COBE – Brazilian Centre for Evidence-Based Research

www.cobe.paginas.ufsc.br

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

REVIEW TITLE AND TIMESCALE

1. REVIEW TITLE
Give the working title of the review.

2. ORIGINAL LANGUAGE TITLE (SOMENTE PREENCHER SE FOR FAZER A REVISÃO EM

OUTRO IDIOMA QUE NÃO O INGLÊS)
For reviews in languages other than English, this field should be used to enter the title in the language of the
review.

3. ANTECIPATED OR ACTUAL 4. ANTECIPATED SEARCH DATE

START DATE COMPLETION DATE

STAGE OF REVIEW AT TIME OF THIS SUBMISSION

5. REVIEW STAGE STARTED COMPLETED

Preliminary searches ☐ ☐
Piloting of the study selection process ☐ ☐
Formal screening of search results against eligibility
☐ ☐
criteria
Data extraction ☐ ☐
Risk of bias (quality) assessment ☐ ☐
Data analysis ☐ ☐

REVIEW TEAM DETAILS

6. NAMED CONTACT / EMAIL SALUTATION FOR 7. NAMED CONTACT EMAIL

CORRESPONDENCE

8. NAMED CONTACT ADDRESS

9. NAMED CONTACT PHONE NUMBER

SR Protocol 2020. This protocol is based on Moher D et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 , PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) and University of Alberta
Library guidelines (http://guides.library.ualberta.ca/systematicreviews).
 COBE – Brazilian Centre for Evidence-Based Research
www.cobe.paginas.ufsc.br

10. ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATION OF THE REVIEW / WEBSITE ADDRESS

11. REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS AND THEIR ORGANIZATIONAL AFFILIATIONS

TITLE NAME AFFILIATION CONTACT (E-MAIL) CONTRIBUTIONS
*
Professor Completed Organisational Contact email of the authors Contributions of
, Dr, Mr, name affiliations of the authors*
Ms, Miss, each member
Mrs of the review
team.
1R
2R

3R
E
E
E
C

*1R=First reviewer (Study conceptualization and design/ Search and selection/ Data collection/ Data
analysis/ Manuscript preparation). 2R=Second Reviewer (Search and selection/ Data collection/ Data
analysis/ Manuscript preparation). 3R=Third Reviewer (Data analysis). E=Expert (Study conceptualization
and design/ Data analysis). C=Coordinator (Study conceptualization and design/ Data analysis).
All authors: Review of the manuscript.

12. FUNDING SOURCES/SPONSORS (GRANT NUMBER)

13. CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

14. COLLABORATORS
GIVE THE NAME AND AFFILIATION OF ANY INDIVIDUALS OR ORGANIZATIONS WHO ARE WORKING ON
THE REVIEW BUT WHO ARE NOT LISTED AS REVIEW TEAM MEMBERS.

REVIEW METHODS
SR Protocol 2020. This protocol is based on Moher D et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 , PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) and University of Alberta
Library guidelines (http://guides.library.ualberta.ca/systematicreviews).
 COBE – Brazilian Centre for Evidence-Based Research
www.cobe.paginas.ufsc.br

15. REVIEW QUESTION(S)

P – Participants:

I – Intervention:

C- Control:

O - Outcomes:

S – Study design:

QUESTION:

16. SEARCHES
State the sources that will be searched. Give the search dates, and any restrictions (e.g. Language or publication
period).

17. SEARCH STRATEGY

SEAR ITEMS
QUERY
CH FOUND
#3 SEARCH
#2 SEARCH
#1 SEARCH

18. CONDITION OR DOMAIN BEING STUDIED

Give a short description of the disease, condition or healthcare domain being studied.

19. PARTICIPANTS/POPULATION
Give summary criteria for the participants or populations being studied by the review. The preferred format
includes details of both inclusion and exclusion criteria.
SR Protocol 2020. This protocol is based on Moher D et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 , PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) and University of Alberta
Library guidelines (http://guides.library.ualberta.ca/systematicreviews).
 COBE – Brazilian Centre for Evidence-Based Research
www.cobe.paginas.ufsc.br

Example: Inclusion: adults with schizophrenia (as diagnosed using any recognized diagnostic criteria).
Exclusion: adolescents (under 18 years of age) and elderly people (over 70).

20. INTERVENTION(S), EXPOSURE(S)

Give full and clear descriptions or definitions of the nature of the interventions or the exposures to be reviewed.

21. COMPARATOR(S)/CONTROL

22. TYPES OF STUDY TO BE INCLUDED

Give details of the types of study (study designs) eligible for inclusion in the review. Example: we will include
randomized trials to assess the beneficial effects of the treatments, and will supplement these with observational
studies (including cohort and case–control studies) for the assessment of harms.

23. CONTEXT
Give summary details of the setting and other relevant characteristics which help define the inclusion or exclusion
criteria. Include relevant details if these form part of the review’s eligibility criteria but are not reported elsewhere in
the PROSPERO record.
Examples: studies in hospital accident and emergency departments. Research in low- and middle-income
countries only will be included.
Esse item não é obrigatório.

24. MAIN OUTCOME(S)

Give the pre-specified primary (most important) outcomes of the review. Examples: change in depression score
from baseline to the last available follow-up, measured using the beck depression inventory…

SR Protocol 2020. This protocol is based on Moher D et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 , PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) and University of Alberta
Library guidelines (http://guides.library.ualberta.ca/systematicreviews).
 COBE – Brazilian Centre for Evidence-Based Research
www.cobe.paginas.ufsc.br

24. MEASURES OF EFFECT

Please specify the effect measure(s) for your main outcome(s) e.g. Relative risks, odds ratios, risk difference,
and/or 'number needed to treat.

25. ADDITIONAL OUTCOME(S)

List the pre-specified secondary (additional) outcomes of the review, with a similar level of detail to that required
for primary outcomes. Where there are no secondary outcomes please state ‘none’ or ‘not applicable’ as
appropriate to the review. Example: apgar scores for the baby at 1 and 5 minutes after birth.

25. MEASURES OF EFFECT

Please specify the effect measure(s) for your main outcome(s) e.g. Relative risks, odds ratios, risk difference,
and/or 'number needed to treat.

26. DATA EXTRACTION (SELECTION AND CODING):

State the process that will be used for selecting studies (e.g., two independent reviewers) through each phase of
the review (i.e., screening, eligibility, and inclusion in meta-analysis). Describe planned method of extracting data
from reports (e.g., piloting forms, done independently, in duplicate), any processes for obtaining and confirming
data from investigators.
Two independent reviewers (1R and 2R) will select the included articles in two phases. Firstly (phase-
1), the two reviewers will evaluate the titles and abstracts according the eligibility criteria; secondly
(phase-2), they will view full-texts and select articles by the same criteria as phase-1; then, they will
crosscheck all the information found. If disagreements arise, a third reviewer (3R) will participate before
a final decision is made of both phases. If important data for the review are missing or unclear, an
attempt will be made to contact the study corresponding author to resolve or clarify the problem.

Two independent reviewers (1R and 2R) will collect data from the selected articles. Once selected,
they will crosscheck the retrieved information with the third reviewer (3R). The information collected will
be: author; type of study; year of publication; country; characteristics of patients (sample size, gender
and age); clinical characteristics. Any disagreement will be discussed between them.

27. RISK OF BIAS (QUALITY) ASSESSMENT

SR Protocol 2020. This protocol is based on Moher D et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 , PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) and University of Alberta
Library guidelines (http://guides.library.ualberta.ca/systematicreviews).
 COBE – Brazilian Centre for Evidence-Based Research
www.cobe.paginas.ufsc.br

28. STRATEGY FOR DATA SYNTHESIS

Provide details of the planned synthesis including a rationale for the methods selected.

29. ANALYSIS OF SUBGROUPS OR SUBSETS

State any planned investigation of subgroups. Be clear and specific about which type of study or participant will be
included in each group or covariate investigated. State the planned analytic approach.

DATABASES ADDITIONAL LITERATURE

☐ PubMed ☐ Google Scholar web search (specify if
☐ EMBASE limitations applied)
☐ Cochrane ☐ Hand searches of bibliographies from included
studies
☐ LILACS
☐ Experts
☐ Web of Science
☐ OpenGrey
☐ Science Direct
☐ Proquest (Dissertation and Theses)
☐ CINAHL
☐ Livivo
☐ Scopus
☐ Other:

DATA MANAGEMENT
☐ Endnote ☐ Zotero
☐ Refworks ☐ Covidence
☐ Mendeley ☐ Other: Rayyan

REVIEW GENERAL INFORMATION

30. TYPE OF REVIEW HEALTH

Select the type of review and the review method from the lists below. Select the health area(s) of AREA
interest for your review. OF
REVIEW
☐ Cost effectiveness ☐ Pre-clinical review

SR Protocol 2020. This protocol is based on Moher D et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 , PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) and University of Alberta
Library guidelines (http://guides.library.ualberta.ca/systematicreviews).
 COBE – Brazilian Centre for Evidence-Based Research
www.cobe.paginas.ufsc.br

Diagnostic Prevention
Epidemiologic Prognostic
Intervention Qualitative synthesis
Methodology Other:
Review of reviews

KEYWORDS
Give words or phrases that best describe the review. Example: systematic review; meta-analysis; recurrence

OTHERS

PREVIOUS SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS ABOUT THE SAME SUBJECT

If yes, why perform another one?

SUGGEST 3 JOURNALS IN WHICH THIS RESEARCH COULD BE PUBLISHED

AND WHY
IF QUALIS

CITE 5 STUDIES THAT YOU READ (ABOUT THIS TOPIC) BEFORE PREPARE THIS PROTOCOL

SR Protocol 2020. This protocol is based on Moher D et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols
(PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015 , PROSPERO (http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) and University of Alberta
Library guidelines (http://guides.library.ualberta.ca/systematicreviews).