14781-koppen

55 Prevalence of functional defecation disorders 1 Synthesis of results 14 Describe the methods of handling data and combining results of studies, if done, including measures of consistency (e.g., I 2 ) for each meta-analysis. 6-7 Risk of bias across studies 15 Specify any assessment of risk of bias that may affect the cumulative evidence (e.g., publication bias, selective reporting within studies). 6-7 Additional analyses 16 Describe methods of additional analyses (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression), if done, indicating which were pre-specified. 6-7 RESULTS Study selection 17 Give numbers of studies screened, assessed for eligibility, and included in the review, with reasons for exclusions at each stage, ideally with a flow diagram. Figure 1 Study characteristics 18 For each study, present characteristics for which data were extracted (e.g., study size, PICOS, follow-up period) and provide the citations. Table 2 + 3 Risk of bias within studies 19 Present data on risk of bias of each study and, if available, any outcome level assessment (see item 12). Supplemental file 3 + page 10-12 Results of individual studies 20 For all outcomes considered (benefits or harms), present, for each study: (a) simple summary data for each intervention group (b) effect estimates and confidence intervals, ideally with a forest plot. 10-12 Synthesis of results 21 Present results of each meta-analysis done, including confidence intervals and measures of consistency. 10-12 Risk of bias across studies 22 Present results of any assessment of risk of bias across studies (see Item 15). 10-12 Additional analysis 23 Give results of additional analyses, if done (e.g., sensitivity or subgroup analyses, meta-regression [see Item 16]). Table 3 DISCUSSION Summary of evidence 24 Summarize the main findings including the strength of evidence for each main outcome; consider their relevance to key groups (e.g., healthcare providers, users, and policy makers). 20-22 Limitations 25 Discuss limitations at study and outcome level (e.g., risk of bias), and at review-level (e.g., incomplete retrieval of identified research, reporting bias). 22 Conclusions 26 Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence, and implications for future research. 22 FUNDING Funding 27 Describe sources of funding for the systematic review and other support (e.g., supply of data); role of funders for the systematic review. 1 From: Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group (2009). Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med 6(7): e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal. pmed1000097 For more information, visit: www.prisma-statement.org . 1 Page numbers are based on the version of the manuscript as submitted and differ from page numbers in the thesis.