Introduction The adaptation of guidelines is an increasingly used methodology for the efficient development of contextualised recommendations. Nevertheless, there is no specific reporting guidance. The essential Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement could be useful for reporting adapted guidelines, but it does not address all the important aspects of the adaptation process. The objective of our project is to develop an extension of the RIGHT statement for the reporting of adapted guidelines (RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist). Methods and analysis To develop the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist, we will use a multistep process that includes: (1) establishment of a Working Group; (2) generation of an initial checklist based on the RIGHT statement; (3) optimisation of the checklist (an initial assessment of adapted guidelines, semistructured interviews, a Delphi consensus survey, an external review by guideline developers and users and a final assessment of adapted guidelines); and (4) approval of the final checklist. At each step of the process, we will calculate absolute frequencies and proportions, use content analysis to summarise and draw conclusions, discuss the results, draft a report and refine the checklist. Ethics and dissemination We have obtained a waiver of approval from the Clinical Research Ethics Committee at the Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau (Barcelona, Spain). We will disseminate the RIGHT-Ad@pt Checklist by publishing into a peer-reviewed journal, presenting to relevant stakeholders and translating into different languages. We will continuously seek feedback from stakeholders, surveil new relevant evidence and, if necessary, update the checklist. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

Abstract Purpose To assess the efficacy of preimplantation genetic screening to increase ongoing pregnancy rates in couples without known genetic disorders. Methods Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently determined study eligibility and extracted data. Results Ten randomized trials (1,512 women) were included. The quality of evidence was moderate. Meta-analyses using a random-effects model suggest that PGS has a lower rate of ongoing pregnancies (risk ratio=0.73, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.87) and a lower rate of live births (risk ratio=0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.64-0.91) than standard in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection. Conclusions In women with poor prognosis or in general in vitro fertilization program, in vitro fertilization/intracytoplasmic sperm injection with preimplantation genetic screening for aneuploidy does not increase but instead was associated with lower rates of ongoing pregnancies and live births. The use of preimplantation genetic screening in daily practice does not appear to be justified.