Guidance

Reporting checklist for UK NSC evidence summaries

Updated 26 July 2024

Reviewers, and the UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) evidence team, should refer to the sections and topics listed in this checklist to document the approach taken to producing an evidence summary for the UK NSC.

The purpose of the checklist is to help ensure the transparency of literature reviews.

This reporting checklist is included as an appendix in the evidence summary template which the UK NSC shares with reviewers.

All items in this checklist should be addressed in evidence summary reports commissioned by the UK NSC.

1. Title

1.1 Cover sheet

Identify the report as a UK NSC evidence summary.

2. Summaries

2.1 Plain English summary

Include a plain English version of the executive summary.

2.2 Executive summary

The executive summary is a structured overview of the whole report. It should include:

• the purpose/aim of the review
• background
• previous recommendations
• major findings and gaps in the evidence
• recommendations on screening that can or cannot be made on the basis of the report

3. Introduction

3.1 Background and objectives

This section should include what is already known. This includes, for example, reference to details of the previous review, recommendations made, gaps identified, statement of the important questions, their source, criteria they address and the number of included papers per question.

4. Methods (for each important question)

4.1 Eligibility for inclusion

Specify study characteristics considered for inclusion, for example with reference to the PICO (Population/Problem/Patient; Intervention/Issue; Comparison; Outcome) research model. Specify report characteristics, for example years considered, language, publication status, that are used as criteria for eligibility and their rationale.

4.2 Databases searched

Details of all databases searched, including interface and coverage dates, and date of final search. 

4.3 Search

Full search strategy for at least one database, including limits and search filters applied.

4.4 Search results

Provide details of the total number of results from each database searched, number of duplicates removed, and the final number of unique records to be considered for inclusion.

4.5 Study selection

State the process for selecting studies such as inclusion and exclusion criteria, number of reviewers, and cross-checking.

4.6 Appraisal for quality / risk of bias

Details of tool or checklist used to assess quality. For example, QUADAS 2, CASP, SIGN.

4.7 Summary measures and synthesis

State the principal summary measures, for example, sensitivity/specificity, likelihood ratios, predictive values, and the approach to synthesis, for example, quality, quantity, generalisability and consistency.

5. Results (for each question)

5.1 Question level description of the evidence

Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with summary of reasons for exclusions.

5.2 Study tables

For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted, for example, study size, PICOS, follow-up period, and provide the citations.

5.3 Quality / risk of bias

In each study table present results of any assessment of quality / risk of bias.

5.4 Results of individual studies

For all outcomes considered, present, for each study:

• simple summary on the key measures
• effect estimates and confidence intervals where provided

5.5 Additional analyses

Describe additional analyses, for example, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), undertaken by the reviewer.

6. Discussion

6.1 Summary of findings

Summarise the main findings including the quality / risk of bias issues for each question.

Have the criteria addressed been ‘met’, ‘partially met’, ‘not met’ or ‘uncertain’?

6.2 Limitations

Discuss limitations of the available evidence and of the review methodology if relevant.

7. Conclusions

Do findings indicate whether screening should be recommended?

Is further work warranted?

Are there gaps in the evidence highlighted by the review?