other than English’. Full text screening Full text articles identified for possible inclusion in the evidence synthesis will be retrieved and assessed for inclusion by one reviewer. A prespecified, hierarchical approach, as outlined in Appendix B, will be used to annotate reasons for exclusion, with the results of the study selection process illustrated in a PRISMA diagram. Ineligible studies will be marked with a reason for exclusion and listed in a table in the technical report under 'Characteristics of excluded studies'. Where there is uncertainty regarding eligibility, a decision will be made through discussion with the lead reviewer. The lead reviewer will also reinspect a random 20% sample of articles marked as excluded to ensure adherence to the a priori exclusion criteria and any differences will be resolved by discussion. If additional expertise or advice regarding the application of the PICO criteria is required, further Research Protocol HTANALYSTS | NHMRC | EVIDENCE EVALUATION ON THE CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS OF SHIATSU 25 follow up with the NTWC will occur (noting that NTWC will be presented with excerpts from the publication relevant to the query while remaining blinded to other identifying details such as the study citation, design, size, risk of bias, and results). If a study (or SR) does not contain the required PICO information for a decision to be made regarding eligibility, the information will be sought from the study’s authors through an open-ended request. Trial registration numbers, author names, and study titles, locations and dates will be used to identify multiple reports arising from the same study (or SR). Eligible studies that are not available in English will be noted and managed as described below under ‘Studies published in languages other than English’ Overviews identified in the literature search will not be eligible for inclusion in the review but will be checked for eligible SRs. Evidence provided through the Department’s public call for evidence Potentially relevant SRs and primary studies identified by the NTWC, NTREAP, and other key stakeholders will be considered for inclusion if they satisfy the eligibility criteria described in Section 3.1 above. Overviews provided through the Department’s public call for evidence will be checked for eligible SRs. All of the submitted literature will be collated, tabulated, and cross-referenced with the evidence identified in the literature search described in Section 3.3.1. In-scope studies (or SRs) not identified in the literature search will be incorporated into the evidence evaluation. A rationale for exclusion (as noted in Appendix B) will be provided for all studies considered out of scope (documented in a table within the technical report). Studies published in languages other than English Studies (or SRs) published in languages other than English will undergo title and abstract translation using Google translate (or an equivalent tool). If online translation does not facilitate understanding of the title and abstract, then these studies will be listed in a table as ‘Studies unable to be translated or interpreted at the title/abstract stage’. Translated titles and abstracts will be screened to remove irrelevant citations, with articles excluded at title and abstract screen reported in the ‘Results of the search’. Translated titles and abstracts will be reviewed and evaluated against the ‘Criteria for considering studies for inclusion in the review’. Full text translation will not occur to determine eligibility. Studies assessed as potentially eligible for inclusion in the review will be recorded in a ‘Studies Awaiting Classification’ table. This information will also be reflected in the PRISMA flow diagram. The potential risk of language bias and its implications for the evidence evaluation will be discussed in relevant sections of the Evaluation Report (such as ‘Overall completeness and applicability of evidence’ and ‘Agreements and disagreements with other studies or reviews’). When assessing the extent to which language bias might influence the conclusions, we will also consider whether English-language reviews included in the acupressure component of the review searched for, and included, studies published in languages other than English. 3.3.2 Data collection process The characteristics of all included primary studies or SRs will be extracted using a standard pre‐ tested data extraction and coding form (see Appendix D). Outcome data will be extracted after Research Protocol HTANALYSTS | NHMRC | EVIDENCE EVALUATION ON THE CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS OF SHIATSU 26 agreement has been reached regarding the critical and important outcomes to be appraised (see Section 3.1.4). Pre-testing will involve all reviewers, who will data extract the required information from the same two SRs (acupressure) and two primary studies (shiatsu) specifically selected to cover the breadth of the PICO and anticipated study designs identified for inclusion in the review. The lead reviewer will inspect the forms to ensure the relevant data are extracted consistently between reviewers and as planned, with any necessary revisions made to ensure consistency. All data extraction forms will be checked for completeness and accuracy by the lead reviewer. Where there is uncertainty or disagreement regarding included data, a decision will be made through discussion. Full data extraction (and critical appraisal) of primary studies included within a