Hi Sara.

Just a clarification of this statement: "While in one of the studies, there were two measurements for desired outcomes, thus the analysis was done in the form of 3 studies"

Does this mean that the study measured the same outcome at 2 different points in time?

If so, you may need to look into whether it is appropriate to include both outcome measurements in your meta-analysis. (e.g. From a clinical/real-world point of view, do outcomes measured at those two different time points mean the same thing and it is therefore plausible to combine them? Do the 2 outcomes measured at different time points fit your pre-specified criteria for the outcome measures you would include in your analysis?). And if so, how will you handle the analysis of the data from these repeated measures (whereby 1 patient contributes multiple outcome data) so that the structural dependence of the data do not result in inaccurate effect estimates (Refer to Cochrane Handbook for SR http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ , 9.3.4 Repeated observations on participants)?

With regards the PRISMA flow diagram, the original intent of the originators was for the diagram to support the documentation of how study selection was carried out and to report the number of studies included (as opposed to number of outcome measurements). As such, I would personally report 2 studies in the diagram. If you do decide to include two outcome measures from that one study with repeated measures, you can explain this in the narrative section of your results.

Hope this helps.

Hey Sara

Just write the number of studies included in the review.

Best regards

Salam Sara Kaveh,

As you said "We have a meta-analysis which includes 2 studies", therefore, in the PRISMA flow diagram, there should be finally 2 studies in the "Inclusion" part.

Regards,

Asiful

I agree that just include number of studies included in the review and number of studies included in the meta-analysis.