Were the criteria used to select articles for inclusion predetermined, clearly stated, and appropriate? Was the methodological quality of each study assessed using predetermined criteria appropriate to the type of study?

Systematic review and meta-analysis

CRITIQUE Associations between minority stress, depression, and suicidal ideation and attempts in transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals: Systematic review and meta-analysis

When critiquing your meta-analysis, Answer the following questions:

What question did the systematic review address?

The main question should be clear and focused. It should describe the population, intervention/exposure, and outcomes of interest.

Is it likely that all relevant studies (published and unpublished) were identified?

Look for a comprehensive search for studies in relevant bibliographic databases (e.g. MEDLINE, Cochrane, EMBASE); a search of reference lists from relevant studies; contact with experts; search for unpublished studies. The search should not be limited to English language only. The search strategy should include both controlled vocabulary terms (e.g. MeSH) and text words.

Were the criteria used to select articles for inclusion predetermined, clearly stated, and appropriate?

The inclusion or exclusion of studies should be a clearly defined a priori. The eligibility criteria should specify the patients, interventions or exposures, outcomes of interest, and study designs.

Were the included studies sufficiently valid?

Was the methodological quality of each study assessed using predetermined criteria appropriate to the type of study (e.g. randomization, allocation concealment, and follow-up for randomized controlled trials)

Were studies selected and data extracted by 2 or more individuals?

There should be at least 2 independent selectors/extractors and a tie-breaking procedure for disagreements.

Were the results similar from study to study?

Ideally, the results of the included studies should be similar (homogeneous). If heterogeneity exists, the authors may estimate whether the differences are significant (chi-square test). Possible reasons for the heterogeneity should be explored.

Conflict of interest

Sources of support and other potential conflicts should be acknowledged and addressed.

Clinical Importance

8a. What were the results of the review?

(Are the results of all included studies clearly displayed? Are the results similar from study to study?
Is there a clinical bottom line?
If the study results were combined, was it appropriate to do so?)

8b. How precise are the results?

(What is the confidence interval? p-value?)

8c. Did the interpretation of the review’s results accurately reflect the results?