PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) 2015 checklist: recommended items to address in a systematic review protocol*
Section and topicItem NoChecklist item
Administrative information
Identification1aIdentify the report as a protocol of a systematic review
The characteristics and capabilities of the available open source health information technologies supporting healthcare: A systematic scoping review protocol
Update1b(NA) If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such
Registration2If registered, provide the name of the registry (such as PROSPERO) and registration number
Registered with Open Science Framework
Contact3aProvide name, institutional affiliation and e-mail address of all protocol authors; provide physical mailing address of corresponding author
Ather Akhlaq1, Brian McKinstry2 and Aziz Sheikh2
1 Centre for Health Informatics, Department of Health and Hospital Management, Institute of Business Management, Korangi Creek, Karachi, Pakistan.
2 Centre for Medical Informatics, Usher Institute of Population Health Sciences and Informatics, The Medical School, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland, UK.
Dr Ather Akhlaq
Room 218,
Centre for Health Informatics,
Department of Health and Hospital Management,
Institute of Business Management, Korangi Creek, Karachi, Pakistan.
Phone: 0092 21 111 002 004, Extension: 433
Email: ather.akhlaq{at}
Contributions3bDescribe contributions of protocol authors and identify the guarantor of the review
Study conception and design: Ather Akhlaq, Brian McKinstry, Aziz Sheikh
Drafting of manuscript: Ather Akhlaq
Critical revision: Ather Akhlaq, Brian McKinstry, Aziz Sheikh
Guarantor: Institute of Business Management, Karachi, Pakistan
Amendments4(NA) If the protocol represents an amendment of a previously completed or published protocol, identify as such and list changes; otherwise, state plan for documenting important protocol amendments
Sources5a(NA) Indicate sources of financial or other support for the review
Sponsor5bProvide name for the review funder and/or sponsor: Institute of Business Management, Karachi, Pakistan
Role of sponsor or funder5c(NA) Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s) and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol
Rationale6See last para of Background
Objectives7See last para of Background. See Methods – Stage 1
Eligibility criteria8See Methods – Stages 1–4
Information sources9See Methods – Stages 1–4
Search strategy10Present draft of search strategy to be used for at least one electronic database, including planned limits, such that it could be repeated
See Appendix 2
Study records:
Data management11aDescribe the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review
All references will be recorded in Endnote.
Selection process11bState the process that will be used for selecting studies (such as two independent reviewers) through each phase of the review (that is, screening, eligibility and inclusion in meta-analysis)
Two independent reviewers will conduct searches using PRESS.
Data collection process11cDescribe planned method of extracting data from reports (such as piloting forms, done independently, in duplicate), any processes for obtaining and confirming data from investigators
Data will extracted into data extraction forms (see Appendix 3)
Data items12List and define all variables for which data will be sought (such as PICO items, funding sources), any pre-planned data assumptions and simplifications
See data extraction forms in Appendix 3.
Outcomes and prioritisation13List and define all outcomes for which data will be sought, including prioritisation of main and additional outcomes, with rationale
Characteristics and capabilities of OS-HITs available worldwide.
Risk of bias in individual studies14(NA) Describe anticipated methods for assessing risk of bias of individual studies, including whether this will be done at the outcome or study level, or both; state how this information will be used in data synthesis
Data synthesis15a(NA) Describe criteria under which study data will be quantitatively synthesised
15b(NA) If data are appropriate for quantitative synthesis, describe planned summary measures, methods of handling data and methods of combining data from studies, including any planned exploration of consistency (such as I2, Kendall’s τ)
15c(NA) Describe any proposed additional analyses (such as sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression)
15dIf quantitative synthesis is not appropriate, describe the type of summary planned.
Narrative and interpretative analysis.
Meta-bias(es)16(NA) Specify any planned assessment of meta-bias(es) (such as publication bias across studies, selective reporting within studies)
Confidence in cumulative evidence17(NA) Describe how the strength of the body of evidence will be assessed (such as GRADE)

From: Shamseer L, Moher D, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ 2015;349(jan02 1):g7647.

  • * It is strongly recommended that this checklist be read in conjunction with the PRISMA-P Explanation and Elaboration (cite when available) for important clarification on the items. Amendments to a review protocol should be tracked and dated. The copyright for PRISMA-P (including checklist) is held by the PRISMA-P Group and is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution Licence 4.0.