| Section and topic | Item No | Checklist item |
|---|---|---|
| Administrative information | ||
| Title: | ||
| Identification | 1a | Identify 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 |
| Update | 1b | (NA) If the protocol is for an update of a previous systematic review, identify as such |
| Registration | 2 | If registered, provide the name of the registry (such as PROSPERO) and registration number Registered with Open Science Framework https://osf.io/rvfwm/registrations/ |
| Authors: | ||
| Contact | 3a | Provide 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}iobm.edu.pk |
| Contributions | 3b | Describe 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 |
| Amendments | 4 | (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 |
| Support: | ||
| Sources | 5a | (NA) Indicate sources of financial or other support for the review |
| Sponsor | 5b | Provide name for the review funder and/or sponsor: Institute of Business Management, Karachi, Pakistan |
| Role of sponsor or funder | 5c | (NA) Describe roles of funder(s), sponsor(s) and/or institution(s), if any, in developing the protocol |
| Introduction | ||
| Rationale | 6 | See last para of Background |
| Objectives | 7 | See last para of Background. See Methods – Stage 1 |
| Methods | ||
| Eligibility criteria | 8 | See Methods – Stages 1–4 |
| Information sources | 9 | See Methods – Stages 1–4 |
| Search strategy | 10 | Present 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 management | 11a | Describe the mechanism(s) that will be used to manage records and data throughout the review All references will be recorded in Endnote. |
| Selection process | 11b | State 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 process | 11c | Describe 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 items | 12 | List 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 prioritisation | 13 | List 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 studies | 14 | (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 synthesis | 15a | (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) | |
| 15d | If 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 evidence | 17 | (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.