studies, three review authors (EBH, PLMR, MAEvB) independently included the studies into this review. Disagreement about inclusion was resolved by consensus. Data were extracted by one review author (EBH) with the use of an extraction form. / Page 9
Line 172 - 175.
Page 13.
Line 241 – 250.
Data items / 11 / List and define all variables for which data were sought (e.g., PICOS, funding sources) and any assumptions and simplifications made.
Comment:
Appendix 2 describes in detail the included search terms and the included data bases. / Appendix 2.
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.
Comment:
Risk of bias and our attempt to reduce the risk of bias in the individual studies was described in both the Subjects and Methods section and the Results. / Page 10. Line 194 – 209.
Page 14.
Line 270 – 283
Summary measures / 13 / State the principal summary measures (e.g., risk ratio, difference in means).
Comment:
Performed statistical analysis and best-evidence synthesis were described in the Subjects and methods section. As this systematic review was a qualitative synthesis of the available evidence. In view of the heterogeneity of the target population, the variability of study objectives and differences in methodological quality, a meta-analysis could not be performed.
In the Results we described in detail our findings with regard to the variability of newly developed and existing general equations, and the validity of BIA estimations. / Page 11.
Line 212 – 214.
Page 14. Line 285 – 335.
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.
Comment:
The performed statistical analysis and best-evidence synthesis were described in the Subjects and methods section.
In the Results we described in detail our findings with regard to the variability of newly developed and existing general equations, and the validity of BIA estimations.
As this systematic review was a qualitative synthesis of the available evidence. In view of the heterogeneity of the target population, the variability of study objectives and differences in methodological quality, a meta-analysis could not be performed. / Page 11.
Line 212 – 214.
Page 14. Line 285 – 335..
Page 1 of 2
Section/topic / # / Checklist item / Reported on page #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).
Comment:
Risk of bias and our attempt to reduce the risk of bias in the individual studies was described in both the Subjects and Methods section and the Results. / Page 10. Line 194 – 209.
Page 14.
Line 270 – 283
Additional analyses / 16 / Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.
Comment:
The performed statistical analysis and best-evidence synthesis were described in the Subjects and methods section.
In the Results we described in detail our findings with regard to the variability of newly developed and existing general equations, and the validity of BIA estimations.
As this systematic review was a qualitative synthesis of the available evidence. In view of the heterogeneity of the target population, the variability of study objectives and differences in methodological quality, a meta-analysis could not be performed. / Page 11.
Line 212 – 214.
Page 14. Line 285 – 335..
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.
Comment:
Figure 1 shows in detail the flow of information through the different phases of the systematic review. / 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.
Comments:
Table 1 shows detail the study characteristics. Described were information about the aim of the study (development of equations and / or the validity of the BIA estimations), the body compartments of study, reference methods, and BIA estimations (applied device and applied or developed equation). / Table 1.
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).
Comment:
Risk of bias and our attempt to reduce the risk of bias in the individual studies was described in both the Subjects and methods section and the Results. / Page 10. Line 194 – 209.
Page 14.
Line 270 – 283
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.
Comment:
Details about the individual studies are described in the Results and in detail in Table 1. / Page 13.
Line 240 – 335.
Table 1.
Synthesis of results / 21 / Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency.
Comment:
This systematic review was a qualitative synthesis of the available evidence. In view of the heterogeneity of the target population, the variability of study objectives and differences in methodological quality, a meta-analysis could not be performed. The results with regard to the variability of newly developed and existing general equations are described or depicted in the Results, Appendix 3 and 4 and the Figures 2 - 4. With regard to the validity of BIA estimations, the results are also described in the Results and in Table 2. / Page 13.
Line 240 – 335.
Appendices 3 and 4, Figures 2, 3,4 and Table 2.
Risk of bias across studies / 22 / Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15).
Comment:
Risk of bias and our attempt to reduce the risk of bias in the individual studies was described in both the Subjects and Methods section and the Results. / Page 10. Line 194 – 209.
Page 14.
Line 270 – 283
Additional analysis / 23 / Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]).
Comment:
Performed statistical analysis and best-evidence synthesis were described in the Subjects and methods section.
In the Results we described in detail our findings with regard to the variability of newly developed and existing general equations, and the validity of BIA estimations.
This systematic review was a qualitative synthesis of the available evidence. In view of the heterogeneity of the target population, the variability of study objectives and differences in methodological quality, a meta-analysis could not be performed.
The results with regard to the variability of newly developed and existing general equations are described or depicted in the Results, Appendix 3 and 4 and the Figures 2 - 4. With regard to the validity of BIA estimations, the results are also described in the Results and in Table 2. / Page 13.
Line 240 – 335.
Appendices 3 and 4, Figures 2, 3,4 and Table 2.
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).
Comment:
The main findings and their implications are described in the Discussion. The Discussion described the short the included studies, the variability of equations, the validity of the BIA estimations and other aspects of influence to BIA estimations. / Page 19.
Line 372 – 526.
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).
Comment:
Limitations of the review are described in detail. / Page 23.
Line 476 – 495.
Conclusions / 26 / Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research.
Comment:
In Implications for practice and Future we described our general conclusions and the implications of our results with regard to BIA estimations in the future. / Page 25.
Line 528 – 544.
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.
Comment:
This systematic review was performed without any funding and the authors have no disclosure of interest. The authors have no disclosure of interest regarding the systematic review. / Page 25.
Line 546.
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(6): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org.
Page 2 of 2