Summary Points Scope of PRISMA for Abstracts The abstract of a systematic review should provide The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist foct that the here oneor more yses ar reviews in journal and report The PRISMA for Abstracts Checklist .The PRISMA for Abst oale 1.An cxpn ing the eview Section 1:tITLE m 1:Title. nber of p the first round of the d kings.ar (chr bo for pre COPD old mak atic re f th in the title may improve indexing and electroni y high rankings in the PICOS using informative titles that incorporate th tudy the title unwiel the Ccachomahstact. c revi cad Section 2:BACKGROUND ws68%0 ents such as participants,interventions,comparators,and out- The results of the d at at To s the effect on survival of had urvey. aluate of se sasthma-related events eview items by the surve e of the st th and nature of the Following the meeting the checklist was distriluuted to the Thi oaconyueci ctly the broad aims of the ng sub such as benefit (exampl a).ha (example 2b) nplate for the PRISMA t11l.whic turn was rest and the population or ext in which this d on the mcthods of the CONSORT Group5] PLOS Medicine www.plosmedicine.org April 2013|Volume 10 Issue 4 e1001419number of possible checklist items. Each item was rated by survey participants as ‘‘omit’’, ‘‘possible’’, ‘‘desirable’’, or ‘‘essential’’ to include in the final checklist. From the first round of the survey, the ranked items were divided into three lists for the second round. The first list contained the items with the highest rankings, and participants for the second round were instructed that these would be contained in the checklist unless they received low rankings in the second round. The second list contained the items with moderate rankings, and participants were instructed that these items were likely to be removed from the checklist unless they received high rankings in the second round. The third list contained the items with low rankings, and participants were instructed that these items would be removed unless they received very high rankings in the second round. For the third round of the Delphi survey, a draft checklist was presented, which included only the items ranked highest in rounds one and two. The five next highest-ranked items were then presented, giving participants an opportunity to choose to include these in the checklist as well. One hundred and forty-seven participants, who were authors of research on abstracts, established authors of systematic reviews, methodologists or statisticians related to systematic reviews, and journal editors, were invited by email to complete the three rounds of the web-based survey. The response rate was 68% (n = 100) for the first round. Only those who completed round one were invited to participate in rounds two and three. The response rate for round two was 80% (n = 80) and for round three 88% (n = 88). The results of the survey were reported at a two-day consensus￾style meeting on 13–14 October 2011, in Oxford, United Kingdom. Fifteen invited experts attended, most of whom had participated in the survey. The meeting began with a review of the literature about abstract structure and content, followed by a review of the checklist items as proposed by the survey respondents. Meeting participants discussed the items and agreed whether they should be included and how each item should be worded. Following the meeting, the checklist was distributed to the participants to ensure it reflected the decisions made. This explanatory document was drafted and circulated through several iterations among members of the writing subcommittee who had all participated in the meeting. We developed this document using the template for the PRISMA Statement [11], which in turn was based on the methods of the CONSORT Group [14,15]. Scope of PRISMA for Abstracts The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist focuses on truthful representation of a systematic review in an abstract. We developed the checklist to help authors report all types of systematic reviews, but recognise that the emphasis is on systematic reviews of evaluations of interventions where one or more meta-analyses are conducted. Authors who address questions on aetiology, diagnostic test accuracy, or prognosis may need to modify items or include other items in their abstract to reflect the essentials of the full report. The PRISMA for Abstracts Checklist The checklist is shown in Table 1. An explanation for each item is given below. Citations for the examples of good reporting are in Table 2. Section 1: TITLE Item 1: Title. Identify the report as a systematic review, meta￾analysis, or both. Examples: 1a. ‘‘Systematic review and meta-analysis of the diagnostic and therapeutic role of water-soluble contrast agent in adhesive small bowel obstruction.’’ 1b. ‘‘Inhaled corticosteroids vs placebo for preventing COPD [chronic obstructive pulmonary disease] exacerbations: a system￾atic review and metaregression of randomized controlled trials.’’ Explanation: The abstract should make it clear that the report is a systematic review, meta-analysis, or both (examples 1a and 1b). Search filters have been developed to identify systematic reviews [16], but inclusion of the words ‘‘systematic review’’ or ‘‘meta￾analysis’’ in the title may improve indexing and electronic searching. We also suggest using informative titles that incorporate the PICOS approach (participants, interventions, comparators, out￾comes, and study designs). This provides key information about the scope of the systematic review. As including all elements of the PICOS approach may make the title unwieldy, we suggest including the most important of these elements in the title. These might be the elements that make this review unusual, or that assist readers in searching for the review. Section 2: BACKGROUND Item 2: Objectives. The research question including components such as participants, interventions, comparators, and out￾comes. Examples: 2a. ‘‘To assess the effect on survival of supportive care and chemotherapy versus supportive care alone in advanced NSCLC [non-small cell lung cancer].’’ 2b. ‘‘To evaluate the risk of serious asthma-related events among patients treated with formoterol.’’ 2c. ‘‘The objective of this study was to investigate the predictive value of C-reactive protein in critically ill patients.’’ Explanation: Irrespective of the strength and nature of the results reported in the abstract, readers should be able to assess the questions that the review intended to address. The objectives in an abstract should convey succinctly the broad aims of the systematic review. Objectives should reflect what the review intended to evaluate, such as benefit (example 2a), harms (example 2b), association, predictive value (example 2c), of the intervention or exposure of interest and the population or context in which this is being studied. Summary Points N The abstract of a systematic review should provide a structured summary that enables a quick assessment of the review’s validity and applicability, and easy identifi￾cation in electronic searching. N Despite published guidance on writing the abstract in the PRISMA Statement guiding the reporting of system￾atic reviews in general and elsewhere, evaluations show that reporting of systematic reviews in journal and conference abstracts is poor. N We developed consensus-based reporting guidelines as an extension to the PRISMA Statement on good reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in abstracts. N The PRISMA for Abstracts checklist gives authors a framework for condensing their systematic review into the essentials for an abstract that will meet the needs of many readers. PLOS Medicine | www.plosmedicine.org 2 April 2013 | Volume 10 | Issue 4 | e1001419