Questions and Structured Abstract in addition to the Structured Review "Liquid Biopsy"

Systematic Reviews today should follow the so-called PRISMA criteria. These criteria have been published in 2009 by the Prisma Group in PLOS (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) e 1000097).

Could you please answer as many as possible of the following questions regarding the Review “Liquid Biopsy”? (These are the so-called PRISMA questions / PRISMA flow diagram questions A-I  and  PRISMA checklist questions 1-26)

A. How many records were identified through the initial database searching (n = ?  )

B. How many additional records were identified through other sources (n = ?   )

C. How many records after duplicates were removed (n =  ? )

D. How many Records were screened (n =   ?)

E. How many Records were excluded (n =  ? )

F. How many full-text articles were assessed for eligibility (n =   )

G. How many full-text articles were excluded, with reasons (n =   )

H. How many studies were finally included in qualitative synthesis (n =   )

I. How many studies were finally included in quantitative synthesis (meta-analysis) (n =   )

1. Please identify if the report is a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both.

2. Please provide a structured summary including, as applicable: background; objectives; data sources; study eligibility criteria, limitations; conclusions and implications, and key findings.

3. Please describe the rationale for the review in the context of what is already known.

4. Provide questions being addressed, and study design.

5. and 6. Specify study characteristics and report characteristics (e.g., years considered, language, publication status) used as criteria for eligibility, giving rationale.

7. Describe all information sources (e.g., databases with dates of coverage) in the search and the date last searched.

8. Present a full electronic search strategy for at least one database, including any limits used, such that it could be repeated.

9. State the process for selecting studies (i.e., screening, eligibility, included in the systematic review, and, if applicable, included in the meta-analysis).

10. Describe the method of data extraction from reports and any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators.

11. List and define all variables for which data were sought and any assumptions and simplifications made.

12. Describe methods used for assessing the risk of bias in individual studies.

13. State the principal summary measures.

14. Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency.

15. Specify any assessment of the risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies).

16. Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified.

17. Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage.

18. For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted and provide the citations. 

19. Present data on the risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment.

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.

21. Present the main results of the review.

22. Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies.

23. Give results of additional analyses.

24. Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups.

25. Discuss limitations at the study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at the review level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias).

26. Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence and implications for future research.

Please answer as many of the questions listed above as possible. It is clear that not all questions can be answered and that several questions are similar or even identical. However, the relevant information might be present at the moment (how many papers/studies/sources have been included? What was the search strategy? etc.? ).

It would also be great if the abstract could be re-structured according to the structure 1 background; 2 objectives; 3 data sources; 4 study eligibility criteria, 5 synthesis methods; 6 results; 7 limitations; 8 conclusions 9 key findings if possible.