Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Group

Cochrane Intervention Protocol

Peer reviewer checklist

Title:
Authors:
Name of peer reviewer:
Date sent:
Date to be returned to editorial base:

Our review process is in two stages and begins with a protocol, which clearly defines the framework for the review. Each protocol is published on The Cochrane Library. The protocol is replaced by the full review, which identifies and summarises all evidence from randomised controlled trials, and presents this information in a format understandable to both healthcare professionals and users of health care.

Please note: we ask peer reviewers to comment on both the protocol and later the full review.

We operate a system of open peer review and your comments will be forwarded onto the review authors.

We are asking you to use the checklist and your own skills to comment and help improve the review before publication. Please indicate where improvements can be made carefully and constructively, either on the checklist or with your comments on a separate sheet, or both. If you would like any more information on the items in this checklist, please go to the relevant sections in the Cochrane Handbook (http://www.cochrane-handbook.org/).

Please also complete the ‘Declaration of Interests’ section at the end of the checklist and return with your comments.

Thank you for your contribution to the Group. You will be listed as one of our peer reviewers in The Cochrane Library.

Please tick one of the three boxes in the right hand column of the form where appropriate, and add comments where indicated. There is a separate section (no.7) for you to add more comments.

1.  Title

Yes / No / No
comment
a.  Is the review question important?
b.  Is the title a good reflection of the review question?
Additional comment:

2.  Background

Yes / No / No
comment
a.  Does the background describe the global health issue including incidence and prevalence, how it occurs, who is affected and how?
b.  Does the background clearly describe the intervention?
c.  Does the background describe how the intervention works?
d.  Does the background clearly state the rationale for the review and explain why the questions being asked are important?
Additional comment:

3.  Objectives

Yes / No / No
comment
a.  Is the main objective of the review specified in terms of clinical problem, population, intervention(s) and comparison (s), and outcome(s) (both beneficial and harmful)?
Additional comment:

4.  Criteria for considering studies for this review

Yes / No / No
comment
Types of studies:
a.  Are the types of studies to be included (randomised trials, quasi-randomised trials or other designs) described?
b.  Is the choice of study types appropriate to the population, intervention(s), comparison(s) and outcome(s)?
Additional comment:
Types of participants:
c.  Are the participants adequately described and are the reasons for any restrictions appropriate?
Additional comment:
Types of interventions:
d.  Are the study interventions and comparators clearly described?
Additional comment:
Types of outcome measures
e.  Are the outcomes listed useful and appropriate? NB. No more than three primary outcomes including at least one desirable and one undesirable outcome (to assess beneficial and adverse effects respectively).
f.  Are all other important (beneficial and harmful) outcomes considered?
Additional comment:

5.  Search methods for identification of studies

Yes / No / No
comment
a.  Will there be a thorough unrestricted search for relevant studies using appropriate sources?
b.  Are there any additional resources that should be searched?
Additional comment:

6.  Data collection and analysis

If you have any comments on the data collection and analysis sections, please complete the appropriate box(es) below.
a.  Please comment on the methods used to apply the selection criteria.
b.  Please comment on methods described for extracting and managing data (e.g. process, time-points, methods for processing data in preparation for analysis, etc).
c.  Please comment on the methods described for assessing the risk of bias (e.g. domains clearly stated and appropriate).
d.  Please comment on whether the effect measures for analysing data are clearly described and appropriate for the outcome measures listed.
e.  Please comment on whether appropriate strategies for unit of analysis issues e.g. cross-over trials are adequately discussed.
f.  Please comment on whether strategies for dealing with missing data are adequately described.
g.  Please comment on whether clinical and statistical heterogeneity will be adequately assessed.
h.  Please comment on whether all potential reporting biases will be adequately assessed.
i.  Please comment on whether the choice of meta-analysis method is appropriate.
j.  Please comment on whether investigation of heterogeneity is adequately described. NB. it is recommended there are no more than four planned subgroup analyses.
k.  Please comment on the appropriateness of planned sensitivity analyses.

7.  Additional comments from peer reviewer

Please use the space below to add any other comments you may have.

8.  Overall assessment

Please select one of the following options and add any final comments in the space provided below.
The protocol is acceptable for publication in its present form.
The protocol is acceptable for publication with minor revisions.
The protocol is acceptable for publication with substantial revisions.
Additional comments:

9.  Potential conflicts of interest: Peer reviewer statement

Do you have any potential conflict of interest? / Yes (details below) / No conflict of interest
You should declare and describe any present or past affiliations or other involvement in any organisation or entity with an interest in the outcome of the review that might lead to a real or perceived conflict of interest. This includes acting as an investigator of a study that might be included in this review. You should declare potential conflicts even if you are confident that your judgement is not influenced.
Peer reviewer’s conflict of interest statement:

10.  Peer reviewer acknowledgement

/ Yes / No

Please complete:I am happy to be acknowledged in the published protocol.

11.  Acknowledging peer reviewers in a special collection

In January each year, to acknowledge the contributions of our peer reviewers, The Cochrane Library will publish a list of the referees who have contributed to Cochrane Protocols or Cochrane Reviews published or rejected in the previous year. The names of peer reviewers will not be associated with a Cochrane Review Group, Cochrane Review or Cochrane Protocol, and therefore we do not expect that you could be identified as having contributed to a specific article; however, if you do not wish your name to be included on The Cochrane Library homepage, please let us know.
I am happy for my name to be published in this list in The Cochrane Library. / Yes / No

Name:

Date:

Please return the full form to the appropriate Managing Editor at the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis & Genetic Disorders Review Group: Tracey Remmington () or Nikki Jahnke ().

Review ID: Page 5