RT Journal Article SR Electronic T1 Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in regional anesthesia and pain medicine (Part I): guidelines for preparing the review protocol JF Regional Anesthesia & Pain Medicine JO Reg Anesth Pain Med FD BMJ Publishing Group Ltd SP 391 OP 402 DO 10.1136/rapm-2023-104801 VO 49 IS 6 A1 Barrington, Michael J A1 D’Souza, Ryan S A1 Mascha, Edward J A1 Narouze, Samer A1 Kelley, George A YR 2024 UL http://rapm.bmj.com/content/49/6/391.abstract AB Comprehensive resources exist on how to plan a systematic review and meta-analysis. The objective of this article is to provide guidance to authors preparing their systematic review protocol in the fields of regional anesthesia and pain medicine. The focus is on systematic reviews of healthcare interventions, with or without an aggregate data meta-analysis. We describe and discuss elements of the systematic review methodology that review authors should prespecify, plan, and document in their protocol before commencing the review. Importantly, authors should explain their rationale for planning their systematic review and describe the PICO framework—participants (P), interventions (I),comparators (C), outcomes (O)—and related elements central to constructing their clinical question, framing an informative review title, determining the scope of the review, designing the search strategy, specifying the eligibility criteria, and identifying potential sources of heterogeneity. We highlight the importance of authors defining and prioritizing the primary outcome, defining eligibility criteria for selecting studies, and documenting sources of information and search strategies. The review protocol should also document methods used to evaluate risk of bias, quality (certainty) of the evidence, and heterogeneity of results. Furthermore, the authors should describe their plans for managing key data elements, the statistical construct used to estimate the intervention effect, methods of evidence synthesis and meta-analysis, and conditions when meta-analysis may not be possible, including the provision of practical solutions. Authors should provide enough detail in their protocol so that the readers could conduct the study themselves.