If I understand the interesting questionI would suggest the following. In general think that it is much preferable to address precisely what you have done regarding the meta-analytic protocol you have followed. Just stating the points does not indicate how you followed them specifically and how you may have justified exclusions or derogations (e.g., changes) and so on.

I think meta-analysis is sufficiently tricky to warrant concise explanation as to the methodology (e.g., bayesian meta-analysis) as well as the issue you raise.

Hope this helps.

Paolo

The journal office asked for indication, so you can just state the name of the guideline with citation.

The other thing is to fill in the form of MOOSE and upload it to the journal system:

https://www.elsevier.com/__data/promis_misc/ISSM_MOOSE_Checklist.pdf

Thanks for the help @Kenneth Lo

Thank you @ Paolo F Ricci for your help. So are you suggesting I should elaborate the points?

I support Ricci that you should address precisely what you have done regarding the meta-analytic protocol you have followed .

In haste: it depends on the length of the manuscript and your own objectives regarding what is that you wish to achieve/conclude. If supplemental material is allowed, do more rather than less. Tables are a great way to convey concise information, but can be boring. Pick the salient points and give 2 or 3 sentences each; include pros and cons, and 2 key references (pro and con).

Best of luck.

Paolo

@ Paolo F Ricci thank you so much for your answer